Criminal Law Justice Del Castillo Digests

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Lasallian Commission on Bar Operations 2018

CRIMINAL LAW Justice Del Castillo Castillo Digests

Chel Sy LCBO Chairperson Nico Garcia LCBO Vice Chair for Internals Steph Griar LCBO Vice Chair for Externals Pat Costales LCBO Executive Secretary Ces Naga LCBO Executive Treasurer

Tet Valeza Academic Affairs Chairperson Janine Tutanes Tutanes Rod Zantua Academic Affairs Deputy Chairpersons

Iris Quintana Criminal Law Chairperson Virgil Bombita Criminal Law Deputy Chairperson Aaron Santos Criminal Law I Subject Head Mitzi Dumayas Criminal Law II Subject Head

Criminal Law

Justice Del Castillo Digests

REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK I VILLARIN v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 175289 | 31 Aug 2011 General Principles in Criminal Law DOCTRINE: The offenses under PD 705 are mala prohibita. FACTS: • The prosecution witness Granada testified that he noticed a utility jeep loaded with timber stop near his house, and identified Latayada as the driver and Boyatac as one of his companions. He further testified that these men unloaded the timber near Batinay Bridge. Upon further investigation, it was learned that Villarin, a Brgy. Captain requisitioned the timber. • According to the Petitioners, Villarin ordered the timber because he was pressured to repair the Batinay Bridge which had become impassable. • The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged. It I t further ruled that while the timber was intended for the repair of the bridge, it is still a face that the products were obtained without the necessary authority and legal documents required under the forest laws and regulations. This was affirmed by the CA. ISSUE: Whether the Petitioners are guilty of violating Sec. 68 of PD 705? HELD: Yes, under Sec. 68 of PD 705, mere possession of forest products without the legal documents required is considered a consummation of the offense. The Th e prosecution was able to prove this through the presentation of witnesses, documents, and photographs. Villarin even admitted to being the one who commissioned the procurement of the timber. Further, that there was no intent for personal gain is inconsequential inconsequential as the offense is malum prohibitum. prohibitum.

PEOPLE v. ALBALATE G.R. No. 174480 | 18 December 2009 Felonies

an d relationship to the offender must be alleged in DOCTRINE: The qualifying circumstance of minority and the criminal complaint or information and proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself. There T here must be independent evidence proving the age of the t he victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. FACTS: The accused was charged for 2 counts of rape committed upon his niece. • The prosecutionThat the victim was just a twelve (12) years old barrio lass living in the house of her paternal grandparents and in the said house where she was forcibly deflowered by her uncle Reynaldo Albalate, Jr. on two separate incidents that transpired. • Maria candidly testified that in the morning of the said day while she was alone in the house of her grandparents, the accused Reynaldo Albalate, Jr. armed with an ice pick forcibly removed her dress and placed himself on top of her. Afterwards, Reynaldo Albalate, Jr. inserted his penis in her private part and at the same time kissed and warned her that if she will tell anybody what he had done to her, he will kill her. She added that on the evening of the same day the accused first boxed her,

3

Criminal Law

•


then undressed her and once again put himself on top of her and proceeded to rape her. Testimony and Witness presented by the th e accused: • The accused interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He denied that he twice raped the victim. He also claimed that the parents of the victim were mad at him that is why they filed the instant cases against him. • The other defense witness, Florentina Escleto, tried to bolster the alleged innocence of the accused of the crimes. The T he said witness tried to establish the defense of alibi in favor of the accused. She testified that when the subject incidents of rape happened the accused was with her and her son making copra at Barangay Ilayang Ilog-B, Lopez, Quezon. She added that accused arrived at Brgy. Ilayang Ilog-B on only left said Barangay at the end of the month.

th e qualifying circumstance of minority to be absent? ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC erred in finding that the HELD: No, qualifying circumstances or special qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself; its elf; otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form. • As a qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape, the concurrence of the victims minority and her relationship to the accused-appellant must be both alleged and proven beyond reasonable doubt. • The RTC did not err in finding the absence of the qualifying circumstance of minority. The court held that the prosecutions evidence as to the age of the victim constituted merely of the victims testimony. We find this bare testimony insufficient proof of her age. • As we held in People v. Manalili, the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be alleged in the criminal cr iminal complaint or information and proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself. As was held in People v. Lopit, in the prosecution of criminal cases, especially those involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established.

PEOPLE v. NAPALIT G.R. No. 181247 |19 March 2010 Felonies DOCTRINE: Even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person, Treachery may still be appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. FACTS: ● Joseph Genete, together with Guanzon and three other companions, passed by the group of Napalit. The latter shouted “ano, gusto nyo, away?” away? ” and then stabbed Genete with an ice pick at the back. Guanzon attempted to help but he was also stabbed by a companion of the appellant. Genete died because of the incident. incident. An Information was filed charging Napalit with the crime of murder. ● The defense argued that there was no treachery because the victim was forewarned of the attack when the appellant shouted ano, gusto nyo, away?. It also claimed that the prosecution failed to prove that appellant consciously adopted the mode of attack as to insure its commission without risk to himself. ISSUE: Whether treachery is present in the commission of the crime? 4

Criminal Law


HELD: Yes, the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real chance to defend himself. • It may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of t he danger to his person since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. • Here, there is no doubt that the victim was surprised by the attack coming from the appellant. The shout of Napalit immediately before stabbing the victim could not be deemed as sufficient warning to the latter of the impending attack on his person. After challenging him to a fight, appellant immediately lunged lunged at him and stabbed him at the back. • Under the circumstances, the victim was indisputably caught off guard by the sudden and deliberate attack coming from the appellant, leaving him with no opportunity to raise any defense against the attack. The mode of the attack adopted by the appellant rendered the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself.

PEOPLE v. BUSTAMANTE G.R. No. 172357 | 19 March 2010 Felonies DOCTRINE: For conspiracy to exist, it is not necessary that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. It is sufficient s ufficient that at the time of t he commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. FACTS: ● Romeleo Quintos went to NAIA to fetch his brother. While waiting, he was arrested by b y Soriano for expired license. He was shoved into a cell. He cursed and shouted asking to be released. Jose ordered him to stop but he persisted. Thus, Jose, Salvador and Baluyot entered the cell and they took turns in boxing him. Delos Trino stayed near the door. do or. After a while, Baluyot handed a piece of grayish plastic cord to Salvador which which they used to strangle Romeleo. Romeleo. Information for Murder Murder was filed against them. ● RTC and CA found that they th ey conspired in killing Romeleo and held them liable for murder. ● Appellants averred that there was no conspiracy considering they were in different areas of when the crime took place. ISSUE: Whether conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt? HELD: Yes, the places were appellants claim to be at the of the incident are a short distance away from the scene of the crime and one could travel to and from these points in a little over a few seconds or minutes of leisure walking. • Besides, it is not required for conspiracy to exist that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. Direct proof of such agreement is not necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manner ma nner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused which point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. ● All accused conspired, confederated and helped one another in murdering the victim with abuse of superior strength by strangling and hanging the victim Romeleo Quintos causing him to die of asphyxia. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

5

Criminal Law


QUIDET v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 170289 | 08 April 2010 Felonies DOCTRINE: In determining whether conspiracy exists, it is not sufficient that the attack be joint and simultaneous what is determinative is proof establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose. FACTS: ● On their way to visit a friend, Jimmy and Andrew saw Taban, Quidet and Tubo, come out of the house of one Tomas Osep . Taban suddenly stabbed Andrew on the chest. Andrew retaliated by boxing Taban. Jimmy tried to pacify Andrew and Taban but the latter stabbed him in the abdomen. Taban then immediately fled. Meanwhile, after Jimmy fell down, Tubo threw a drinking glass at Andrews face while Quidet boxed Andrews jaw. Tubo stabbed Jimmy who was then lying face down on the ground twice on the back with an ice pick after which he fled. Petitioner then boxed Jimmy’ Jimmy’s mouth. ● Quidet, Taban and Tubo were charged with homicide or the death of Jimmy Tagarda and with frustrated homicide for stab wounds sustained by Andrew Tagarda. Quidet averred that conspiracy was not established and thus, he could not be held liable for murder and frustrated murder. ISSUE: Whether the petitioner acted in conspiracy with the other accused? HELD: No, the existence of conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. In determining whether conspiracy exists, it is not sufficient that the attack be joint and simultaneous, what is determinative is proof establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose. Simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose. ● Here, the overt acts of petitioner before, during and after the incident shows that there is no unity of purpose among them. The stabbing incident arose from a purely accidental encounter between the two groups. Moreover, unlike Taban and Tubo, petitioner was unarmed during the incident, thus, negating his intent to kill the victims. Petitioners participation was limited to boxing Andrew and Jimmy after Taban and Tubo had stabbed the victims. His acts were neither necessary nor indispensable to the commission of the crimes cr imes as they were done after the stabbing. Taken together, the evidence of the prosecution does not meet the test of moral certainty in order to establish that petitioner conspired with Taban and Tubo to commit the crimes of homicide and attempted homicide. Thus, petitioner is criminally liable only for his individual acts.

PEOPLE v. BARON G.R. No. 185209 | 28 June 2010 Felonies DOCTRINE: In order for the exempting circumstance of fear of an equal or greater injury to be accepted, a mere threat of future injury is insufficient. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused to escape.

6

Criminal Law


FACTS:

•

•

Baron along with others was charged with the Special Complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. Homicide. Baron and others rode the tricycle of the victim and midway to the journey declared a holdup. They took the wallet and the tricycle of the victim while some of the accused dragged the driver to the side of the road and stabbed him to death. Baron raised the defense of existence of the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear/irresistible force of an equal or greater injury. He claims that he was just afraid of his coaccused. And that the existence of the conspiracy was not duly proven.

ISSUE: Whether or not Baron is guilty. HELD: Yes, there were numerous occasions that Baron could escape but he did not do so. While his coaccused was stabbing the victim Baron was left alone inside the tricycle. He did not even attempt to escape. Therefore the exempting circumstance could not be appreciated in this case. There was no evidence adduced in this case that the appellant attempted to prevent the killing. Thus, regardless of the acts individually performed by the appellant and his co-accused, and applying the basic principle in conspiracy that the “act of one is the act of all, ” the appellant is guilty as a co-conspirator

PEOPLE v. BEDUYA G.R. No. 175315 | 9 August 2010 Felonies DOCTRINE: The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim. FACTS:

• • • • •

Appelants Elizer and Ric were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder. The information against them alleged that they conspired with intent to kill and with abuse and taking advantage of their superior strength in attacking, boxing and stabbing one Dominador Acope Sr. with a use of knife which caused his death. They were both arrested and during the arraignment, they pleaded not guilty. Trial and appellate courts commonly concluded that there was intent to kill on the part of the appellants and that they employed abuse of superior strength to ensure the execution and success of the crime. It ruled that as Ric punched the victim in the shoulder and appellant Elizer delivered the fatal stab wound, this combined assault gave them the advantage over the victim who must have been taken by surprise. Although the victim struck at accused with a piece of wood, he did so only after he had been stabbed, causing the two accused to run away.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in considering the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. HELD: Yes, abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. • The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim. 7

Criminal Law

•

• •


In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence of a relative disparity in age, size and strength, or force, except for the showing that two assailants, one of them (Elizer) armed with a knife, assaulted the victim. The presence of two assailants, one of them armed with a knife, does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength. Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this circumstance. Neither did the prosecution present proof to show that the victim suffered from an inferior physical condition from which the circumstance can be inferred. In fact, there is evidence that the victim was able to get hold of a piece of wood and deliver retaliatory blows against the knife-wielder, Elizer. Furthermore, the events leading to the stabbing further disprove any finding of deliberate intent on the part of the assailants to abuse their superior strength over that of the victim.

BUG-ATAN v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 175195 | 15 September 2010 Felonies DOCTRINE: Conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest.

murder. There is treachery when the offender offender commits DOCTRINE: Treachery qualifies the crime to murder. any of the crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense that the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself. FACTS: ● For the death of Pastor Papauran (victim), Norman Maramara (Maramara) was indicted for murder. • After pleading not guilty but before his trial, Maramara moved and was allowed by t he trial court to enter into a plea bargaining with the prosecution and the victim's next of kin. ● Accordingly, Maramara, upon re-arraignment, pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of homicide, a crime necessarily included in the charge of murder. ● It would appear, however, that before he was indicted or thereabout, Maramara executed an extrajudicial confession wherein he admitted shooting the victim to death and implicated as his coconspirators herein petitioners Gregorio Manatad, Virgilio Bug-atan (Bug-atan) and Bernie Labandero. ● Based on the account of Maramara, Mar amara, petitioners were accordingly charged with murder. ● Accused-appellants Manatad and Bug-atan arrived at La Paloma, Labangon, Cebu City to meet with Maramara whom they instructed to go to Mandaue City and kill Pastor Papauran. ● Maramara met with accused- appellants Bug-atan and Labandero at Labangon, Cebu City. Thereafter, Maramara and accused-appellant Labandero boarded a passenger jeepney and proceeded to Mandaue City to carry out the task of killing Pastor Papauran. ● Accused-appellant Accused-appellant Bug-atan, on the other hand, rode a motorcycle to Labogon, Mandaue City and waited in the corner corner outside Pastor Papauran's Papauran's house to act as back-up.

8

Criminal Law

● ● ●


Maramara and accused-appellant Labandero arrived at Labogon and proceeded to the house of Pastor Papauran. Maramara shot Pastor Papauran Papauran once in the the head and then he and accusedaccusedappellant Labandero walked away and ran towards the highway. They boarded a passenger jeepney jeepney towards Consolacion. Three days later, accused-appellant accused-appellant Bugatan and Maramara went to Labogon on a motorcycle to confirm if Pastor Papauran was really dead. When they saw that Pastor Papauran was already dead, accused-appellant Bug-atan told Maramara to keep silent about the killing and that he would pay the latter

ISSUE: Whether conspiracy was proven HELD: Yes, the records teem with circumstances correctly outlined by the trial court clearly indicating the collective and individual acts of the petitioners which reveal their common purpose to assault and liquidate the victim. • In the case at bench, as categorically attested to by witness Maramara. accused-appellants asked him to kill Pastor Papauran in exchange for money and dropping an earlier case filed against him. They also accompanied him on the day of the shooting to see to it that the job was done. The concerted acts of accused-appellants reveal a consciously adopted plan and clearly demonstrate their their joint design to exterminate Pastor Papauran. Conspiracy having having been established, the act of one is the act of all. of the agreement need need not rest on direct evidence. Conspiracy may be • In conspiracy, proof of deduced from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail detail of the execution nor take part in every act and may not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. ISSUE: Whether treachery was present? HELD: Yes, as the evidence stands, the crime committed by petitioners is murder in view of the attending circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Treachery qualifies the crime to murder. There is treachery when the offender offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense that the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself. Before evident premeditation may be appreciated, the following elements must be proved: a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and, c) su fficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. •

•

FRANCO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 171328 | 16 February 2011 Felonies DOCTRINE: There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven on the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the agreement of the parties.

9

Criminal Law


FACTS:

•

• • •

Lourdes Antonio testified that Lyzah Franco, a friend of her niece, swindled her. Franco offered to assist Antonio in purchasing a used car and introduced herself as an Assistance Administrative Coordinator of Final Access Marketing, which was engaged in the sale and financing of second-hand and repossessed r epossessed vehicles. Antonio agreed to the offer since she and her husband were looking for a used cab for their taxicab operation. They went went to a showroom and chose a Blue Mazda 323 from the display. Franco went to Antonio’ Antonio ’s house to collect the downpayment of P80,000. Franco promised the car will b delivered in 3 days but such did not materialize and could not be reached or found anymore. Franco denied involvement and was a mere employee e mployee of Final Access Marketing and knew of her employers’ employers ’ scheme when it was reported.

ISSUE: Whether or not conspiracy was proven in this case. HELD: Yes, there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven on the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the agreement of the parties. Evidently, petitioners’ petitioners ’-accused actions were in relation to the attainment of a common objective. They had vital roles in the nefarious scheme to sell a vehicle that they knew would never be delivered, but for which they obtained a substantial sum of money from Lourdes. • The fact that they continued to offer for sale a second-hand car to Lourdes is indicative of deceit and their complicity in the conspiracy to commit estafa. estafa. The manner in which petitioners transacted business with Erlinda and Lourdes as well as their awareness of other similar complaints with Hoy Gising were Gising were sufficient to establish the existence of a modus operandi. operandi. • Several circumstances in this case conclusively show Franco ’s role in defrauding Lourdes. She was the one who personally approached Lourdes and actively made representations on behalf of Final Access Marketing despite previous knowledge of the company ’s failure to deliver the vehicle sold to Erlinda. She offered to help Lourdes purchase a second-hand car by presenting herself as an Assistant Administrative Coordinator of said company. She also assisted Lourdes in selecting a car she wanted to buy. Six days later, Franco arrived with Besario and Rule in the house of Lourdes after regular business hours. Franco made the necessary introductions and they commenced with a presentation that persuaded Lourdes to part with her money. They showed Lourdes a prepared Sales Proposal Agreement that Franco signed as a sales executive.

MARQUEZ, et. al. v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 181138 | 3 December 2012 Felonies DOCTRINE: Yes, it must be stressed that what is important in conspiracy is that all conspirators performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate an unmistakably common purpose or design to commit the crime. FACTS:

• • •

Marlon Mallari suggested the Ricky Marquez, Roy Bernardo, and Jomer Magalong, with Ryan Benzon rob the Rice-in-a-Box store located at the corner of U.E Marquez then got a lead pipe and handed it to Magalong, which he and Bernardo used to destroy the padlock of the store. Mallari was designated as the look-out while petitioners and Benzon entered the s tore and carried away all the items inside it which consisted of rice cookers, a blender and food items. 10

Criminal Law

• •


On the same day, owner o wner Sonia Valderosa was informed that her store was forcibly opened and that her freezer along with other items in the store were missing. Marquez, et. al. denied that they robbed the stall and claimed that it was already open when they passed by it.

ISSUE: Whether or not conspiracy is proven. HELD: Yes, it must be stressed that what is important in conspiracy is that all conspirators performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate an unmistakably common purpose or design to commit the crime. The responsibility of the conspirators is therefore collective rendering all of them equally liable regardless of the extent of their respective participations.

PEOPLE v. JALBONIAN G.R. No. 180281 | 1 July 2013 Felonies DOCTRINE: 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. FACTS:

• • •

The Barangay Chairman (Valenciano) testified that there was a barangay assembly meeting and after such meeting was adjourned, the participants left the school premises. From a distance of about 3-arm’ 3-arm ’s length, Valenciano saw appellant position himself behind Fortunato Quintanilla, Jr., stab the latter on the back with a knife and immediately run away. Valenciano ordered the arrest of appellant.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is treachery. HELD: Yes, treachery is evident from the fact that the victim could not have been aware of the imminent peril to his life. He was unprepared for the sudden, unexpected and unprovoked attack on his person when appellant stabbed his back with a knife then swiftly ran away.

HEIRS OF OCHOA VS. G & S TRANSPORT TR ANSPORT CORPORATION G.R. No. 170071 | 9 March 2011 Criminal and Civil Liabilities DOCTRINE : A ruling on the culpability of the offender will have no bearing on said independent civil action based on an entirely different cause of action, i.e., culpa contractual. FACTS:

• Jose Marcial K. Ochoa Ochoa died through through an accident because of high speed and negligence negligence of the • •

driver while on board an Avis taxicab owned and operated by G & S Transport Corporation Ruby, wife of the deceased and the minor children, through counsel, sent G & S a letter demanding indemnification for Jose’ Jose ’s death, loss of earning earni ng capacity and funeral expenses amounting to P15M. Because G&S failed to heed the same, the heirs filed a complaint for damages on th e ground that it failed to observe extraordinary diligence. 11

Criminal Law

•

•


But G&S alleged that the proximate cause of the death was the fortuitous event and/or the negligence of the driver of the delivery van that hit the taxicab. It claimed that it exercised the diligence required of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of the employees. Hence, it couldn’ couldn ’t be liable. Consequently, Consequently, Padilla, driver of G&S, has already been acquitted in a separate criminal case against him. Hence, G&S alleged that this is material to the present case and cannot be held liable anymore.

ISSUE: Whether or not the acquittal of Padilla is material to the present case for breach of contract. HELD: No, Article 31 of the Civil Code provides that when the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of th e result of the latter. • In this case, the action filed by the heirs is primarily for the recovery of damages arising from breach of contract of carriage allegedly committed by G & S. Clearly, it is an independent civil action arising from contract which is separate and distinct from the criminal action for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide filed by the heirs against Padilla by reason of the same incident. • Hence, regardless of Padilla ’s acquittal or conviction in said criminal case, same has no bearing in the resolution of the present case. There T here was therefore no error on the part of the CA when it resolved this case without regard to the fact that Padilla has already been acquitted by the RTC in the criminal case. Moreover, while the CA quoted some portions of the MTC Decision Deci sion in said criminal case, we however find that those quoted portions were only meant to belie G & S ’ claim that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the driver of the delivery van which allegedly hit the Avis taxicab. Even without those quoted portions, the appellate court ’s ultimate finding that it was Padilla ’s negligence which was the proximate cause of the mishap would still be the same. This is because the CA has, in fact, already made this declaration in the earlier part of its assailed Decision. The fact that the MTC Decision from which the subject quoted portions were lifted has already been reversed by the RTC is therefore immaterial.

PEOPLE v. CAMPOS G.R. No. 177751 | 14 December 2011 Felonies

non in self-defense, the accused cannot validly DOCTRINE: Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non in invoke the same. DOCTRINE: To establish treachery, two elements must concur: (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. FACTS: ● According to the testimony of the prosecution witness, the deceased Abad was buying cigarettes at his shop when he saw the 2 accused running towards Abad. Without provocation, Acabo stabbed Abad while Campos stood nearby. After stabbing Abad, the 2 left. Abad was brought to the hospital but shortly thereafter died. ● Campos and Acabo were charged with the murder of Abad. ● According to the accused, they stabbed Abad out o f self-defense. self-defense. The accused narrated narrate d that while they were walking, they were attacked by a group of 4 people, 2 of whom they were able to identify by name. 12

Criminal Law

● ●


However, the accused never identified Abad as among those who attacked them. The RTC convicted both the accused for the murder of Abad, which was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether the stabbing was a case of self-defense? HELD: No, the prosecution is burdened with the task to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, if the accused admits to the commission of the offense but raises a justifying circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who invokes said circumstance. ● The requisites for self-defense are: 1) Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; 2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused to prevent of r epel the unlawful aggression; and 3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused defending himself. ● In this case, the claim of self-defense self-defense is belied by the testimony of the accused. While they claim to have acted in their defense while being attacked by a group of men, they did not identify Abad as among those attacking them. In fact, there was no mention of Abad at all in their testimony. As such, there was no unlawful aggression that may ma y be imputed on Abad. As unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non in non in self-defense, the accused cannot validly invoke the same. ISSUE: Whether the killing is qualified by treachery. HELD: Yes , the killing was qualified by treachery in this case. • There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specifically to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. To establish treachery, two elements must concur: (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. This is shown by the suddenness of the attack against Abad, who was defenseless and unable to retaliate. ISSUE: Whether or not conspiracy is established. HELD: Yes, conspiracy was established in from the facts and circumstances shown. While it was Acabo who stabbed Abad, the presence of Campos served no other purpose than to lend moral support by making sure none would be able to aid their victim. As such, he is liable to the same extent as the actual perpetrator.

PEOPLE v. SALES G.R. No. 177218 | 03 Oct 2011 Felonies

cr iminally liable for a felony different different from that which he DOCTRINE: In order that a person may be criminally intended to commit, it is indispensible (a) that a felony was committed and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct conseque c onsequence nce of the crime c ommitted by the perpetrator. DOCTRINE: The presentation by the accused of himself to the police officer on duty in a spontaneous manner is a manifestation of his intent “to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture” capture ” which is the essence of voluntary surrender. DOCTRINE: The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that actually perpetrated cannot be appreciated where the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of the victim 13

Criminal Law


FACTS: ● Neomar and Junior left their home without permission and did not return that day. They were found the following day in a nearby barangay. Upon returning home, Noel Sales, furious with his children, tied them to a coconut tree and beat them with a thick piece of wood. Shortly thereafter, thereafter, Neomar collapsed and lost consciousness. Attempts to bring the boy to a hospital were futile as there as no vehicle passing by. Neomar shortly passed away and was buried after a short wake. ● An Information was filed against Sales, charging him with parricide for the death of his 9-year-old son, Neomar. Another Information was also filed charging him with slight physical injuries committed against his second son, Junior. ● Sales contends that the beating caused Neomar ’s death and it was due to difficulty of breathing for having a weak heart and having epilepsy which caused his death. In addition, he claims to have only been disciplining his children. " ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is criminally liable despite claiming that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong?

different rent from that which he HELD: Yes, in order that a person may be criminally liable for a felony diffe intended to commit, it is indispensible (a) that a felony was committed and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct conseque c onsequence nce of the crime c ommitted by the perpetrator. ISSUE: Whether or no the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was present HELD: Yes, the presentation by appellant of himself to the police officer on duty in a spontaneous manner is a manifestation of his intent “to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture” capture ” which is the essence of voluntary surrender. ISSUE: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong was present? HELD: No, the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that actually perpetrated cannot be appreciated where the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of o f the victim.

PEOPLE v. CONCILLADO G.R. No. 181204 | 28 November 2011 Felonies DOCTRINE: The most important among all the elements is unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for s elf-defense elf-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. Once the accused admits the commission of the offense charged but raises a justifying circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him.

FACTS:

• • •

Diosdado Pido (Diosdado) was shot, stabbed and hacked in Barangay Guinciaman, San Miguel, Leyte. Having sustained a total of 26 wounds, he instantly succumbed to death. An information was filed against Edgar Concillado (Edgar), Erlito Concillado (Erlito) and Dolores Concillado for the murder of the victim. Version of the prosecution 14

Criminal Law


•

•

• • •

Lorenzo was offered as witness wherein he recalled that on August 23, 2002, he and the victim, Diosdado, went to Barangay Malaguinabut to attend the fiesta. At around 12:30 a.m., they went home to Barangay Guinciaman aboard a motorcycle. Upon reaching Barangay Guinciaman, they parted ways. Shortly thereafter and from a distance of about 10 meters, Lorenzo saw Edgar shoot Diosdado using a "surit-surit" (homemade gun). When Diosdado fell to the ground, Edgar and Dolores approached the victim and simultaneously stabbed him using small bolos about 10 inches in length.Thereafter, Erlito joined the fray and delivered hacking blows on the victim using a long bolo. Version of the defence: • Edgar, one of the accused testified and that he was the one who inflicted all the 26 wounds on the victim but he claims that he was only acting in self-defense. • He narrated he and his wife Dolores arrived ar rived at their house in Barangay Guinciaman after partaking in a drinking spree at the house of Imelda Obio which is located about 40 meters from their house. • After a while, he urinated near their fence whereupon Diosdado suddenly appeared and challenged him to a fight. Diosdado immediately delivered a hacking blow using a bolo about 25 inches long hitting Edgar on his right chest Edgar r an towards the door of their house, took his "surit" and fired at Diosdado who continued on hacking him. Edgar was able to parry the blows coming from Diosdado as he was able to grab a long bolo immediately after he fired his gun.53 Edgar and Diosdado kept on exchanging blows until they were already outside the former ’s gate. After some time, Diosdado turned his back on Edgar. Thinking that Diosdado was already fleeing, Edgar went back to their house and eventually surrendered himself at the police station. The RTC found the three guilty of the crime of murder murder The CA subsequently dismissed the case against Erlito and Dolores but found Edgar guilty, as it was not convinced of the theory of self-defense, but only for homicide in light of its finding that the testimony of Lorenzo was dubious. In imposing the proper penalty, the CA appreciated the mitigating m itigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and eight (8) months of prision mayor minimum, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal minimum, as maximum.

ISSUE: Whether or not the justifying circumstance of self-defence was established? HELD: No, the court held that the most important among all the elements is unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. There can be no self-defense self-defense unless there was unlawful aggression from the person injured or killed by the accused; for otherwise, there is nothing to prevent or repel. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. The court held that once the accused admits the commission of the offense charged but raises a justifying circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. He cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution for even if it is weak, it cannot be doubted especially after he himself has admitted the killing. This is because a judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order. In this case, Edgar admits responsibility for the death of Diosdado but desires to avoid criminal responsibility therefor by claiming that he was only acting in self-preservation and that it was in fact Diosdado who was the unlawful aggressor. It is therefore incumbent upon Edgar to prove that he deserves an acquittal. •

•

•

15

Criminal Law


ISSUE: Whether or not the homicide was qualified by Treachery and evident premeditation? HELD: No, the court held that "For alevosia to qualify the crime to murder, it must be shown that: (1) the malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and (2) the said means, method and manner of execution were deliberately adopted. Moreover, for treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.” attack. ” Evident premeditation "requires proof showing: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) the overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution, allowing the accused to reflect upon the consequences consequences of his act. Such proof must be based on external ext ernal acts that are not merely suspicious but also notorious, manifest, evident and indicative of deliberate planning. The evidence must show that the decision to kill prior to the moment of its execution was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempts. Absent such evidence, mere presumptions and inferences are insufficient. Evident Evident premeditation may not be appreciated where there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time that elapsed before it was carried out. The premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected.” suspected. ” •

PEOPLE v. AGACER G.R. No. 177751 | 14 December 2011 Felonies DOCTRINE: In conspiracy, it is not necessary to adduce direct evidence of a previous agreement to commit a crime. It “may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the t he acts of the accused themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. ” FACTS: • Respondent Respondent et al. was charged with conspiracy to commit murder of Cesario. While the victim was tending to his farm respondents appeared and surrounded the victim, one of them threw stones at Cesario, the other used a bow and arrow while the last one used a firearm and shot Cesario in the chest, causing his death. • Respondents set-up the self-defense as a defense and also question the existence of a conspiracy, because they claim that only one of the fired the shot against Cesario. ISSUE: Whether or not there was conspiracy HELD: Yes, the acts of the assailants constitute proof of their unanimity in design, intent and execution. They performed specific acts with closeness and coordination as to unmistakable indicate a common purpose and design to ensure the death of Cesario. • While there is no proof of any previous agreement among appellants to commit the crime and while it was established during trial that Eddie alone shot Cesario, the acts of all appellants before, during and after the incident establish the existence of conspiracy to kill Cesario beyond reasonable doubt. • Self-defense cannot be appreciated because respondents failed to present any evidence to substantiate his claim that there was an actual or imminent peril to his life or limb. Aside from

16

Criminal Law


his unreliable and self-Serving claim, there is no proof that Cesario assaulted and shot him with a firearm during their struggle or, if at all, that there was indeed a struggle between them.

PEOPLE v. ACABRILLAS AND CABTALAN G.R. No. 175980 | 15 February 2012 Felonies DOCTRINE: Murder is the unlawful killing by the accused of a person, which is not parricide or infanticide, committed with any of the attendant circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, among which is treachery. FACTS:

•

• • • • •

The prosecution witnesses narrated that when he went to the store to buy salt. Both of the accused, benny and Adriano, asked him to join in their drinking spree, spr ee, to which Wilfredo obliged. o Wilfredo, a witness, noticed that both of the accused had bolos tucked in their waists. o He also testified that he heard both of the accused talking about their plan to assault someone at night. o Wilfredo went home, when he noticed both of the accused encircling Elena. o Later on, both of the accused stood on the dark portion of the road o Jesus, the father of Elena, Elena, went outside their house and walked towards Elena. o Jesus stopped and turned towards the grassy area to urinate, when suddenly both of the accused appeared from their hiding place and alternately stabbed Jesus. Jesus was rushed to the hospital, but was pronounced pronounced death due to multiple stab wounds. A case for murder was filed against Benny and Adriano. The defense posted an alibi. Benny claims that he was in his mother ’s house until lunchtime. He then proceeded to the store of Susan where he saw Adriano drinking. They stayed there until 6 pm. They already knew of Jesus ’ death the following day. RTC found the accused guilty of mirder qualified by treachery. The court also found the existence of an aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. CA affirmed conviction but did not consider the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength for the qualifying circumstance of treachery absorbed it.

ISSUE: Whether or not treachery was present in the commission of the crime? HELD: Yes, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the victim might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. • In this case, there is no doubt that treachery was present. It was established that Benny and Adriano were in the crime scene prior to the incident. They hid in a dark portion of the road and assaulted Jesus with their bolos while he was urinating with his back to them. They even held him by his shoulders to render him defenseless and unable to resist the attack on him by his assailants. • When the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this case, the proper penalty therefore is reclusion perpetua, perpetua, it being the lesser penalty between the two indivisible penalties for the crime of murder which is reclusion perpetua to death. 17

Criminal Law


PEOPLE v. BIGLETE G.R. No. 182920 | 18 June 2012 Felonies DOCTRINE: Treachery exists when the attack was “so swift and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist r esist or defend himself. ” FACTS: • Michael Biglete was charged with the crime of murder for shooting Arnel Alcos with an unlicensed firearm. • Biglete denies the charge and he claims that he was mauled by three persons while he was cruising on his motorcycle. His motorcycle was stolen by those who mauled him. • After three years, Biglete was apprehended and indicted for murder, after he had been pinned as the driver and owner of a motorcycle involved in a drive by shooting. ISSUE: Whether or not treachery qualified the killing HELD: Yes, the attack was so swift and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or defend himself. ” The victim had no inkling of any harm that would befall him that fateful night of August 27, 2001. He was merely plying his regular route. He was unarmed. The victim’ victim ’s arms were on the steering wheel; his focus and attention on the traffic tr affic before him. All these showed that the victim was not forewarned of any danger; he also had no opportunity to offer any resistance or to defend himself from any attack.

PEOPLE v. VENTURINA G.R. No. 183097| 12 September 2012 Felonies DOCTRINE: To justify the imposition of death penalty, it is required that the special qualifying circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the appellant be properly alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial. FACTS: • Complainant AAA is the daughter of appellant, was inside a nipa hut with her younger brother BBB and CCC while her other brothers DDD and EEE were sleeping at a nearby nipa hut. • One night, appellant was drunk and had difficulty breathing and was crying. AAA massaged his chest until he stopped crying. Unexpectedly, appellant embraced and kissed her then removed his clothes and that of AAA who resisted. r esisted. • He laid on top of her and placed his private organ inside her. He further dragged the victim outside when AAA’ AAA’s younger brother woke up. Appellant continued his immoral acts by again inserting his penis into her vagina. • Appellant threatened AAA not to tell anybody. When he left, AAA reported the incident to her sister FFF who reported the matter to the police. ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty that should be imposed is death. 18

Criminal Law


HELD: Yes, Art. 266-B of the RPC provides that the penalty of death shall be imposed upon the accused if the victim in under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the common-law spouse of the t he parent of the victim.

PEOPLE v. AGACER G.R. No. 177751 | 7 January 2013 Felonies

u nder 18 years, the penalty next lower than that DOCTRINE: When the offender is a minor over 15 and under prescribed by law shall be imposed on the accused but always in the proper period. FACTS:

•

●

Respondents Respondents were convicted for the crime of m urder of one Cesario Agacer. They filed this MR before the SC alleging that there is no evidence of conspiracy and that no treachery can be imputed against them since a heated argument preceded the killing. And even if they are guilty, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority should have been appreciated in favor of appellant Franklin Agacer (Franklin) who was only 16 years and 106 days old at the time of the incident, having been born on December 21, 1981. OSG was required to comment on the issue of minority but did not oppose it the same being duly supported by a copy of Franklin’ Franklin ’s Certificate of Live Birth secured from the National Statistics Office (NSO) Document Management Division.

ISSUE: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of Franklin ’s minority should be appreciated. HELD: Yes, the rationale of the law in extending such leniency and compassion is that because of his age, the accused is presumed to have acted with discernment. This is regardless of the fact that his minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth certificate was belatedly presented. • Franklin’ Franklin’s Certificate of Live Birth shows that he was born on December 20, 1981, hence, was merely 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime on April 2, 1998. He is therefore entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority embodied in Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code. It provides that when the offender is a minor over 15 and under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed on the accused but always in the proper period.

PEOPLE v. JALBONIAN G.R. No. 180281 | 1 July 2013 Felonies

c omes without a warning and in a swift, DOCTRINE: The essence of treachery is that the attack comes deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. FACTS: Jalbonian was charged with the crime of murder murder for attacking and stabbing Fortunato ● Joemarie Jalbonian Quintanilla, Jr. 19

Criminal Law


● Jalbonian allegedly stabbed stabbed Quintanilla on the back with a knife knife and immediately ran away. ● Jalbonian filed a Demurrer Demurrer to Evidence to dismiss the case. ISSUE: Whether or not Jalbonian is guilty of murder HELD: Yes, the act of stabbing a victim on the back is considered as treachery ● Murder is the unlawful killing by the accused of a person, which is not parricide or infanticide, committed with any of the attendant circumstances enumerated in Article 248 ● There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing means, methods or forms in the t he 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.

PEOPLE v. RAMOS G.R. No. 190340 | 24 July 2013 Felonies

self-defense, the following requisites DOCTRINE: To successfully invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense, must be present: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. DOCTRINE: 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. FACTS: ● Rogelio threw stones at the house of his brother-in-law, Ramon Ramos., where Tandoc and his daughter, as well as Abacco were resting. Tandoc warned Rogelio to stop throwing stones as he might hit his daughter. Tandoc suggested to Abacco that they leave the place to avert further trouble. However, instead of leaving, Abacco, then unarmed, approached the appellant ’s house and asked Rogelio to come out so they could talk. Rogelio hacked Abacco twice with a samurai sword. Appellants dragged him into the yard and banged his head on the wall. Marissa hacked Abacco on his back with a bolo. ● Rogelio alleged that he only acted in lawful self-defense.

s hould be acquitted on the ground of self-defense. ISSUE: Whether or not Rogelio should HELD: No, unlawful aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense, for if no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense is unavailing as there is nothing to repel. • Abacco cannot be considered as the aggressor, Abacco was unarmed when he went to appellant ’s house. Abacco’ Abacco ’s act of going to their house so they may talk is not an unlawful aggression. The court finds that the means employed by Rogelio is grossly disproportionate to Abacco ’s alleged unlawful aggression. ISSUE: Whether or not the killing is attended by treachery.

vic tim lay on the ground, appellant Rogelio repeatedly hacked the victim. Indisputably, HELD: Yes, as the victim the appellants attacked the victim with treachery because the latter, who had fallen to the ground and 20

Criminal Law


begging the appellants to stop, was in no position to offer any defense to ward off the attack nor provide a semblance of risk to life or limb of the attackers.

PEOPLE v. ALAWIG G.R. No. 187731 | 18 September 2013 Felonies DOCTRINE: Evident premeditation cannot be considered when it is not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. FACTS:

• •

•

•

SP01 Alfredo Alawig with P03 Romeo Ventinilla were charged with the homicide for the killing of P03 Miel de Ocampo Café. The information was amended to one of murder for the commission was with evident premeditation, treachery and deliberate conspiracy. P03 de Ocampe Café was killed at the Police Kababayan Center C enter I-Valenzuela wherein he suffered physical abuse and multiple gunshot wounds which were the immediate cause of his death. At the day of the the incident, Café was with his friend MacGregor Reyes who went to their house and saw the other police officers fetch Café as he was allegedly being called to join a police team in an operation on illegal drugs. After the group left, Reyes received a call from Café where he stated, “Pare wala pala kaming tatrabahuhin, ako pala ang tatrabahuhuin, tulungan mo ako, sumundo ka ng tao na tutulong sa akin ”. In addition, Café confided with Percelita, his mother, prior to the incident that he earned the ire of his superiors and fellow officers after he apprehended a drug pusher. He claimed that that thee were high-ranking high-ranking officials who were were involved in a drug syndicate. Alawig denied the charges and claimed that they went to the victim ’s house because they were already in the vicinity due to police work. They all went back to the station together. In the station, Alawig claimed there was an argument between Café and Ventinilla which lead to Café to fire his armalite and in retaliation Ventinilla shot the victim several times. Alawig on appeal contends that the lower and appellate court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery, and the existence of conspiracy.

ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was present in the commission of the crime? HELD: No, for evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following requisites must concur: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such a determination and the actual execution to allow the accused time to reflect upon the consequences of his act. In this case, the entries in the Dispatch Logbook regarding the illegal drugs and the phone call made by (victim ’s name) to his friend before the incident do not constitute clear and positive evidence of outward acts showing a premeditation to kill.

PEOPLE v. CIAL GR No. 191362 |9 October, 2013 Felonies

b eyond reasonable doubt just like the crime itself. DOCTRINE: Qualifying circumstances must be proven beyond

21

Criminal Law


FACTS:

• • •

● •

The victim AAA is one of four children of BBB and CCC. When CCC died BBB cohabited with the accused Mariano Cial Testimony and evidence of the victim: o That in December of 2002 the accused called her and told her to go to the bedroom inside their house. Once inside, appellant took off her shorts and panty and spread her legs. Appellant pulled his pants down to his thighs and inserted his penis into the little girl's vagina. She felt intense pain but she did not try to struggle because appellant had a bolo on his waist. After satiating his lust, appellant threatened to kill her and her family if she reported the incident to anyone. At that time, her maternal grandmother was in the house but was unaware that she was being ravished. o The prosecution failed to formally offer the certificate of live birth of the victim Version of defense: o The accused denied the charge. He alleged that he treated the victim as his own daughter. RTC: Found the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship to be present and found the accused to be guilty of qualified rape

ISSUE: Whether or not the mere testimony of the accused is sufficient to prove the the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship? HELD: No, the court held that qualifying circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt just like the crime itself. • The Certificate of Live Birth was never presented or offered during the trial of the case. Records show that the prosecution presented only “AAA” AAA” and Dr. Imperial as its witnesses. Dr. Imperial never testified on “AAA’ AAA’s” age. AAA’s” relationship with the appellant. Although • The prosecution likewise failed to establish “AAA’ the Information alleged that appellant is the common-law husband of “AAA’ AAA’s” mother, “AAA’” AAA’” referred to appellant as her step-father. Even the RTC RT C interchangeably referred to appellant as the common-law husband of “AAA’ AAA’s” mother as well as the step-father of “AAA” AAA”. The RTC failed to cite any basis for its reference to appellant as such. In fact, the RTC Decision is bereft of any discussion as to how it reached its conclusion that appellant is the common-law husband of “AAA’ AAA’s” mother or that “AAA” AAA” is his step-daughter.

PEOPLE v. GADUYON G.R. No. 181473 | 11 November N ovember 2013 Felonies DOCTRINE: In crimes against chastity, such as Acts of Lasciviousness, relationship is always aggravating.

c rimes qualified rape, qualified object rape and sexual abuse FACTS: Respondent was charged with the crimes committed against his own daughter “AAA” AAA” a 12 year old child. Respondent, first while “AAA” AAA” was watching television, television, fondled her breasts. Later Later on while “AAA” AAA” is sleeping respondent got on top of “AAA” AAA” and inserted his penis inside her. Few months later, respondent inserted his finger inside “AAA’ AAA’s” vagina. Respondent set-up a defense of denial. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of qualified object rape and sexual abuse under RA 7610?

AAA” reveals that there was carnal knowledge or sexual HELD: Yes, the examination of the testimony of ”AAA” intercourse through force, threat and intimidation. Appellant also committed rape by sexual assault when 22

Criminal Law


he inserted his finger into the th e genitalia of “AAA” AAA”. He also subjected “AAA” AAA” a minor at 12 years of age, to sexual abuse by means of lascivious conduct through intimidation or influence, when he mashed her breasts and stroked her arms. • In addition, the crime was committed by the father of “AAA” AAA” the alternative circumstance of relationship should be appreciated. In crimes against chastity, such as Acts of Lasciviousness, relationship is always aggravating.

PEOPLE v. ZULIETA G.R. No. 192183 | 11 November N ovember 2013 Felonies DOCTRINE: An unexpected and sudden attack which renders the victim unable and unprepared to put up a defense is the essence of treachery. FACTS: • Bryan Pascua testified that he and deceased Armand Labando Jr. were outside their boarding house, seated at the bench just outside the store of Jimmy Saura. • While they were eating bananas, Bogarts, Rey and Tantan approached them. • Bogarts, who had with him a pitcher, dropped it in front of them so they immediately stood up. He then heard Tantan shout, “birahi na na” na” (hit him now), then saw Bogarts pull a batangas knife and stab the deceased, hitting him on his chest. He ran towards their boarding house, afraid that he will be attacked next. • RTC find the appellant guilty of murder, qualified by the circumstance of treachery, and awarded civil damages in the amount of P50,000 and moral damages of P50,000. • CA affirmed with modification. CA added the amount of P25,000 as exemplary damages, in addition to the civil damages and moral damages previously awarded by the trial court ISSUE: Whether or not treachery is present. HELD: Yes, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the c rimes 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. • The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. Otherwise stated, an unexpected and sudden attack which renders the victim unable and unprepared to put up a defense is the essence of treachery.

LUMAUIG v. PEOPLE G. R. No. 166680 | 7 July 2014 Felonies

indemnification, or reimbursement of the t he DOCTRINE: In malversation of public funds, the payment, indemnification, funds misappropriated may be considered a mitigating ci rcumstance being analogous to voluntary surrender. FACTS:

23

Criminal Law

• • •

• •


A Commission on Audit(CoA) auditor examined the year-end reports involving the municipal officials of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao. The auditor found in the course of her investigation a disbursement voucher prepared for the petitioner, it was covered by a Landbank check dated August 29, 1994 where the payee is the petitioner. Upon further investigation, the accounting records revealed that no payment intended for the charge was made to Royal Cargo Agencies for the month of August 1994. The auditor had a hard time informing the petitioner through two letters of the unliquidated cash advances despite exerting efforts. On June 4, 2001, the petitioner paid the subject cash advance before the treasurer of the municipality, by reason of which, the incumbent Mayor Prudenciano executed an Affidavit of Desistance. An Information for violation of R.A. 3019 was filed against petitoner for having allegedly utilized a cash advance for a purpose other than for which it was obtained. Another Information for violation of Article 218 of the RPC was filed against him. The Sandiganbayan rendered a decision acquitting the petitioner in the first case, and convicting him in the second.

ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent payment made by the petitioner should be taken into consideration in modifying the penalty to be imposed. HELD: Yes, the Sandiganbayan correctly considered the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as borne by the records, in favor of petitioner. However, it failed to consider the mitigating circumstance of return or full restitution of the funds that were previously unliquidated. • Although this case does not involve malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code but rather failure to render an account under Article 218 ( i.e., i.e., the succeeding Article found in the same Chapter), the same reasoning may be applied to the return or full restitution of the funds that were previously unliquidated in considering the same as a mitigating circumstance cir cumstance in favor of petitioner. The prescribed penalty for violation of Article 218 is prisión correccional in its minimum period or six months and one day to two years and four months, or by a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both. Considering that there are two mitigating cir cumstances and there are no aggravating circumstances, under Article 64(5) of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty is the penalty next lower to the prescribed penalty which, in this case, is arresto mayor in its maximum period or four months and one day to six months.

PEOPLE v. SUMILHIG G.R. No. 178115 | July 28, 2014 Felonies DOCTRINE: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. DOCTRINE: 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 the execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make. FACTS:

24

Criminal Law

•

•

•


Jerry, Eugenio and his son Mario were in the living room of Eugenio ’s house when they heard gun bursts and saw six people firing at the kitchen where members of the Santander family were having dinner. Jerry and Mario recognized the appellant and co-accused. Three are charged with the offense, o ffense, the appellant and the two co-accused. While appellant admits having harbored ill-will against the Santanders, he presented a defense of alibi. He claims that during the incident, he was in the house of his parents in law and that it was impossible for him to walk fast because he was injured. The first co-accused claims that he was a four-hours walk away from the crime scene during the incident. The second co-accused claims that he was with his wife at the time of the incident.

ISSUE: Whether or not conspiracy existed HELD: Yes, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. ” It is not necessary to adduce evidence of a previous agreement to commit a crime. Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. ISSUE: Whether or not treachery qualified the killing? HELD: Yes, 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 the execution, without risk to himself arising from [any] defense which the offended party might make. ” Treachery is evident in this case as the suddenness and unexpectedness of the assault deprived the victims of an opportunity to resist it or offer any defense of their persons.

PEOPLE v. TORRES G.R. No. 189850| 22 September 2014 Felonies DOCTRINE: When abuse of superior strength obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, it is to be regarded as a generic circumstance. FACTS: • Espino was driving his car along C.M. Recto Avenue when Ronnie Torres suddenly blocked his path. Espino alighted from his vehicle and approached Ronnie, who tried to grab his belt-bag. Espino resisted and struggled with Ronnie for the possession of his belt-bag but the latter ’s brothers, Jay Torres, Reynaldo Torres, appellant Bobby Torres, and an unidentified companion suddenly appeared. With all of them brandishing bladed weapons, appellant and his brothers took turns in stabbing Espino in different parts of his body while the unidentified companion held him by the neck. When Espino was already sprawled on the ground, they took his belt-bag, wallet and jewelries and immediately fled. fled. • An information was filed the charging siblings Reynaldo, Jay, Ronnie and appellant with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide committed against Espino. Only appellant was arrested as the others remain at-large to date. • The RTC held that appellant can only be liable for murder. While the CA modified the ruling and held that appellant is guilty of robbery r obbery with homicide. ISSUE: Whether or not the presence of abuse of superior strength should qualify the offense to murder

25

Criminal Law


offense to HELD: No, the presence of abuse of superior strength should not result in qualifying the offense murder. When abuse of superior strength obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, it is to be regarded as a generic circumstance, robbery with homicide being a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is imposed for committing robbery with homicide. In view of RA 9346 which prohibits imposition of death penalty, the penalty that must be imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

PEOPLE VS AMORA G.R. No. 190322 | 26 November 2014 Felonies DOCTRINE: Even a frontal attack can be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. FACTS: ● Anselmo, Aurelio and the victim Romeo were walking on their way to the market where they saw Amora in his store. Suddenly, appellant rushed towards them and stabbed Romeo twice — one on the chest and another on the abdomen. Romeo fell to the ground gr ound while appellant quickly quickly ran away from the scene. Romeo died due to two fatal stab wounds.The first stab wound penetrated his chest and pierced his heart while the wound on his abdomen pierced the pancreas and his small intestines. Both stab wounds appeared to have been caused by a single-bladed weapon. Amora was charged with murder under Art. 248 of the RPC of one Romeo Gibaga with the RTC of Bulcan.

qualifying circumstance of treachery. ISSUE: Whether or not trial court gravely erred in appreciating the qualifying HELD: No, treachery attended the crime. ● In order for the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be appreciated, the following requisites must be shown: (1) The employment of means, method, or manner of execution would ensure the safety of the malefactor from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) The means, method, or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. ● The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. ● In this case, the appellant's sudden attack on Romeo amply demonstrates that treachery was employed in the commission of the crime. The eyewitnesses were all consistent in declaring that the appellant in such a swift motion stabbed Romeo such that the latter had no opportunity to defend himself or to fight back. The deliberate swiftness of the attack significantly diminished the risk to himself that may be caused by the retaliation of the vic tim.

PEOPLE v. GANDAWALI G.R. No. 193385 | 1 December 2014 Felonies

26

Criminal Law


DOCTRINE: Conspiracy need not be proven by direct proof and may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime FACTS: • A buy-bust team was formed after a confidential informant informed the Baler Police Station that a possible drug deal would take place at San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City. During the buybust operation, P02 Soriano was the poseur buyer who posed to bu y shabu from Dats Gandawali and Nol Pagalad. • During the sale, P02 Soriano gave the money to Gandawali, who in turn gave it to Pagalad. Pagalaad then took the money and brought out a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from pocket and gave it to Gandawali, who then handed the sachet sa chet to P02 Soriano. They were arrested and brought to the police station. • Gandawali and Pagalad denied the accusations against them and claimed that the police tried to extort P15,000 in exchange for their release. However, they were unable to produce it, hence their incarceration. They claimed that they did not conspire to sell the illegal drugs. ISSUE: Whether or the conspiracy was duly established between the Gandawali and Pagalad HELD: Yes, direct proof is not essential to establish the existence of conspiracy. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during ad after the commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. In this case, the overt acts of Gandawali and Pagalad show that they had a common interest in selling the shabu. This is evident when Gandawali handed the money to Pagalad during the sale and their attempt to escape.

PEOPLE v. ALVAREZ G.R. No. 191060 | 2 February 2015 Felonies DOCTRINE: For treachery to be properly appreciated, two (2) conditions must be present: (1) at the time of the assault, the victim v ictim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. FACTS:

• • •

•

Appellants Edgar Allen Alvarez (Alvarez) and Rodel Caballero (Caballero), together with the accused who remain at-large, were charged with the crime of murder for the fatal shooting of Nicanor Morfe Agon During arraignment, appellants entered separate pleas of not guilty. The prosecution alleged that appellants conspired to murder Agon. The testimony of Vitan(le gunman)was offered, and he said that on February 21, 2004, 200 4, he, the accused and other appellants agreed to murder Agon. In accordance with their plan, they proceeded the next day, February 22, 2004, to the cockpit arena, a place which they knew that Agon A gon would be at on that particular day. Upon their arrival thereat, the members of the group which included appellants positioned themselves according to their plan and waited for Agon to leave. Later on, Caballero signaled Vitan and the other alleged gunman, accused Theo (Theo), that the target had left the arena and that his vehicle was already approaching their position. At the time the group commenced their aggression, Nick Agon was entirely unsuspecting, as he was on board his Mitsubishi Pajero traversing a narrow street leading to the highway. He (Agon) 27

Criminal Law

•


was surprised when Theo and George Vitan suddenly approached from the right side of his vehicle and promptly fired at him successively. ->So when Agon ’s vehicle came, Vitan and Theo fired at him. Vitan, Caballero, Alvarez, who acted as one of the backups, and the rest of the group then fled the scene of the crime. The RTC convicted the appellants, as affirmed by the CA upon appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating the surrounding circumstances affecting criminal liability. HELD: No, for treachery to be properly appreciated, two (2) conditions must be present: (1) at the time of the assault, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. These conditions were present in the killing of Agon. The assault upon Agon was deliberate, swift and sudden, denying him the opportunity to protect or defend himself. He was unarmed and unaware of the plot of appellants to kill him. Moreover, the means, method or manner of execution of the attack was deliberately and consciously adopted by appellants, the same being in accordance with their group’ group ’s plan to liquidate l iquidate Agon. ISSUE: Whether or not evident premeditation was present HELD: Yes, the evidence presented is also sufficient to show that the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. It has the following elements: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the consequences of his act. • Vitan, the gunman himself, testified that the plan to kill Agon was conceived a day before the victim was fatally shot. Appellants and their cohorts therefore, had adequate time to reflect on the consequences of their contemplated crime prior to its execution. The period of time when appellants planned to kill Agon and the time when they implemented such plan afforded them the opportunity for meditation and reflection on the consequences of the murder they committed. ISSUE: Whether or not there was the aggravating circumstance of conspiracy HELD: Yes, there is conspiracy “when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It arises ar ises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue p ursue it. ” • Vitan testified that on February 21, 2004, he, the accused and appellants agreed to murder Agon. In accordance with their plan, they proceeded the next day, February 22, 2004, to the cockpit arena, a place which they knew that Agon would be at on that particular day. • Upon their arrival thereat, the members of the group which included appellants positioned themselves according to their plan and waited for Agon to leave. Later on, Caballero signaled Vitan and the other alleged gunman, accused Theo (Theo), that the target had left the arena and that his vehicle was already approaching their position. When Agon ’s vehicle came, Vitan and Theo fired at him. Vitan, Caballero, Alvarez, who acted as one of the backups, and the rest of the group then fled the scene of the crime. Clearly, there was unity of action and purpose among the members of “Black Shark, Shark,” which include appellants in killing Agon. • With the fact of conspiracy having been established, it is already immaterial whether Caballero ’s role was merely to signal the gunmen and Alvarez’ Alvarez ’s role was merely a backup. Each of them are now equally guilty of the criminal act, since in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

28

Criminal Law


PEOPLE v. MATEO G.R. No. 198012 | 22 April 2015 Felonies

DOCTRINE: Well-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment under the law may, for the same acts, be separately s eparately convicted for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). FACTS: Mateo was charged with illegal recruitment and estafa. Certain persons claim to be promised by Mateo of jobs in Japan but after collecting various fees, such persons were not deployed to japan. They later on found out that Mateo was not a registered recruited under the POEA. Mateo questioned the validity of the Estafa case on top of his Illegal recruitment case. ISSUE: Whether or not Mateo can be charged with estafa. HELD: Yes, the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: (1) The person charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) Accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and (3) Accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.

• All the elements are present in this case. o First, First, the RTC found appellants to have undertaken a recruitment activity when they

• •

promised private complainants employment in Japan for a fee. o Second, Second, the Certification issued by the POEA unmistakably reveals that appellants neither have a license nor authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. Third, it was established that there were five complainants. o Third, Money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment considering that the definition of “illegal recruitment” recruitment ” under the law includes the phrase “whether for profit or not” not ”. In addition, the elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. All these elements are likewise present in this case.

PEOPLE v. DE LA CRUZ G.R. No. 207389 | 17 February 2016 Felonies DOCTRINE: The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. DOCTRINE: For the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation to be considered, it must be shown that killing was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the decision to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. FACTS: 29

Criminal Law

●


Corazon and her live-in partner Joan were having breakfast inside their room in a rented apartment at Tondo, Manila, when De La Cruz suddenly barged into the room and pulled out a balisong (fan knife). Without Without warning, he grabbed Corazon by the th e neck and stabbed her in the th e back, causing her to fall down on the bed. He continued to stab Corazon on the left side of her body, and near her heart. Appellant was charged with Murder for stabbing one Corazon Claudio, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.

ISSUE: Whether or not with the crime of murder was qualified by treachery HELD: No, the essence of treachery is that the attack com es without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. Appellant's sudden attack on Corazon inside her apartment demonstrates that treachery was employed in the commission of the crime. Corazon could not have been aware that her life was in imminent danger inside the comforts of her own home. When appellant barged in, Corazon was having coffee with Joan totally unaware that she would be attacked attack ed inside the confines of her own house. When appellant grabbed her neck and stabbed her in the back, Corazon was afforded no chance to defend herself and retaliate or repel the attack. Although she struggled, such was not enough to protect or extricate her from the harm posed by appellant. ISSUE: Whether or not the killing is attended by evident premeditation. HELD: No, the offense was not attended by evident premeditation because there is no evidence at all that the killing was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the decision to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive ar rive at a calm judgment. The prosecution adduced no evidence to show that sufficient time had lapsed before appellant decided to commit the crime; nor that appellant, by some convincing act or action, had indeed clung to his determination to kill the victim; let alone that sufficient time had indeed lapsed or transpired between the decision to kill and its actual execution, to allow appellant time or opportunity to reflect upon the consequences consequences of his act.

PEOPLE v. BUENAMER G.R. No. 206227 | 31 August A ugust 2016 Felonies DOCTRINE: A person must be called to account for all the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act; and hence must be deemed to have incurred criminal liability, although the felonious act he committed might have been different from that which he intended. FACTS:

●

Stanley Buenamer and Jerome Lambada boarded a passenger FX taxi. Armed with firearms, they declared a hold-up and demanded the valuables of the passengers. One of the passengers tried to regain possession of his belongings, Buenamer boxed him. The passenger fell off and the passenger jeepney ran over him. Buenamer and Lambada were arrested. An information for robbery with homicide was filed against them. The RTC convicted Buenamer of robbery with homicide while Lambada was convicted of simple robbery. Buenamer contended that the mitigating circumstance of having no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that he committed as provided in Art. 13, Sec. 3 of the RPC should be appreciated in his favor.

30

Criminal Law


ISSUE: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of having no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed should be appreciated. HELD: No, the mitigating circumstance cannot be appreciated in his favor. ● Buenamer boxed the passenger with such force that the th e latter lost his grip on the handlebar of the vehicle, fell off and run over by the vehicle's rear tire. Article 3 of the RPC decrees that every person shall be held responsible for all the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act. Complementing this Article 4 provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act is different from that which he intended. These two articles of the RPC must apply against Buenamer. He must be called to account for all the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act. Hence, he must be deemed to have incurred criminal liability, although the felonious act he committed might have been different from that which he intended.

PEOPLE v. CAMPOSANO and DE LOS REYES G.R. No. 207659 |20 April 2016 Felonies

c omes without a warning and in a swift, DOCTRINE: The essence of treachery is that the attack comes deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. FACTS: • Gabion, a prosecution witness, testified that he was at the Al-ber Billiard Hall in Zapote Plaza where he witnessed Fundador Camposano and Herman De los Reyes take turns in stabbing Esmeraldo Ilao. • Gabion claimed that he saw Ilao face down on the ground when Camposano went on top of him, held him by the neck, and stabbed him in the t he chest and both sides of his abdomen. • Gabion claimed that he also saw De los Reyes, who was then in front of Ilao, stab the latter's lower back. • Camposano and De Los Reyes denied the charges against them. Camposana claimed that he was in the hospital as he suffered an injury from a brawl. On the other hand, De Los Reyes claimed that he was in a drinking spree and was with his aunt watching DVD movies. · ISSUE: Whether or not appellants committed the crime of murder HELD: Yes, 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. victim ’s defenseless and helpless position to inflict a fatal stab wound • One who takes advantage the victim’ commits a crime which is attended by treachery.

PEOPLE v. SORIANO G. R. NO. 216063 | 5 June 2017 Felonies DOCTRINE: While a victim may have been warned of possible danger to his person, there is treachery nonetheless when the attack was executed in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate.

31

Criminal Law


FACTS:

• An Information charging the appellant Soriano of murder for the death of Perfecto Narag was filed. • Appellant arrived at victim’ victim ’s house and asked for the whereabouts of the victim. Seeing that •

• •

appellant was carrying a bladed weapon, Ederlina(victim ’s wife) shouted to Perfecto to close the door to his room. While Perfecto was attempting to close the door to his room, appellant grabbed his neck and immediately stabbed him at the right chest while uttering the words "I will kill you." Ederlina tried to stop the appellant from stabbing her husband but he p ushed her away and stabbed her instead inst ead at the right wrist and an d forehead. She pleaded with appellant to stop stabbing his uncle, u ncle, Perfecto but appellant did not heed her plea. Perfecto also pleaded with him to stop his stabbing frenzy, but he paid no attention to his pleas. Villamor, the tricycle driver in their employ, came in and forced appellant out of Perfecto's room. However, appellant was able to return inside the room and stabbed Perfecto at the back again. Appellant left the house after the act. Appellant admits the act, but he alleges that t hat it was done in i n legitimate self-defense.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was treachery in the commission of the crime HELD: Yes, the totality of the circumstances leads to the inevitable conclusion that the victim was caught unaware and unable to defend himself and the accused deliberately chose a manner of attack that insured the attainment of his violent intention with no risk to himself.

• The victim had no opportunity to defend himself precisely because it was simply unexpected to be the subject of an attack right inside his own abode and he was unarmed, with no opportunity to put up a defense. It must also be noted that the victim v ictim was already old and that his reflexes could have been worn down by age so he could not have been in a position to swiftly and sufficiently ward off the attack.

ISSUE: Whether there was the place where the crime was committed aggravates it HELD: Yes, dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation or if the victim was killed inside his house.

a ggravating circumstance • The victim was killed not merely in his house but in his own room, the aggravating

•

of dwelling should be appreciated against the accused. The accused also perpetrated the act against his ageing uncle knowing that by himself, said victim's physical condition due to old age would not allow him to sufficiently defend himself anymore.

PEOPLE v. SIBBU G.R. No. 214757 | 29 March 2017 Felonies DOCTRINE: Treachery is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 32

Criminal Law


DOCTRINE: The use of a bonnet for the purpose of concealing one ’s identity in the commission of the crime sufficiently proves the aggravating circumstance of disguise DOCTRINE: For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered considered it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house FACTS:

•

• • •

Bryan Julian was with his parents and child when he saw from a distance a person with a long firearm slung across his chest and a black bonnet over his head. He also saw two men in crouching position. Fearing the worst, he shouted a warning to his family. The man then fired upon them killing his parents and child. Bryan identified Tirso Sibbu as the person with a long firearm. He testified that when the armed man inched closer to the house, Sibbu tried to fix his bonnet thereby providing him the opportunity to see his face. Information for murder and attempted murder were filed against Sibbu and other John Does. Defense averred that Sibbu did not leave their house. They averred that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt and they questioned the identification of the witness.

ISSUE: Whether treachery is properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. HELD: Yes, treachery is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended offended party might make. In this case, at the time of the shooting incident, the victims were on the porch of their house totally unaware of the impending attack. In addition, they were all unarmed thus unable to mount a defense in the event of an attack. On the other hand, appellant and his cohorts were armed. They also surreptitiously approached the residence of the victims. Sibbu wore camouflage uniform to avoid detection. In fine, appellant employed deliberate means to ensure the accomplishment of his purpose of killing his victims with minimal risk to his safety. ISSUE: Whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present. Held: Yes, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be considered. Although the triggerman fired the shot from outside the house, his victim was inside. For this circumstance to be considered it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house h ouse ISSUE: Whether the aggravating circumstance of disguise is properly appreciated. Held: Yes, the appellant covered his face with a bonnet during the shooting incident There could be no other possible purpose for wearing a bonnet over appellant's face but to conceal his identity.

PEOPLE v. YANSON G.R. No. 179195 | 3 October 2011 Felonies

c omes without a warning leaving the victim with DOCTRINE: The essence of treachery is that the attack comes no chance to resist or escape. 33

Criminal Law


FACTS:

•

•

Angelino Yanson was charged with the crime of murder mur der for the death Carlito Magan which was attended with treachery. The crime occurred after a drinking session wherein Magan with Elmo Galfo was walking home when they noticed two persons following them. One of them suddenly stabbed Magan at the back. Galfo positively identified the person who stabbed Magan to be Yanson. Yanson denied the charge against him. He admitted to drinking but o nly with Salcedo. He claimed that they went home and he only knew of Magan ’s death when the police went to his house.

ISSUE: Whether or not the qualified circumstance of treachery was proven in this case HELD: Yes, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. • The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a s wift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. • For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.

PEOPLE v. GUNDA G.R. No. 195525 | 5 Feb 2014 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Treachery qualified the killing to murder. FACTS: • Eladio Globio, Sr. and his son were on the way home. While they were walking, Wilfredo Gunda and certain John Does suddenly held the father’ father ’s hand and sta bbed him several times. • The father died. The son ran and was able to escape. During the incident, the Gunda ’s brother-in-law also witnessed the incident and positively identified him as one of the perpetrator. ISSUE: Whether or not Gunda is guilty of murder. HELD: Yes, treachery is is when the offender commits a crime against the person, employing means, methods or forms in 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.

PEOPLE v. SORIA G.R. No. 179031| 24 February 2014 Criminal and Civil Liabilities DOCTRINE: The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as his civil liability ex delicto. delicto. FACTS: 34

Criminal Law

•

•


On November 14, 2012, the Supreme Court rendered its Decision in this case finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. The said Decision supposedly became final and executory on December 20, 2012. However, the Court received a letter from the Bureau of Corrections informing the death of accused on August 16, 2012. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections submitted on November 11, 2013 a certified true copy of the death certificate of accused. Accused-appellant ’s demise transpired before the promulgation of this Court’ Court ’s Decision on November 14, 2012 or before its finality on December 20, 2012. Therefore, when accused-appellant died, his appeal before this Court was st ill pending resolution.

s hall be set aside and dismiss the charges against the accused. ISSUE: Whether or not the earlier Decision shall HELD: Yes, under Art. 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. Since the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal case.

PEOPLE v. DILLA G.R. No. 200333 | 21 January 2015 Criminal Law – Revised Penal Code Book II – Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: The killing was attended by treachery when assailant suddenly appeared and shot the victim. FACTS: • •

• • •

Appellant Domingo Dilla was charged with the crime of murder for the death o f his brother Pepito. One afternoon, Pepito was working on his farm when Dilla suddenly appeared and shot the victim with a gun hitting him on his left thigh. The victim managed to run but was overtaken by Dilla who then stabbed him with a bolo. The son of the victim, vic tim, Pepito, Jr., and Mary Jane Renegado, witnessed the incident. Domingo claimed that his brother was the aggressor and who was the one who challenged him to a fight.

guilty of murder. ISSUE: Whether or not Dilla is guilty HELD: Yes, when the killing is attended by treachery the crime becomes one of murder. • There is treachery when one suddenly attacks another who is unsuspecting of such attack.

PEOPLE v. VILLAR G.R. No. 202708 | 13 April 2015 Criminal and Civil Liabilities DOCTRINE: The indemnity for lost earnings must be limited to NET earning capacity meaning necessary living expenses must be included in the computation. Loss of earning capacity is in the form of damages and must be supported s upported by competent proof. FACTS:

35

Criminal Law

• •

• •


Wilson Suitos, Alvaro Suitos and appellant Victoriano Villar were charged for the murder of Jesus Ylarde Both Alvaro and Suitos were charged and found guilty prior to appellant o In their cases the court applied the formula for damages adopted in Davila v. CA which is (2/3 x (80 - age at death)) x annual net income o The widow of the deceased testified that the victim was 49yrs of age when he was murdered and had earned P16,000 per annum o This amounted to ((2/3 x (80-49)) x P16,000 = P320,000 o The widow of the deceased also subsequently gave a conflicting testimony regarding her deceased husbands earning capacity that was put on record The appellant was thereafter charged and found guilty of Murder in the RTC wherein the court did not give credence to his alibi and found him to be in conspiracy with Alvaro and Wilson. The appellant thereafter appealed to the CA wherein it affirmed in toto the RTC ’s decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the computation of damages awarded by the RTC was correctly computed?

alr eady settled HELD: No, the court held that indemnity for lost earnings was erroneously computed. It is already jurisprudence that "the formula that has gained acceptance over time has limited recovery to net earning capacity; x x x [meaning], less the necessary expense for his own living." Here, the computation for lost income of P16,000.00 did not take into consideration the deceased's necessary expenses. • It is settled that the indemnity for loss of earning capacity is in the form of actual damages; as such, it must be proved by competent proof, "not merely by the self-serving testimony of the widow." By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded in two instances: 1) the victim was self-employed and receiving less than the minimum wage under the current laws and no documentary evidence available in the decedent's line of business; and, 2) the deceased was employed as a daily wage worker and receiving less than the minimum wage. Aside from giving inconsistent statements, the amounts mentioned were arbitrary and were not proved to be below the prescribed minimum wage. Plainly, this case does not fall under any of the exceptions exempting the submission of documentary proof.

HEIRS OF OCHOA VS. G & S TRANSPORT TR ANSPORT CORPORATION G.R. No. 170071 | 9 March 2011 Criminal and Civil Liabilities DOCTRINE : A ruling on the culpability of the offender will have no bearing on said independent civil action based on an entirely different cause of action, i.e., culpa contractual. FACTS:

• Jose Marcial K. Ochoa Ochoa died through through an accident accident because of high high speed and negligence negligence of the the • • •

driver while on board an Avis taxicab owned and operated by G & S Transport Corporation Ruby, wife of the deceased and the minor children, through counsel, sent G & S a letter demanding indemnification for Jose’ Jose ’s death, loss of earning earni ng capacity and funeral expenses amounting to P15M. Because G&S failed to heed the same, the heirs filed a complaint for damages on th e ground that it failed to observe extraordinary diligence. But G&S alleged that the proximate cause of the th e death was the fortuitous event and/or the negligence of the driver of the delivery van that hit the taxicab. It claimed that it exercised the 36

Criminal Law

•


diligence required of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of the employees. Hence, it couldn’ couldn ’t be liable. Consequently, Consequently, Padilla, driver of G&S, has already been acquitted in a separate criminal case cas e against him. Hence, G&S alleged that this is material to the present case and cannot be held liable anymore.

ISSUE: Whether or not the acquittal of Padilla is material to the present case for breach of contract. HELD: No, Article 31 of the Civil Code provides that when the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of th e result of the latter. • In this case, the action filed by the heirs is primarily for the recovery of damages arising from breach of contract of carriage allegedly committed by G & S. Clearly, it is an independent civil action arising from contract which is separate and distinct from the criminal action for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide filed by the heirs against Padilla by reason of the same incident. • Hence, regardless of Padilla ’s acquittal or conviction in said criminal case, same has no bearing in the resolution of the present case. There was therefore no error on the part of the CA when it resolved this case without regard to the fact that Padilla has already been acquitted by the RTC in the criminal case. Moreover, while the CA quoted some som e portions of the MTC Decision in said criminal case, we however find that those quoted portions were only meant to belie G & S ’ claim that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the driver of the delivery van which allegedly hit the Avis taxicab. Even without those quoted portions, the appellate court ’s ultimate finding that it was Padilla ’s negligence which was the proximate cause of the mishap would still be the same. This is because the CA has, in fact, already made this declaration in the earlier part of its assailed Decision. The fact that the MTC Decision from which the subject quoted portions were lifted has already been reversed by the RTC is therefore immaterial.

PEOPLE v. ABAIGAR G.R. No. 199442 | 07 April 2014 Felonies DOCTRINE: Treachery is when the attack is sudden and the victim had no inkling of the impending attack. FACTS: • Abaigar was charged with Murder for shooting Gabuya with the use of a homemade shotgun locally known as “Bardog” Bardog”. • An eyewitness positively identified Abaigar Abaigar as the one o ne who shot Gabuya while the latter was standing stan ding outside his house. Abaigar allegedly shot Gabuya as he was opening the front door of his house. • Abaigar set-up a defense of denial and claimed that he was asleep at the time of the commission of the crime. ISSUE: Whether or not Abaigar is guilty of murder 37

Criminal Law


HELD: Yes, the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery makes the killing one of murder. • There is treachery when the victim had no inkling of the impending attack and it came from be hind.

PEOPLE v. LALOG G.R. No. 196753 | 21 April 2014 Penalties DOCTRINE: Since appellant is guilty of murder and was imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, he is not eligible for parole. FACTS: • Gain, Mercado, Rey, and Manzo were strolling at the park. • They were blocked by 4 persons who were the accused in this case. • Later, Gain and Mercado went down the stairs of the park locally known as the RAINBOW. • Mercado was walking ahead of Gain by six (6) arms length. • When he looked back, he saw Gain being ganged upon by the group of the accused- appellants held both the hands of Gain, while Lalog stabbed Gain. • RTC found appellants guilt of murder qualified by treachery. The court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. CA affirmed. ISSUE: Whether or not appellants are eligible for parole. HELD: No, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals properly sentenced appellants to reclusion perpetua there being no aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery. • However, appellants appellants are not eligible for parole. Under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 (AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES), it provides: • Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate I ndeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. • In this case, appellants attacked Gain in a treacherous manner. They held Gain ’s arms, rendered him immobile and then thrust the knife into his body several times.

PEOPLE v. OPIANA G.R. No. 200797 | 12 January 2015 Penalties

shabu, regardless of its quantity and DOCTRINE: Under the law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million. However, with the enactment of RA 9346, only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed. FACTS:

• •

Opiana was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. Opiana was apprehended by virtue of a buy-bust operation. Opiana question the computation of the CA of his penalty.

p enalty. ISSUE: Whether or not CA is correct with regard to the penalty.

38

Criminal Law


shabu, regardless of its quantity and HELD: Yes, under the law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million. However, with the enactment of RA 9346, only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed. Thus, the penalty imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, i.e., i.e., life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, is proper. However, appellant is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

PEOPLE v. WAHIMAN G.R. No. 200942 | 16 June 2015 Penalties DOCTRINE: Since appellant is guilty of murder and was imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, he is not eligible for parole. FACTS:

• • •

Buensuceso, the manager of Stanfilco-Dole, Phils., was on his way back to the company staff sta ff house onboard his Isuzu pickup after attending a despedida for one of his employees. While he was about to enter the gate of the staff house, he was gunned down by persons riding in tandem on a black motorcycle. The guard on duty, David Azucena (Azucena), who was then opening the gate, identified one of the assailants as herein appellant.

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is eligible for parole. HELD: No, appellant was not able to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene at the time of its commission. In any event, it must be stressed that appellant ’s conviction was not based solely on his extrajudicial confession. The prosecution likewise presented the eyewitness account of Azucena who testified that immediately after hearing gunshots, he saw appellant about 5 meters away from the Isuzu pickup of the victim. Appellant was riding in tandem aboard a black motorcycle and was holding a gun. The ballistic report also confirmed that the slugs found at the crime scene were fired from the firearm earlier confiscated from the appellant. Moreover, appellant was not able to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene at t he time of its commission.

PEOPLE v. ABELLANOSA G.R. No. 214340 | 19 July 2017 Penalties DOCTRINE: Considering that the offense involved is illegal recruitment in large scale, it being committed against three or more persons, the penalty of life imprisonment imprisonment and fine shall apply collectively to all seven cases lumped together, and not individually. FACTS:

•

•

An Information for Illegal Recruitment in large scale was filed against Gilda Abellanosa. o It was alleged that she falsely represented authority to recruit job applicants for employment abroad without the required license from POEA and illegally collected money amounting P5.5K for processing and placement fees against Pomar and seven others. During the arraignment, she pleaded not guilty to all charges against her. 39

Criminal Law


o

o

In the trial, she was the sole witness and denied the accusations against her. She testified that she did not know any of the complainants and she was in Iloilo only to assist one Shirley in processing the latter ’s business license. She also never received money from them. Further, it is not her that they should go after but S hirley who was actually engaged in such activities. Both trial and appellate courts convicted her of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. She suffered the penalty of life imprisonment and P500K fine for each of the case imputed against her.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that the penalty of life imprisonment and fine should be applied collectively and not individually. HELD: Yes, the prosecution was able to establish that appellant was engaged in illegal recruitment in large scale. It was proved that appellant was a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to r ecruit workers for deployment abroad; she offered or promised employment abroad to private complainants; she received monies from private complainants purportedly as placement or processing fees; that private complainants were not actually deployed to Brunei; that despite demands, appellant failed to reimburse or refund to private complainants their monies; and that appellant committed these prohibited acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group.

REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK II GELIG v. PEOPLE G. R. No. 173150 | 28 July 2010 Crimes against Public Order

Dir ect DOCTRINE: Public school teachers are one of the officers referred to under the second mode of Direct Assault FACTS: ● An Information was filed against petitioner Lydia Gelig for Direct Assault with Unintentional Abortion. ● The controversy arose when petitioner confronted complainant Gemma Micarsos, a public school teacher, after learning from her son that Gemma called her son a sissy. She slapped Gemma in the cheek and pushed her, thereby causing Gemma to fall and hit a wall divider. Medical records show that Gemma suffered a contusion in the maxilliary area. ● She continued to suffer abdominal pains, which, upon consulting with a doctor, it was found that to have suffered incomplete abortion. The RTC convicted petitioner of the complex crime of direct assault with unintentional unintentio nal abortion. The CA vacated the trial court’s judgment, ruling that Gemma descended from being a person in authority to a private individual when she engaged in a fight with the petitioner. Instead the CA convicted the petitioner for slight physical injuries. injur ies.

G elig should have been convicted of direct assault. ISSUE: Whether or not the Gelig HELD: Yes, under Article 152 of the RPC a person in authority includes teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and university. ● Under the Revised Penal Code, direct assault may be com mitted in two ways: first, first, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition; and second, second, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall s hall attack, employ force, or seriously

40

Criminal Law


intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance.

MASANGKAY v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 164443 | 18 June 2010 Crimes against Public Interest DOCTRINE: A conviction for perjury cannot be obtained by the prosecution by merely showing the inconsistent or contradictory statements. FACTS: ● The accused Eriberto, his common-law wife, Cesar and Elizabeth were the incorporators of MFI ● The accused instituted petition for involuntary dissolution with SEC against MFI, Cesar and Elizabeth. The petition was executed under oath in the pr esence of a Notary Public wherein it alleged certain acts of which constitute a violation of for PD 902-A. ● Elizabeth filed a criminal complaint for perjury against the Eriberto for allegedly lying under oath when he alleged that there was no Board meeting held and that the Deed of Exchange was fictitious. ● The prosecution in order to prove perjury presented the minutes of the meeting which contained the signature of the Eriberto and such is proof that he intentionally committed com mitted false representation of the material fact in the complainhht. ● Eriberto contended that his signature was on the minutes because it was brought to his house and he was made to sign believing that said transaction would be beneficial to his son. In addition, he presented evidence evidence that the transaction was void as his son was not a stockholder of MFI as evidenced by the lack of any record of transfer of stock to his name ISSUE: Whether or not the Masangkay is guilty of perjury HELD: No, a conviction for perjury cannot be obtained by the prosecution by merely showing the inconsistent or contradictory statements of the accused, even if both statements are sworn. The deliberate falsehood must be proven by evidence other other than the contradictory statements. ● Proof of contradictory testimonies under oath will not be sufficient to establish the falsity of his testimony charged as perjury as the two statements will simply neutralize each other. There must be some corroboration of the contradictory testimony. ● Under Article 183 of the RPC, the elements elements of perjury are (1) there must be a sworn statement that is required by law; (2) it must be made under oath before a competent officer; (3) the statement contains a deliberate assertion of falsehood; and (4) the false declaration is with regard to a material matter.

VILLAMOR v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 200396 | 22 March 2017 Crimes against Public Morals DOCTRINE: In violations of RA 9287, it is not only the illegal paraphernalia which must be proven but the specific overt acts which constitute the offense. FACTS: ● The police received an information regarding an ongoing illegal number games in the house of Victor Banaobra. According to the prosecution, the police officers saw Banaobra and Martin Villamor in the act of counting bets. Villamor was charged with violation of Section 3(c) of RA 9287

41

Criminal Law

●


for acting as a collector and solicitor of bets for an illegal numbers game and possessing illegal numbers paraphernalia. While Banaobra was also charged with violation of the same law by acting as a manager or operator. The defense averred averred that Villamor went to Bonaobra's house to pay a debt he owed. The latter placed the payment on top of the table, then went outside the house to answer his phone. Suddenly, Suddenly, a man kicked the fence of the house, grabbed Bonaobra's right arm, and said, "Caught in the act ka!" Then, two more men entered the house and took the money from the table.

established that Banaobra and Villamor are collectors or an agent of ISSUE: Whether the prosecution established illegal gambling HELD: No, the illegal gambling paraphernalia is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal gambling but the specific overt acts that constitute the offense must be proven. ● Under Sec. 3(d) of RA 9287, a collector or agent is agent is "any person who collects, solicits or produces bets in behalf of his principal for any illegal numbers game who is usually in possession of gambling paraphernalia." On the other hand, a coordinator, controller, or supervisor is is defined as, ''any person who exercises control and supervision over the collector or agent."

LUMAUIG v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 166680 | 7 JULY 2014 Crimes committed by Public Officers

non before an DOCTRINE : A prior demand or notice for liquidation is not a condition sine qua non before accountable officer may be held liable under Article 218 of the RPC.o FACTS: •

•

•

•

•

•

A Commission on Audit (CoA) auditor examined the year-end reports i nvolving the municipal officials of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao, wherein it was discovered that there was a disbursement voucher prepared for the Aloysius Lumauig. Lumauig admitted having obtained the cash advance of P101,736.00 in 1994, during his incumbency as municipal mayor of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao, for the payment of freight and insurance coverage of 12 units of motorcycles to be donated to the municipality by the City of Manila. However, instead of motorcycles, he was able to secure two buses and five patrol cars. He claimed that it never came to his mind to settle or liquidate the amount advanced since the vehicles were already turned over to the municipality. He alleged that he was neither informed nor did he receive any demand from COA to liquidate the cash advances. He paid the subject cash advance before the treasurer of the municipality in 2001, six years after he received the cash advances. An Information for violation of Section 3 of R.A. 3019 was filed against Lumauig for having allegedly utilized a cash advance for a purpose other than for which it was obtained. Another Information for failure to render accounts under Article 218 of the RPC was filed against him. The Sandiganbayan rendered a decision acquitting the petitioner in the first case, and convicting him in the second.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioner for violation of Article 218 of the RPC HELD: No, for the conviction of the crime of failure to render accounts it is sufficient that there be a law or regulation requiring him to render an account.

42

Criminal Law

●

●


Under Article 218 of the RPC, the elements of the crime are: (1) that the offender is a public officer, whether whether in the service s ervice or separated therefrom; (2) that he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property; (3) that he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor; and (4) that he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered. There is no requirement of demand before an accountable officer can be held liable for a violation of the crime. Under Section 5 of COA Circular No. 90-331, an accountable officer shall liquidate his case advance for petty operating expenses and field operating expenses within twenty days after the end of the year.

PEOPLE v. MADEO G.R. No. 176070 | 02 October 2009 Crimes against Persons

r ape case when the victim is sufficiently intimidated DOCTRINE: Physical resistance is immaterial in a rape by her assailant and she submits against her will because of fear of her personal safety. FACTS: ● Anton Madeo was charged with the crime c rime of Rape committed against AAA committed by means of force and intimidation. AAA on her way to her grandmother’s house was allegedly invited by Jovelyn Fortuna Fortuna to the house house of her uncle, uncle, Madeo. She She was left alone with with appellant when when Madeo forcibly puller her inside the room. He proceeded have carnal knowledge with her. Thereafter, he warned AAA not to reveal the incident to anyone or he would kill her and her family. ● Madeo denied the charge and claimed to have been working in a mobile rice mill at the time the alleged rape occurred. In addition, he raised the defense that AAA voluntarily accepted the invitation and she did not show t he kind of resistance expected of a woman defending her virtue. She allegedly did not make an outcry or sought help from neighbors. ISSUE: Whether or not force and intimidation was not proven due to lack of victim’s resistance HELD: No, the behavior and reaction of every person cannot be predicted with accuracy. ● There is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange str ange or startling or frightful experience. Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectation of everyone. Some may shout; some may faint; and some may be shocked into insensibility; while other openly welcome the intrusion. ● It is not uncommon for a woman to be easily intimidated into silence and conceal for sometime the violation of her honor, even by the mildest threat to her life.

PEOPLE v. ALBALATE G.R. No. 174480 | 18 December 2009 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, age as an element of the crime to be considered must be proven with independent evidence, other than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. FACTS: ● Reynaldo Albalate, Jr. was charged with two counts of ra pe upon his 12-year-old niece, Maria.

43

Criminal Law

●

● ●


Albalate, Jr. armed with an ice pick was able to raped Maria when she was left alone in the house of their grandparents. On the evening of the same day, Albalate, Jr. boxed Maria and once again proceeded to rape her Albalate, Jr. denied that he raped Maria and claimed that her parents were mad at him an d that is why they filed the instant cases against him. The RTC grave credence to the version of the prosecution and found the Albalate, Jr guilty of the crime of rape. However, it noted that the prosecution failed to prove th e Maria’s minority due to the failure to present a birth certificate to corroborate or substantiate her age.

sat isfactorily established ISSUE: Whether or not the minority of the victim was satisfactorily HELD: No, the age of the victim must be proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself. ● The guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, are: (1) The best evidence to prove the age of the offended offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party; (2) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records show the date of birth of the vic tim would suffice to prove age; (3) If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, testimony, if clear and credible, c redible, of the victim’s mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant p ursuant to Sec. 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: (a) If the victim alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; (b) If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; (c) If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years and what is s ought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old (4) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document document or the testimony of the victim’s mother or relatives concerning the victims age, the complainant’s testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused; (5) It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him (6) The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.

PEOPLE v. ESCOTON G.R. No. 183577 | 1 February 2010 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Medical report is not indispensable to prove the commission of the rape. FACTS: ● Hilario Escoton was charged of the crime of multiple rape of his 10-year-old 10 -year-old niece, AAA. AAA. ● AAA and her brother were asleep in their house of their maternal grandmother where they were residing when Escoton woke up AAA and asked her to follow him to his house which was 500 meters away. His brother, likewise, woke up and accompanied her. ● Upon arrival at home, Escoton proceeded to rape AAA five times while her brother lay silently beside her.

44

Criminal Law

●


As a defense, Escoton denies raping AAA and claims that he was already drunk and had fallen asleep in his house during the alleged commission of the crime.

ISSUE: Whether or not Escoton is guilty of rape. HELD: Yes, an accused can still be convicted of rape on the sole basis of the testimony of the victim. ● In rape cases, the testimony of rape victim is given full weight and credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to seek justice for the wrong done to her. ● A medical examination or medical report is not indispensable to prove the commission of the rape, for it is merely corroborative evidence.

PEOPLE v. VILLARINO G.R. No. 185012 | 5 March 2010 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE : The absence of spermatozoa does not necessarily result in the conclusion that rape was not committed. FACTS: ● Victor Villarino was indicted for rape with homicide of a 10-yr old girl, AAA. ● While at a fiesta, the girl, AAA, was instructed to go home and get a t-shirt for her brother; she never returned. The girl’s body was found on the beach hours later. l ater. Pieces of jewelry and a sando were found at the scene of the crime. ● The jewelry and sando were identified to belong to Villarino by people who had seen him wearing them at the fiesta. He was arrested drunk and violent near the beach. While waiting for the boat that would take them to the municipal hall, he allegedly confessed to the officer guarding him and tried to bribe him to dispose of the evidence. ● Villarino contended contended that he did not rape AAA and claimed that he was suddenly arrested. In addition, he claimed that does not own the pieces of jewelry jewelry as he cannot afford af ford it being only a cook in a fishing venture. ● RTC found Villarino guilty of the complex crime of rape with homicide. CA found him guilty only of homicide because the lack of spermatozoa belied the AAA was raped. ISSUE: Whether or not Villarino is guilty of rape with homicide HELD: Yes, the presence of spermatozoa is not a necessary element in proving the crime of rape was committed. ● In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason of such carnal knowledge, the accused killed the woman. ● When the victim is a minor, it is sufficient s ufficient that the evidence evidence prove that the appellant had sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connection with the victim.

DIEGA v. C.A. G.R. No. 173510 | 15 Mar 2010 Crimes against Persons

45

Criminal Law


r ape with homicide, both rape and homicide must be established DOCTRINE: In the complex crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt. FACTS: ● “AAA”, a thirteen-year-old girl, was raped and killed, by strangulation, on her way to home from school. ● Erpascual Diega lived in and worked as a security guard in the farm where “AAA” was killed. She passed the farm every day da y in going to school. Diega has on previous occasion displayed lewd interest whenever he saw “AAA” by touching her arms and making lewd comments. ● The crime was committed while Diega was on duty. He reported for duty but was not on his post and could not be located. ● A witness testified that he was threatened by the accused to touch the body of AAA and to tie a vine around her neck. ● During the police investigation, the accused had several scratches on his arms, neck, and body. They were determined to have been caused by b y fingernails. ● Diega was charged with the complex crime cr ime of rape with homicide. ISSUE: Whether or not Diega was guilty of the crime of rape with homicide HELD: Yes, both the rape and homicide was sufficiently proven by the prosecution through circumstantial evidence. ● In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason of such carnal knowledge, the accused killed the woman.

SEGURITAN v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 172896|19 April 2010 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: When death resulted, even if there was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just physical injuries. FACTS: ● During a drinking session, Roo Seguritan claimed that his uncle Lucrecio’s carabao entered his farm and destroyed his crops. A heated discussion ensued between the two which led to Seguirtan punching Lucrecio twice causing him to fall face-up to the th e ground and hit a hollow block. Lucerio lost consciousness but was revived. Thereafter, Lucrecio rode a tricycle and proceeded to his house. Late that night, Lucrecio’s noticed that he has darkened and there was foamy substance which came out of his mouth. Attempts were made to revive Lucrecio but to no avail he died that same night. ● Seguirtan was charged with the crime of homicide. ● He denied hitting Lucrecio and alleged that the Lucreio died of cardiac arrest. He claimed that he suddenly stood up during their heated argument with the intent to punch Lucrecio. However, since the latter was seated s eated at the opposite end of the bench, Lucrecio lost his balance and fell before he could hit him. ISSUE: Whether the petitioner is guilty of homicide HELD: Yes, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof. ● Despite the lack of intent to kill, when the act results to death d eath the crime is homicide. 46

Criminal Law

●


Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended.

PEOPLE v. ASIS G.R. No. 179935|19 April 2010 Crimes against Persons

s he is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all DOCTRINE: When a woman, more so if she that is necessary to show that the rape was committed. FACTS: ● Rogelio Asis ordered his daughter AAA to remove her clothes. AAA resisted but he threatened to kill her if she refused. Asis then removed her clothes and had intercourse with her. In another instance, Asis again had sexual intercourse with AAA against her will. Two Informations were filed charging appellant with two counts of rape committed against his own daughter, AAA. During the first rape, AAA was below 12 years old and during the second rape she was barely 14 years old. AAA testified that she was a minor which was affirmed by Asis’ admission of AAA’s age. ● Asis denied the charges against him and claimed that at he was in Quezon City working as a carpenter when the first incident occurred. As to the second incident, he claimed that he was t hen at his house celebrating the birthday of his mother-in-law while, his daughter AAA was in the house of her aunt.

Whet her or not AAA’s minority was sufficiently proven. ISSUE Whether HELD: Yes, the age of the victim must be proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself. ● The guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, are: (7) The best evidence to prove the age of the offended offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party; (8) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records show the date of birth of the vic tim would suffice to prove age; (9) If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Sec. 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: (d) If the victim alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; (e) If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; (f) If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years and what is s ought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old (10) In the absence of a certificate of live liv e birth, authentic document or the testimony of the victim’s mother or relatives concerning the victims age, the complainant’s testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused; (11) It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him (12) The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.

47

Criminal Law


PEOPLE v. BARON G.R. No. 185209 | 28 June 2010 Crimes against Persons

entral purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely DOCTRINE: Robbery must be the ccentral incidental to the robbery. FACTS: ● Baron along with others was charged with the Special Complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. Baron and others rode the tricycle of the victim and midway to the journey declared a holdup. They took the wallet and the tricycle of the th e victim while some of the accused dragged the driver to the side of the road and stabbed him to death. ● Baron raised the defense of existence of the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear or irresistible force of an equal or greater injury. He claims that he was just afraid of his co-accused and that the existence of the conspiracy was not duly proven. ISSUE: Whether or not Baron is guilty of Robbery with Homicide. HELD: Yes, the intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in the generic sense, was committed. •

PEOPLE v. ALFONSO G.R. No. 182094 | 18 August A ugust 2010 Crimes Against Persons DOCTRINE: Inserting a finger into the genital or orifice of another persons is considered as rape by sexual assault. FACTS: ● Efren Alfonso was charged with the crime of rape by sexual assault on his 3-year-old daughter AAA and the crime of statutory rape on his 5-year-old daughter BBB. He allegedly raped them when their mother was away. Alfonso inserted his finger into AAA’s vagina, while he succ eeded in having carnal knowledge with BBB. ● Alfonso denies that he raped his daughters and claimed th at his step-son EEE was the one who did it. In addition, he claims that the he could not be liable for rape by sexual assault as the act is nothing different from the accidental or casual touching of AAAs vagina which he does every time he gives AAA a bath. ISSUE: Whether or not Alfonso is guilty of the crime of sexual assault HELD: Yes, the act of inserting a finger into the vagina is considered as rape by sexual assault. ● Under Article 266-A(2), rape by sexual assault is committed by any person who, under the circumstances mentioned, commits an act of sexual assault into another’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

48

Criminal Law


PEOPLE v. VILLANUEVA G.R. No. 181829|1 September 2010 Crimes Against Persons DOCTRINE: Medical certificate is not an essential for the conviction of rape DOCTRINE: Minor FACTS: ● AAA narrated that his father sexually abused her on three instances. During the pre-trial the parties agreed that AAA was a minor below 12 years of age. Three Informations were filed against appellant for for the crime of rape. V ● illanueva denied raping her daughter claiming that she filed the cases because he forbade her to entertain suitors. He averred that it was unusual for "AAA" not to offer any resistance to the advances allegedly made by him considering considering that he was unarmed. Moreover, appellant appellant argued that the prosecution failed to formally offer in evidence the medical certificate and to present the doctor who conducted the medical examination to testify on his findings ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of the crime of rape HELD: Yes, a medical certificate need not be presented to convict one of the crime of rape as it is merely a corroborative evidence. ● In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided the testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things

PEOPLE v. LUCERO G.R. No. 179044 | 6 December 2010 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Even if the attack was frontal, treachery may still exist if the attack was sudden and unexpected, giving no opportunity for the victim to repel the attack. FACTS: ● Lucero is accused of having murdered Edgar Aydaon, A ydaon, the killing being qualified by treachery. ● According to the prosecution witnesses, Lucero approached Edgar, claiming that he was being pursued and asked for Edgar’s help. h elp. ● Edgar acceded to Lucero’s request for help and invited Lucero to sleep at his house. However, after walking some distance, Lucero hacked Edgar in the head and waist with a bolo, causing his death. ● In his defense, Lucero offered a denial and an alibi, claiming that he was at his farm when the hacking took place. He also alleged that the testimonies of the witnesses were inconsistent. He further alleged that he had no quarrel with the witnesses and the victim. ISSUE: Whether or not Lucero is guilty of murder? HELD: Yes, lulling a victim with reciprocated trust and hospitality before a sudden attack is considered treachery. ● Even if it was a frontal attack, it was sudden, unprovoked, and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack, without slightest 49

Criminal Law


provocation from an unarmed victim, made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.

PEOPLE v. POJO G.R. No. 183709 | 6 December 2010 Criminal Law - Revised Penal Code Book II - Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Delay in the reporting of the rape does not diminish the credibility of the witness. FACTS: ● An Information was filed against Manuel Pojo, charging him with the crime of statutory rape of 10-year-old AAA, daughter of his common-law spouse. ● AAA testified that her mother sent her to the plantation where Pojo was to bring him food. ● While at the plantation, Pojo raped AAA, though he failed to completely penetrate AAA’s vagina. ● Upon reaching home, AAA relayed the incident to her sibling and mother, who in turn reported the same to the authorities and subjected AAA to a medical examination. ● In his defense, Pojo claimed that it was not him as he was in Batangas and the rape occurred in Camarines Sur. He also claimed that AAA made such accusations to force him into marrying AAA’s mother. Further, mother. Further, he claims that AAA is not credible since there was a delay of 27 days between the alleged commission of the rape and AAA’s signing si gning of her affidavit. ISSUE: Whether Pojo is guilty of the crime of statutory rape? HELD: Yes, the lapse of twenty-seven days is reasonable to prepare and sign an affidavit. ● Delay in the reporting of the incident does not diminished the credibility of the witness. The Court has considered reasonable delays in the reporting which consisted of years and months. Delay did not touch the elements of the crime of rape. ● Alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, it will not be given weight. Neither can an alibi be accepted if there is positive identification of the accused by a credible witness.

PEOPLE v. BARCELA G.R. No. 179948 | 8 December 2010 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: The resistance of the victim is not an element of the crime of rape and the law does not impose on the prosecution the burden to establishing the same. FACTS: ● AAA, an 11-year-old, was raped by her father Eminiano Barcela. The rape was consummated in the privacy of their family home. ● AAA was sleeping with her siblings and Barcela was tending to the youngest who was having an asthma attack. In the middle of the night, AAA was woken up by excruciating pain in her vagina. She noticed that she was naked with her hands tied above her head and her feet tied to the bamboo poles of their house. Barcela was on top of her and was inserting her penis into her vagina. AAA cried in pain and thereafter, Barcela untied her and threatened her with an ice pick and ordered her to go back to sleep. The next day, Barcela ordered AAA to wash her bloodstained panty, she obeyed but instead burned the p anty to remove any memory of the incident. ● Barcela denied raping his daughter and stated that he was taking care of his youngest child with asthma and slept around two o’ clock in the morning. He claims that the commission of the rape 50

Criminal Law


as narrated by AAA was incredible as their house was small for him to tie her hands and feet and there were other people sleeping beside her. Further, AAA failed to resist the alleged sexual aggression. ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of qualified rape was proven HELD: Yes, failure to resist does not negate the claim of rape. ● It has been an accepted rule that rape can be committed even inside a house where there are other occupants or where other members of the family fa mily are also sleeping. ● In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be proven. The moral and physical domination of the father is sufficient to intimidate the victim into submission to his carnal desires. The rapist, by his overpowering and overbearing moral influence, influence, can easily consummate his bestial lust with impunity. Proof of force and violence is unnecessary, unlike when the accused is not an ascendant or a blood relative of the victim.

PEOPLE v. NACHOR G.R. No. 177779 | 14 December 2010 Crimes against Persons

element of the crime of rape, and the law does not not DOCTRINE: The resistance of the victim is not an element impose on the prosecution the burden of establishing the same.

FACTS: ● Felipe Nachor was charged with raping his 14-year-old 14- year-old daughter, AAA. ● AAA was left alone with her father, the appellant. While she was cooking at around 11:00 o ’clock in the morning, the appellant suddenly poked a bolo at her neck, pulled her wrist and dragged her towards the room which she shared with her brother and sisters. ● Nachor succeeded in having carnal knowledge with AAA despite her struggle against his attempts. After the appellant satisfied his lust, he again poked his bolo at AAA and threatened to kill her, her mother and siblings if she would report the incident t o anyone. She kept the incident to herself out of fear. Subsequently, the rape was repeated. ● A few months later, the abdomen of "AAA" started to bulge, she finally revealed the sexual abuse she experienced in the hands of her father. ● Nachor denies the rape and he claims that he was not at home at the time of the alleged rape. He claims that it was his son who raped AAA and claims that the imputed rape was merely concocted. Lastly, he claims that there was absence of resistance coupled with belated filing of her complaint. ISSUE: Whether or not the absence of resistance of the victim is fata l? HELD: No, the court held that the resistance of the victim is not an element of the crime of rape ● The law does not impose on the prosecution the burden of establishing the same. As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. ● Delay in divulging the name of the perpetrator of the crime, if sufficiently explained, does not impair the credibility of the witness and her testimony nor destroy their probative value.

51

Criminal Law


PEOPLE v. OLESCO G.R. No. 174861 | 11 April 2011 Crimes Against Persons DOCTRINE: It is not necessary that the force employed to accomplish rape be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. DOCTRINE: The sweetheart defense must be proven by compelling evidence. FACTS: ● Olesco was convicted of rape after having drugged and raped his victim AAA. AAA who was on her way home was pulled by Olesco when she passed by the bakery he was working in and covered her mouth with a hanky which cause her to be unconscious. She regained her consciousness after Olesco has already succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her. ● He invoked the sweetheart defense, claiming that there was no evidence of force employed on the victim. ISSUE: Whether or not Olesco is guilty of the crime of rape HELD: Yes, in the crime of rape, it is not necessary that the force employed accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. ● It is only necessary that the force employed by the guilty party be sufficient to consummate the purpose which he had in view.

d efense was proven ISSUE: Whether or not the sweetheart defense HELD: No, the testimonial evidence claiming the ‘sweetheart theory’ or ‘sweetheart defense’ is not sufficient. ● Independent proof is required to prove such defense, such as tokens, mementors, and photographs.

PEOPLE v. RELANES G.R. No. 175831 | 12 Apr 2011 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: In rape cases, if the testimony of the victim passes the test of cr edibility, the accused may be convicted solely on that basis for rape is generally unwitnessed and oftentimes, the victim is left to testify for herself. FACTS: ● AAA claims that she was only 8 years old when her father, Florante Relanes, started to rape her on bolo-point. It happened frequently when her mother was out selling v egetable. Even when she got pregnant, her father continued to rape her. ● When her father went to Manila, she had the courage to tell her mother. They immediately went to the authorities. A physician examination revealed that “AAA” has had sexual intercourse and was indeed pregnant. ● Relanes denied that he raped AAA and asserted that he had already left for Manila prior to the alleged rape. ISSUE: Whether or not Relanes is guilty of the crime of rape

52

Criminal Law


HELD: Yes, at the core of almost all rape cases, the credibility of t he victim’s testimony is crucial in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only the participants therein can testify to its occurrence. When a rape victim’s account is straightforward and candid, and is corr oborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction of rape. •

PEOPLE v. ASETRE G.R. No. 175834 | 08 June 2011 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: There are various ways to commit rape as defined by Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code FACTS: ● Four Information were filed against the accused Asetre. ● It was alleged that on 4 separate occasions, Asetre raped AAA while visiting DDD, AAA’s aunt and Astre’s common-law common -law husband. ● Asetre presented his 2 neighbors as witness, both of whom testified that during the times that the alleged rape occurred, AAA had not yet arrived to visit. They further testified that AAA had arrived a day or two after the last incident of the alleged rape occurred. ISSUE: Whether or not Asetre is guilty of all 4 charges of rape HELD: Yes, the acts of Asetre falls under the means of committing rape as defined by the RPC. ● Under Article 266-A, rape is committed – By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the th e following circumstances: a. Through force, threat or intimidation; b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age ag e or is demented, demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

PEOPLE v. DUMADAG G.R. No. 176740 | 22 June 2011 Crimes against Persons

t he same must be substantiated by documentary DOCTRINE: For the Sweetheart Defense to be credible, the or other evidence. FACTS: •

•

•

AAA was walking home from midnight mass, walking behind some of Dumadag’s relatives. All of the sudden, the accused approached AAA from behind and poked a knife at her, threatening to stab her if she shouts. Accused then pulled AAA to the house of a c ertain Boyet and once inside, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA. AAA did not disclose what transpired out of fear, but her uncle eventually found out. After confirming the same with AAA, the matter was reported to the police. A medical examination revealed lacerations on AAA’s hymen. A complaint was filed against Dumadag, charging him with the commission of the crime of rape against AAA, 16 years old.

53

Criminal Law

•


Dumadag does not deny having sexual intercourse with AAA, but he claimed that there was no force as AAA was his girlfriend. Dumadag presented Boyet and Nieves, both of whom corroborated that AAA and Dumadag were sweethearts.

ISSUE: Whether Dumadag is guilty of the crime of rape

b e proven with independent evidence. HELD: Yes, the defense of being sweetheart must be ● The sweetheart defense can be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of relationship, such as notes, gifts, pictures, mementos, and the like. ● The claim of being sweethearts does not negate rape. Love is not a license for lust.

PEOPLE v. SALES G.R. No. 177218 | 03 Oct 2011 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Decent and responsible parents would never subject a minor child to s adistic punishment in the guise of discipline. FACTS: ● Neomar and Junior left their home without permission and did not return that day. They were found the following day in a nearby barangay. Upon returning home, Noel Sales, furious with his children, tied them to a coconut tree and beat them with a thick piece of wood. Shortly thereafter, Neomar collapsed and lost consciousness. Attempts to bring the boy to a hospital were futile as there as no vehicle passing by. Neomar shortly passed away and was buried after a short wake. ● An Information was filed against Sales, charging him with parricide for the death of his 9 -year-old son, Neomar. Another Information was also filed charging him with slight physical injuries committed against his second son, Junior. ● Sales contends that the beating caused Neomar’s death and it was due to difficulty of breathing for having a weak heart and having epilepsy which caused his death. In addition, he claims to have only been disciplining his children. ISSUE: Whether Sales is guilty of parricide and of slight physical injuries HELD: Yes, the imposition of parental discipline on children of tender years must always be with the view of correcting their erroneous behavior ● It is incumbent upon parents to remain rational and refrain from being motivated by anger in enforcing the intended punishment. ● Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the mother, father, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or other legitimate descendant descendant or ascendant, ascen dant, or legitimate spouse of the accused.

RONDINA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. No. 179059 | 13 June 2012 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: At the core of almost all rape cases, the credibi lity of the victim’s testimony is crucial in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only the participants therein can testify to its occurrence. FACTS:

54

Criminal Law

● ●

● ●


An Information charging Victor Rondina for the crime of rape was filed by the City Prosecution Office of Ormoc City. Rondina suddenly entered the toilet where 16-year-old AAAwas located and removed the towel from his waist, poked a knife and threatened to kill her family and eventually had carnal knowledge without her consent. AAA did not immediately report the incident incident and only told her mother months after the rape. During the pendency of the proceedings and after about 9 months from the date of alleged incident, “AAA” gave birth to a baby girl named “CCC.”

ISSUE: Whether or not Rondino is guilty of rape HELD: Yes, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. ● Minor inconsistencies and difficulty in understanding the questions will not negate the credibility of the testimony or the occurrence of the rape. ● It is not unnatural to find minor discrepancies in the testimony of a rape victim as she cannot be expected to remember every minute detail of her ordeal.

PEOPLE v. BANIG G.R. No. 177137| 23 Aug 2012 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: The sweetheart defense deserves no attention if the accused does not present evidence such as letters, pictures, gifts, and the like to show that he and the victim were sweethearts sweethearts DOCTRINE: There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion DOCTRINE: Resistance is not a necessary element to prove the commission of the rape FACTS: ● Pedro Banig and Tony Ginumtad were accused of having raped AAA. According to the testimony of AAA, she went out to attend a pre-nuptial wedding dance in their barrio. When she left to urinate, she was approached by two persons and threatened with a knife and warned not to scream. ● The accused then had carnal knowledge of AAA. After the t he accused were done, they immediately left. The incident was then reported to the authorities 2 weeks later. Upon medical examination, some lacerations were found, though old. However, the medical examiner explained that these lacerations were old as the examination took place p lace a month after the incident. ● Banig, claimed that he and AAA were lovers, and that the criminal charges were filed by BBB, AAA’s father, against him when he he learned of their relationship as he did not accept him. In addition, Banig claims that AAA failed to show resistance expected of a young woman defending her honor and that it was impossible to commit the rape at the place where it allegedly occurred for being in public. ISSUE: Whether or not Banig is guilty of the crime of rape HELD: Yes, the sweetheart defense must be proven with independent evidence supporting such claim. ● Failure to present documentary or other object evidence, such as letters, gifts, nor pictures, will make the claim of the inherently weak defense of sweetheart theory a bare allegation. ISSUE: Whether or not the commission of the rape was impossible due to proximity to an inhabited house 55

Criminal Law


HELD: No, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. ● The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their odious act. Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are several occupants and even in the same sam e room where other members of the family are sleeping. ISSUE: Whether or not the lack of physical resistance negates the commission of rape HELD: No, it is not necessary on the part of the victim to put up a tenacious physical struggle. ● Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to the embrace of the rapist because of fear.

PEOPLE v. VENTURINA G.R. No. 183097| 12 September 2012 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Rape can be committed in any place and is not limited secluded area DOCTRINE: The absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape FACTS: ● AAA was inside a nipa hut with her younger brother BBB and CCC while her other brothers DDD and EEE were sleeping at a nearby nipa hut. ● At around 8:00 in the evening, Antonino Venturino, her father, arrived. He was drunk. He had difficulty breathing and was crying. AAA massaged his chest until he stopped crying. Unexpectedly, appellant embraced and kissed her then removed their clothes. He laid on top of her and placed his private organ inside her. ● He further dragged the victim outside when AAA’s younger brother woke up. Venturina continued his immoral acts by again inserting his penis into her vagina. Venturina threatened threatened AAA not to tell anybody. When he left, AAA reported the incident to her sister FFF who reported the matter to the police. ● Venturina denied the raped AAA and claimed that it was impossible to commit the crime in the presence of her siblings. Further, he claimed that there was the absence of any form of physical trauma on AAA.

r ape ISSUE: Whether or not Venturina is guilty of the crime of rape HELD: Yes, rape can be committed in a confined space. Rape is not a respecter of place and time. It is not impossible even if committed in a small room where other household members were also sleeping. •

ISSUE: Whether or not the absence of any form of injury or hymenal lacerations negate the rape HELD: No, Physical injuries or hymenal lacerations are not essential elements of rape The absence of physical injuries or hymenal laceration or presence of healed ones does not negate the commission of rape. These are not essential for the conviction of the crime of rape and are merely corroborative evidence. •

56

Criminal Law


PEOPLE v. ENDING G.R. No. 183827 | 12 November 2012 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE : Mere denials if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive t estimony of a rape victim. FACTS: ● After taking a bath, AAA went inside her room to dress up. Her father, Enerio Ending, entered the room, embraced her and forcibly pulled the towel wrapped around her body. He then pushed her to the floor and inserted his penis into her vagina. She did not shout because her mother was away and because she was afraid of the appellant, who was carrying a bolo and who told her not to tell her mother about the incident. ● There were two other instances where appellant had carnal knowledge with AAA. Appellant ordered his own daughter AAA to help him pasture their cows at the land of her grandfather and while there, accused forcibly brought her beneath a banana plantation then had carnal knowledge with her. ● AAA told her classmate and her teacher about what happened and they then r eported such to the police. ● Appellant denied committing committing the rape and argued a rgued that he could not have raped AAA because she was living with her grandparents. ISSUE: Whether or not Ending is guilty of the crime of r ape.

negated by mere denial. HELD: Yes, the conviction of the crime of rape cannot be negated ● For one’s alibi to prosper, it must be established that he was not at the locus delicti at the time the t he offense was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

PEOPLE v. SORIA G.R. No. 179031 | 14 November 2012 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Rape can now be committed either through sexual intercourse or by sexual assault. FACTS: ● AAA and her siblings ate the spaghetti that their father, Benjamin Soria brought home for merienda ● After eating, AAA went to the bedroom to rest. Soria also entered the room and positioned himself on top of AAA, took off her clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina ● AAA felt intense pain and thus told her father that it was painful. Appellant then apologized to his daughter, stood up and left the room. r oom. The whole incident was witne ssed by AAA’s brother, BBB. ● The medico-legal results stated that AAA is in virgin state physically and there are no external signs of application of any form of physical trauma. ISSUE: Whether or not Soria is guilty of the crime of rape HELD: Yes, inserting an instrument or object into a person’s genital or other orifice is considered rape. ● Rape can be committed either through sexual intercourse or by sexual assault. 57

Criminal Law

● ●


Under the first paragraph of Art. 266-A of the RPC is the rape through sexual intercourse. Carnal Carnal knowledge is the central element and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, rape under paragraph two of Art. 266-A of the RPC is commonly known as rape by sexual assault. It is committed by inserting his penis into another’s mouth, or anal orifice or any instrument or object.

PEOPLE v. CABUNGAN G.R. No. 189355 | 23 January 2013 Crimes Against Persons DOCTRINE: Long silence is not always construed as indication of a false accusation of rape. A rape charge only becomes doubtful when delay or inaction is unreasonable unreasonable and unexplained. FACTS: Cabungan was convicted of raping his 15-yr old step-daughter AAA in their house. After the rape he threatened AAA that he will kill her if she would report the incident to anyone. The rape was reported months after its commission, due to his constant threats. Cabungan denied raping AAA and questioned the belated filing of the complaint against him. In addition, he claims that AAA failed to shout and offer resistance during the rape and there were several inconsistencies in her testimony. •

• •

ISSUE: Whether or not Cabungan is guilty of the crime of rape HELD: Yes, delay in reporting a rape case for two months or more, cannot be taken against the victim. Long silence is not always construed as indication of a false accusation of rape. A rape charge only becomes doubtful when delay or inaction is unreasonable and unexplained. unexplained. It is not uncommon that a rape victim to conceal for sometime the assault against her persons on account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant. •

•

PEOPLE v. LOMAQUE G.R. No. 189297 | 5 June 2013 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: The filing of complaint of rape months, even years after their commission may or may not dent the credibility of witness and of testimony, depending on the circumstances attendant thereto. FACTS: ● Lomaque was charged under separate Informations for 13 counts of Rape by Sexual Intercourse allegedly committed against his stepdaughter AAA. ● AAA’s harrowing experience with Lomaque continued and she eventually became pregnant. Lomaque asked BBB to bring AAA to the doctor for medical check-up, they then discovered that AAA was pregnant. ● BBB, mother of AAA, inquired who the father was, AAA told her that it was Lomaque, a matter which appellant admitted but when BBB became hysterical. ● Lomaque retracted and concocted a story that somebody s omebody else caused the pregnancy of AAA. ● After giving birth, AAA returned to their house. There she saw appellant kissing her younger sister, CCC. Afraid that CCC might suffer the same fate she had, she decided to file a complaint against Lomaque with the help of Bantay-Bata.

58

Criminal Law


ISSUE: Whether or not Lomaque is guilty of the crime of rape HELD: Yes, the delay in the reporting of the incident does not diminish the credibility of the claim nor negate the commission of the crime of rape. ● Momentary inaction will neither diminish nor affect affect her credibility when it can be attributed to the the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm, especially by one who exercises moral ascendency over the victim, enough to cow and intimidate her. ● Resuming a normal life after the rape cannot be taken against the victim. There is no standard form of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim following her her defilement, particularly a child who could not be expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult. ● Lastly, physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is brought to bear on the victim and the latter submits s ubmits herself out of fear.

PEOPLE v. SUANSING G.R. No. 189822 | 2 September 2013 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Carnal knowledge of a woman suffering from mental retardation is rape since she is incapable of giving consent to a sexual act. FACTS: ● AAA used to live with her grandparents because her mother died of tuberculosis. When AAA was 15 years old, she became a mother to a baby boy. To receive better guidance and supervision, s upervision, AAA was transferred to the residence of EEE who raised her as a daughter ● GGG requested FFF to get from Jojie Suansing ’s boarding house an electric fan and a transformer. FFF together with her brother and AAA went to the boarding house of Suansing After giving the requested items, Suansing ordered FFF and her brother to leave AAA behind. ● GGG requested FFF to return to appellant’s boarding house to fetch AAA. FFF noticed that the door was closed, she called out to AAA, she came out fixing her short pants. AAA narrated that Suansing pulled her inside the room, removed removed her shoes and panty and a nd told her to lie down on the t he floor and inserted his penis into her vagina without her consent. ISSUE: Whether or not Suansing is guilty of rape HELD: Yes, a mental condition of retardation deprives a person of that natural instinct to resist assault on her chastity and womanhood. Sexual intercourse with one who is intellectually weak to the extent that she is incapable of giving consent to the carnal act already constitutes rape, without requiring proof that the accused used force and intimidation in committing the act. Only the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim and the latter’s mental retardation needs to be proved. •

•

PEOPLE v. DE JESUS G.R. No. 190622 | 7 October 2013 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape.

59

Criminal Law


FACTS: The victim AAA, an 11-year old kid went to the Pasig public market to buy a pair of slippers. AAA was not able to buy because Rodolfo De Jesus J esus suddenly grabbed her left arm and pulled her towards the nearby Mega Parking Plaza. Upon reaching the 4 th floor of the parking plaza, de Jesus pulled pulled AAA’s shorts and panty down to her her knees. De Jesus then succeeded in raping AAA. • Boca, the security guard assigned at the parking plaza, was conducting a roving patrol when he heard the cry of AAA. He was surprised to see AAA seated on the lap of the De Jesus. Immediately upon seeing the sexual molestations, Boca grabbed appellant’s arm and brought him to the barangay hall. • De Jesus denied raping AAA and he could not think of any motive why the complaint was filed against him. In addition, he claims that the absence of fresh laceration on the hymen prove that he did no rape AAA. •

ISSUE: Whether or not De Jesus is guilty of rape HELD: Yes, the presence of old and healed hymenal laceration do not negate the rape. Medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case. The credible disclosure of a minor that the assailant rapes her is the most important proof of sexual abuse. •

•

PEOPLE v. CIAL G.R. No. 191362 |9 October, 2013 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Rape can still be committed in places where people congregate and such fact will not negate the commission of said act. FACTS: ● The victim AAA is one of four children of BBB and CCC. When CCC died BBB cohabited with the accused Mariano Cial ● Cial called AAA and told her to go to the bedroom inside their house. Once inside, Cial took off her shorts and panty and spread her legs. He pulled his pants down to his thighs and inserted his penis into the little girl's vagina. She felt intense pain but she did not try to struggle because appellant had a bolo on his waist. After satiating his lust, appellant threatened threatened to kill her and her family if she reported the incident to anyone. At that time, her maternal grandmother was in the house but was unaware that she was being ravished. ● Cial denied raping AAA as he treated her as his own daughter and claimed that the charge was merely fabricated by AAA’s aunt. Further, he claims that if he indeed raped AAA then the maternal grandmother who was in the house would have noticed the same. ISSUE: Whether or not Cial is guilty of the crime of qualified rape HELD: Yes, Lust is no respecter of time and place and the crime of rape can be committed anywhere The presence of another person where the rape was committed does not negate the t he commission of the rape. •

PEOPLE v. GUILLEN 60

Criminal Law


G. R. No. 191756 | 25 November 2013 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Rape may be committed even in places where people congregate DOCTRINE : Hymenal laceration, whether fresh or healed, is not an element of the crime of rape FACTS: An Information was filed against the appellant Guillen with the crime of rape. The prosecution pro secution alleged that while AAA was inside her room when someone knocked at the door. AAA opened the door, and Guillen, their neighbor, entered the room and a nd poked a balisong on her neck. Appellant then proceeded to have carnal knowledge of AAA. After the rape was consummated, appellant left the room. AAA immediately told the incident to her sister-in-law, which the latter reported to the police. Guillen was immediately arrested. A medico-legal examination was conducted on AAA and revealed an extragenital physical injury, healed hymenal laceration, and a pending lab exam exa m result. Guillen contends that he had a drinking spree at another place and surmised that AAA filed the charge against him because of his pri or altercation with AAA’s husband. In husband. In addition, he could not have raped AAA as the room r oom where it was allegedly committed was close to AAA’s sister -inlaw’s room. •

•

•

•

ISSUE: Whether or not the Guillen is guilty of the crime of rape HELD: Yes, the proximity of the place where the commission of the crime occurred to other people does not negate the rape. Rape is not only committed in seclusion and may even be committed in places where people congregate. •

ra pe ISSUE: Whether healed laceration negate the crime of rape HELD: No, hymenal laceration, whether fresh or healed, is not an element of the crime of rape. Even medical examination is not necessary to prove the crime of rape as it is merely corroborative. •

PEOPLE v. MANIGO G.R. No. 194612 | 27 January 2014 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Rape is a generally unwitnessed crime, where the victim is the sole testimonial witness; hence an accused may be convicted on the victim’s sole testimony if it passes the test of credibility. FACTS: • • •

Floro Manigo, a tricycle driver, was convicted of raping his passenger AAA, a 13 -yr old schoolgirl. The victim was the only eyewitness to testify, corroborated by medical findings. Manigo denied raping AAA as he was not in the area and he is not a tricycle driver but one wh o is engaged in the business of money lending.

ISSUE: Whether or not Manigo is guilty of the crime of rape HELD: Yes, rape is generally unwitnessed, often leaving the victim to testify for herself. 61

Criminal Law


In resolving rape cases, the victim’s credibility is the primordial consideration. If the victim’s testimony is straightforward, convincing and consistent with human nature and normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.

•

PEOPLE v. CRISOSTOMO G.R. No. 196435| 29 January 2014 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: In statutory rape, the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. FACTS: •

•

AAA, then 6-years-old, testified that she wandered by the house of Joel Crisostomo which was just below their their house. While While AAA was was at the house of accused, she claimed that her genitals and buttocks were burned with a lighted cigarette by Crisostomo. AAA testified further that her clothes were taken off by the Crisostomo who also took his clothes off after which he allegedly placed himself on top of her, inserted his penis and proceeded to have illicit carnal knowledge with AAA. BBB, father of AAA, presented in court his daughter’s birth certificate which stated that she was born on April 4, 1993. Moreover, the Medico-Legal Officer who examined AAA identified and testified that the victim indeed had two third degree burns in the perianal region.

ISSUE: Whether or not Crisostomo is guilty of rape by sexual assault and statutory rape.

w hen the offended party is under 12 years of age, the crime committed is “statutory rape” as HELD: Yes, when it departs from the usual modes of committing rape. What the law punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years. • •

PEOPLE v. OBOGNE G.R. No. 199740| 24 March 2014 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Knowledge by the offender of the mental disability, emotional disorder, or physical handicap of the victim at the time of the commission of the rape is a qualifying circumstance, thus must be alleged in the information. FACTS: Jerry Obogne was was charged of raping AAA, a 12– 12 –year old mentally retarded person. However, the information filed against Obogne did not allege that he knew of AAA’s mental disability. RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape only. The trial court did not consider AAA’s mental retardation as a qualifying circumstance considering that the information failed to allege that appellant knew of the mental disability. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. •

• •

•

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of the crime of simple rape.

62

Criminal Law


HELD: Yes, failure to allege a certain circumstance in the information such circumstance will not be taken into consideration by the Court. In People v. Limio, Limio , it was held that under Article 266 –B (10) of the Revised Penal Code, knowledge by the offender of the mental disability, emotional disorder, or physical handicap at the time of the commission of the rape is the qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death penalty. As such this circumstance must be formally alleged in the information and duly proved by the prosecution. In the absence of a specific or particular allegation in the information that the appellant knew of her mental disability or retardation, as well as lack of adequate proof that appellant knew of this fact, Article 266 –B (10), RPC, could not be properly applied. •

•

PEOPLE v. SAN GASPAR G.R. No. 180496 | 2 April 2014 Crimes Against Persons DOCTRINE: Parricide is committed when the persons killed by the accused who is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or descendant, or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. FACTS: •

•

Accused Roy San Gaspar was married to Imelda San Gaspar. In April 1999, Roy had an argument with Imelda over the fact that she was sleeping beside their grown children and that Roy did not ask permission that he was going away for a relative. This led to a heated altercation wherein Roy kicked Imelda and proceeded to get his homemade shotgun upstairs. He then loaded it and shot her in the head which was witnessed by their two children. Imelda died from the gunshot wound which was found to be done at close-range Roy denied the incident and claims that when he got from the funeral and pushed the door to enter their room, he suddenly heard a gunshot from a 0.12-gauge shotgun. He claims that the gun was accidentally discharged and he even rushed to outside to look for a transportation to bring Imelda to the hospital.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of parricide was proven HELD: Yes, parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of o f the accused. Relationship may be proven with the presentation of a marriage marr iage certificate. •

PEOPLE v. LUJECO G.R. No. 198059 | 7 April 2014 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: The elements of statutory rape are (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age or is demented. FACTS: •

The Antonio Lujeco was charged and convicted for statutory rape by the RTC for having carnal knowledge of 7-year-old AAA.

63

Criminal Law

•

•

•


AAA testified that she was playing with her friends near the old market at Don Carlos, Bukidnon, which was about 20 meters away from her house. After her playmates left, Lujeco suddenly grabbed AAA and dragged her to the house of his granddaughter which was located nearby. Inside the house, appellant forcibly undressed her poked a knife at her, and then had carnal knowledge of her. After After satiating his lust, Lujeco told her to go home. Lucejo denied raping AAA and claimed that he was at the public market of Don Carlos

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC erred in finding the accused guilty of statuary rape? HELD: No, when the victim is below 12 years of age and such ia sufficiently proven the crime is one of staturoy rape. The elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused ha d carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age or is demented. •

PEOPLE v. ZAPATA G.R. No. 197046 | 21 July 2014 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: In the crime of parricide, only the following elements need to be satisfactorily established: (1) the death of the deceased; (2) that he or she was killed by the accused; and (3) that the deceased was a legitimate ascendant or descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. FACTS: •

•

An information for the crime of parricide was filed against appellant George Zapata. It was alleged that he shot his wife Queeny with a .45 caliber pistol at close range (chest area), with intent to kill thereby causing her death. It was also alleged that he fled from the scene of the crime without seeking help for his wife which was left alone in the sala soaked s oaked in her very own blood. Zapata argued that shooting his wife was accidental. He alleged that he wanted to show sho w his gun to his cousin but it fell when he tried to retrieve the gun from the cabinet. In his attempt to catch the gun, he accidentally squeezed the trigger hitting his wife in the process.

ISSUE: Whether or not the shooting was intentional hence he is guilty of parricide. HELD: Yes, the elements of parricide were duly proven in this case. The elements of parricide are: 1) the death of the deceased; (2) that he or she was killed by the accused; and (3) that the deceased was a legitimate ascendant or descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. An assailant shooting his spouse, may it be intentional or accidental, does not negate the crime of parricide. •

•

PEOPLE v. BUNAGAN G.R. No. 196786 | 23 July 2014 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: An accused invoking the sweetheart defense in a rape case must prove the existence of the relationship. FACTS: 64

Criminal Law

•

•


Bunagan was convicted of raping his 16-yr 16 -yr old niece, AAA, multiple times from 1998 to 2001 until she got pregnant. He denied the allegation and alleged that they had been in a relationship since she was 14-yrs old. He admits having sexual congress with AAA and an d such was consensual due to their relationship.

ISSUE: Whether or not Bunagan is guilty of rape HELD: Yes, the sweetheart defense raised by Bunagan was not duly proven. The sweetheart defense when not proven and uncorroborated is self-serving. Evidence of gifts, letters, pictures, and other proof of the r elationship must be shown to prove the claim of the sweetheart defense. • •

PEOPLE v. SATO G.R. No. 190863 | 19 November 2014 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. FACTS: •

•

9-year 9-year old “AAA” and her 66 -year old cousin “BBB” were invited by the Sato, to an abandoned nipa hut where they were told to undress. Upon compliance, appellant started playing with the private parts of “AAA.” He then inserted his penis to “AAA’s” vagina and made coital movements that caused “AAA” pain. Upon satisfaction, appellant gave “AAA” P5. 00 and dismissed the children with a threat that he would kill “AAA” and her father if she were to tell anyone what happened. happened. Still, “AAA” reported the t he incident to her grandmother. gra ndmother. Upon physical examination, it was found that there was hyperemia or an increase incr ease in redness of “AAA’s” hymen. Sato denied raping AAA and claimed that he was out fishing and was back ashore in the afternoon.

· ISSUE: WON appellant is guilty of the crime of statutory rape on account of “AAA’s” testimony HELD: Yes, testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. Courts will give credit to the testimony of an offended party who is of tender age and immature, considering her relative vulnerability and the shame she would be exposed to if the matter she testified to were not true. •

PEOPLE v. PRODENCIADO G.R. No. 192232 | 10 December 2014 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Time of commission is not an element of rape and it is not incumbent upon the victim to prove the same. FACTS: Jose Prodenciado was charged with 2 counts of statutory rape and 2 count of simple rape committed against his own daughter. AAA had brought food for Prodenciado by the river and that thereafter the he pulled out a knife and instructed her to go to a hut where he thereafter proceeded to remove their clothes and •

•

65

Criminal Law

•


inserted his penis into her vagina. He thereafter told her that he would kill her and her mother if she divulged what had transpired that day. The incident was repeated when again in 1995 and on 2000. Prodenciado denied denied that he raped AAA as he was a construction c onstruction worker at the time of the crime and was in a different place. In addition, he claims that the delay in reporting the alleged rape negates its commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not Prodenciado is guilty of the crime of rape HELD: No, it is not incumbent upon the victim to establish the date when she was raped for purposes of convicting the perpetrator. In rape cases, the date of commission is not an essential element of the offense; what is material ma terial is its occurrence, which in this case, c ase, was sufficiently established Failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge and does not detract from the fact that rape was committed. •

•

PEOPLE v. COLENTAVA G.R. No. 190348 | 9 February 2015 Crimes Against Persons DOCTRINE: The conduct of the victim immediately following the sexual assault is important as to the veracity of the rape charge, but not every victim may be ex pected to act conformably with the usual human nature. FACTS: •

•

Nila Colentava was charged and found guilty of the crime of qualified rape of his 16-yr old daughter, AAA, on three separate occasions. Colentava threatened AAA not to report the r ape or he’ll kill her. He even used a gun to threaten her. Colentava denied denied the accusation of rape and claimed that he has been staying in Manila for work . In addition, he questioned the failure of AAA to report immediately the crime and her conduct after the incident was not one which is expected from one who was sexually molested.

ISSUE: Whether or not Colentava is guilty of qualified rape

the victim’s failure to report and her conduct and silence in returning home was due to her HELD: Yes, the well-founded well-founded fear that her father would kill her and her grandmother as he t hreatened. The elements therefore of qualified rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under 18 years of ag e at the time of the rape; (5) the t he offender is a parent, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, of the victim. In incestuous rape, the father’s moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter substitutes for violence and intimidation. •

•

OLARTE v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 197731 | 6 July 2015 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; ass ault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s

66

Criminal Law


but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of t he qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code exist. FACTS: •

•

•

Hermie Olarte were charged with the crime of frustrated homicide. Victim Eugene M. Villostas was fetched by his half-brother, Charlie Penilla, from a drinking session. On their way home, Villostas decided to buy cigarettes from a nearby videoke bar wherein three men who belonged to a group then singing and drinking suddenly stabbed him on different parts of his body. They only stopped when bystanders started throwing stones at them. Hermie Olarte, Ruben Ario and their co-accused Pasquin were arrested. ar rested. Meanwhile, Villostas was rushed to the Valenzuela General Hospital where he was treated by Dr. Jolou A. Pascual. Dr. Pascual testified that the victim would have died if not for timely medical intervention. Olarte, et, al. averred that they were surprised when they were suddenly apprehended. They claimed that they were on their way to the police station, as they were planning to file a blotter against those who threw at them earlier before they were arrested.

ISSUE: Whether or not the elements of the crime of frustrated homicide were duly proven

prov en and there was no qualifying circumstance HELD: Yes, the elements of frustrated murder were proven alleged to qualify the killing to murder. The elements of frustrated homicide are:(1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code exist. •

PEOPLE v. GABUYA G.R. No. 209038 | 8 June 2016 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: In rape cases, the prosecution is not required to prove physical resistance when intimidation is exercised upon the victim, and the latter submits herself to the rapist's lust because of fear for life and personal safety. FACTS: •

•

On her way home, AAA noticed that two men were following her. She tried walking fast, however, the two, Ronald Gabuya and Ryanneal Giron, eventually caught up with her. Giron pointed a knife at her neck and threatened her not to shout. They dragged her to a vacant lot, took all her belongings, and had sexual intercourse with her. The two escaped when another woman appeared. The latter brought AAA to the t he hospital for medical examination and accompanied her to the police station. Gabuya and Giron were arrested. An information for robbery with rape was filed against them. The two denied committing the crime. They averred that the essential elements of the crime were not proven because the victim failed to prove resistance as she did not shout nor resisted to the carnal knowledge.

ISSUE: Whether the prosecution proved all the elements of robbery with r ape HELD: Yes, all the elements of the robbery with rape are proven. Physical resistance need not be established in rape cases when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for life and personal safety. 67

Criminal Law

•


The elements of robbery with rape are 1) taking of personal property committed with violence or intimidation against persons; 2) The property taken belongs to another; 3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi, lucrandi, and 4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.

PEOPLE v. TIONLOC G.R. No. 212193 | 15 February 2017 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: The mere presence of a knife lying near where the commission of the rape was committed cannot be considered as force, threat or intimidation. DOCTRINE: Resistance should be made before the rape is consummated FACTS: Juan Tionloc was was charged with rape by sexual assault of AAA. AAA said that she have a drinking session with Tionloc and a certain Meneses. During the drinking session, she claimed to feel dizzy and took a nap. She woke up to Meneses having carnal knowledge with her. After Meneses, she claimed that Tionloc asked her if he can also have sex with her, she did not respond. She claimed to be afraid because there was a knife that was lying on the table that has been used to cut hotdog. Tionloc denied raping AAA and claimed that he went out to buy food and when he returned, he saw menses and AAA having sex and they asked him to leave which he did. In addition, he clais that AAA did not manifest resistance to the rape. • •

•

•

ISSUE: Whether or not Tionloc is guilty of the crime of rape

o f force, threat or intimidation i ntimidation implemented implemented to consummate HELD: No, there was no proof of actual use of the rape. Force, as an element of rape, must be sufficient to consummate the purposes which the accused had in mind. On the other hand, intimidation must produce fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment or even thereafter as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. Intimidation includes the moral kind as the feat caused by threatening the girl with a knife or pistol. A knife lying nearby which could be utilized to kill her if she resisted r esisted is not sufficient, the fear is mere product of one’s imagination. The knife which was placed nearby must precisely be used to threaten or intimidate her. •

•

ISSUE: Whether or not there was resistance on the part of AAA HELD: No, resistance must be manifest and tenacious and must manifest right from the start of the alleged rape. A resistance in the middle of a sexual congress can hardly be considered as an unequivocal manifestation of the victim’s refusal or rejection of the sexual advances. •

68

Criminal Law

•

•


Mere attempt to resist is not the t he resistance required and expected of a woman defending her virtue, honor and chastity. The unexplainable silence of the victim is considered a tacit consent which allowed him to have sexual contact with her.

BARBOSA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 207193 | 24 July 2017 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Absence the qualifying circumstance of murder, parricide and infanticide and treachery the killing is considered a crime of homicide. FACTS: • •

Ramdy and Roble Barbosa were convicted of having shot and killed Artemio Betita Jr. Betita, Jr.’s Jr.’s daughter testified testified that her father was challenged by a man to come out of his house. He met with the man and then she heard three gunshots. Thereafter, he saw his father wounded outside their house. Afterwards, she saw accused Ramdy Barbosa running away holding a gun while accused Roble Barboasa was on his house’s terrace holding a long firearm.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Barbosas may be convicted despite the witness not having seen them actually shoot her father HELD: Yes, the elements of homicide were clearly present. The elements of homicide are : (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed that person without justifying circumstance; (3) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or that of parricide or infanticide. •

PEOPLE v. PANES G.R. No. 215730 | 11 September 2017 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: In rape cases, the relationship of the victim to the accused and the minority of the victim are special qualifying circumstances which must be alleged and proved by the prosecution. DOCTRINE: In rape cases, it is not necessary that the place where the rape is committed be isolated. FACTS: Three separate charges of rape were filed against Melchor Panes by his daughter. She alleged that on three separate occasions, her father succeeded in forcing her to have sexual intercourse. Panes denied the rape and claimed that he could not have raped AAA as all of his children were in the house. •

•

ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant is guilty of rape. HELD: Yes, the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship were sufficiently alleged in the information. The element of intimidation exists when the assailant is the father of the victim. Victims of tender age are easily intimidated and cowed into silence even by the mildest threat against their lives. •

69

Criminal Law


ISSUE: Whether the presence of the other sibling negates the commission of the rape HELD: No, lust is no respecter of place and time and rape can be committed in places which are not isolated. Rapists are not deterred from committing their odious acts by the presence of people nearby. Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape. Rape can be committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side. •

•

PEOPLE v. GABRIEL G.R. No. 213390 | 15 March 2017 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: A woman’s testimony that she has been raped is sufficient to establish that the crime has been committed, the only question left left is whether the court would accept or not her testimony. FACTS: •

•

AAA and BBB were boarders of Jessie Gabriel. The prosecution averred that Gabriel accused the two of stealing items from his store located and directed the two to see him in his room to talk about the matter. However, when AAA AAA entered his room, he had sexual intercourse with her despite her plea for him to stop. An information for rape was filed against Gabriel. He admitted confronting AAA and BBB about the stolen items but denied having intercourse with AAA.

ISSUE: Whether the testimony of AAA is sufficient to establish the crime of rape. HELD: Yes, the crime of rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually the victim alone who can testify on the forced sexual intercourse. When a rape victim's account is straightforward, candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape. It is highly improbable that a young, decent woman would concoct a rape story against a man who is accusing her of a petty crime which she denies. A woman who claims rape exposes herself to the spectacle of a public trial where she would recount the sordid details of her ordeal. Thus, it has been repeatedly ruled that no young and decent woman in her right mind would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial tr ial if she was not motivated solely by her desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against against her. •

•

•

PEOPLE v. SIBBU G.R. No. 214757 | 29 March 2017 Crimes against Persons

consummates the crime of attempted DOCTRINE: Missing the target who was intended to killed already consummates murder FACTS: 70

Criminal Law

•

•

• •


Bryan Julian was with his parents and child when he saw from a distance a person with a long firearm slung across his chest and a black bonnet over his head. He also saw two men in crouching position. Fearing the worst, he shouted a warning to his family. The man then fired upon them killing his parents and child. Bryan identified Tirso Sibbu as the person with a long firearm. He testified that when the armed man inched closer to the house, Sibbu tried to fix his bonnet thereby providing him the opportunity to see his face. Information for murder and attempted murder were filed against Sibbu and other John Does. Defense averred that Sibbu did not leave their house. They averred that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt and they questioned the identification of the witness.

ISSUE: Whether or not Sibbu is guilty of attempted murder

mer e missing of one’s target does not extinguish the crime of attempted murder. HELD: Yes, mere In performing all the acts of execution which should produce murder, and by reason of some cause other than his own spontaneous desistance the killing is not consummated, the crime cr ime of attempted murder is already committed. •

PEOPLE v. NAPOLES G.R. No. 215200 | 26 July 2017 Crimes against Persons DOCTRINE: Physical resistance is not an element of rape. FACTS: •

•

•

AAA averred that she was raped by her step-father, Nomerto Napoles. Six counts of rape were filed against him. Napoles admitted having sexual intercourse with her but averred that the same was consensual as they have a romantic relationship. In addition, Napoles argued that there was no showing that she defended her honor and dignity with utmost courage and determination. Accordingly, such silence and lack of showing of any outrage place her story in grievous doubt.

ISSUE: Whether or not Napoles is guilty of rape. HELD: Yes, failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the perpetrator's lust. The use of a knife and bolo and the threat t hreat of death constituted sufficient force and intimidation. Furthermore, Furthermore, as the victim’s stepfather, he exerted a strong moral influence over her which may even substitute for actual physical violence and intimidation. Lastly, the alleged romantic relationship does not necessarily negate rape. A man cannot demand sexual gratification and worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love because love is not a license for lust. • •

•

VIDAR v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 177361 | 1 February 2010 Crimes against Property

71

Criminal Law


DOCTRINE: The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during, or after the robbery. DOCTRINE: Delay in reporting to the police authorities the crime does not weaken the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses or negate the commission of the crime. FACTS: •

•

•

Vidar, et. al. was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide for the death of Sgt. Julio Dioneda. While the Dioneda was taking a bath bat h outside the house, Vidar, et. al. entered the residence of the victim ransacked the place and took the wallet, crash helmet and gun of the belonging to the victim. Thereafter, the shot Dioneda. Vidar, et. al., denied that charge against them and claimed to have no knowledge of the killing of Sgt. Dioneda. In addition, they questioned the delay in the report of the incident.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are guilty of Robbery with Homicide. HELD: Yes, it was proven that the intent to rob was the main objective of the crime. The elements of robbery with homicide are: 1) the taking of personal property was committed with violence or intimidation against persons; 2) the property taken belongs to another; 3) the taking was done with animo lucrandi; lucrandi; and 4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, the crime of homicide which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed •

ISSUE: Whether or not delay negates the commission of the crime HELD: No, delay in reporting to the police is consistent with normal human behavior of wanting to avoid provoking further reprisals from the perpetrators of the felonious act. Although there is a natural tendency to seek the ends of justice j ustice for the treacherous killing of a dearly departed, personal safety takes priority as dictated by our culture. Delay in reporting the occurrence of a crime or other unusual events in rural areas is well known. •

•

PEOPLE v. MARTINEZ G.R. No. 158627| 5 March 2010 Crimes against Property DOCTRINE: Criminal liability for estafa already committed is not affected by the fact that appellant returned a portion of their money. DOCTRINE: Lack of license or authority to deploy workers abroad is sufficient to convict under the crime of illegal recruitment. FACTS: •

•

•

Maritess Martinez was charged with seven counts of Estafa before RTC. On even date, she together with her children Jenilyn and Julius, was also charged with the crime of Illegal Recruitment in large scale. It was alleged that they represented themselves to have the capacity to recruit Filipino workers abroad without having secured the necessary license from POEA and misappropriated the recruitment fees unlawfully collected. Martinez averred that she could not be convicted for illegal recruitment because she merely assisted complainants in their applications with the recruitment agency. In addition, she insists 72

Criminal Law

•


that she turned over the amounts she s he received from the complainants to JH Imperial Organization Placement Corp. Lastly, she alleged that there was no proof that she falsely represented to have the capacity to send complainants as factory workers in South Korea.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Martinez is guilty of the crimes of estafa HELD: Yes, criminal liability of estafa already committed is not affected by the fact that respondent returned a portion of their money. Compromise or novation of contract pertains and affects only the civil civ il aspect of the case. The elements of estafa are: (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (b) the offended party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. By reason of her misrepresentations, false assurances, and deceit, victims were induced to part with their money. • •

•

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Martinez is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment HELD: Yes, the proof that one was not a licensee or holder of authority to deploy workers abroad is sufficient to convict under the crime of illegal recruitment. The elements of the crime of illegal recruitment are: a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of RA 8042); and c) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group •

CRISOSTOMO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 171526 | 1 September 2010 Crimes against Property DOCTRINE: The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. FACTS: ● Rodelio works in a gasoline station. He was by the gasoline tank when three armed men on board a motorcycle arrived. ● Two of the men went to the cashier, two or three-armed length from where Rodelio was, and shot Janet, the cashier, and took the money from the cash register. ● After the incident, Rodelio gave a description of the driver of the motorcycle but not of the two armed men who entered the cashier’s office because they had their backs turned on him. The NBI prepared a cartographic sketch based on the information. in formation. ● Rodel Crisostomo was detained after being implicated for the crime. Rodelio and another gasoline boy identified him as one of the three robbers. Crisostomo was charged with the complex crime of robbery with homicide. ● Crisostomo denied committing the crime of robbery with homicide and claimed that he was not the man identified in the cartographic sketch by the NBI. ISSUE: Whether or not Crisostomo is guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide HELD: Yes, when the killing is merely incidental and the overriding intention is to rob then the crime is robbery with homicide. 73

Criminal Law

•


The elements of robbery with homicide are: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed.

SAN MIGUEL v. PUZON G.R. No. 167567|22 September 2010 Crimes Against Property DOCTRINE: The personal property must belong to another to constitute the crime of theft FACTS: • Puzon purchased SMC products on credit. To ensure payment and as a business practice, SMC required him to issue post-dated checks before the same were released to him. He issued two BPI checks equivalent to the value of the product. • Puzon, together with his accountant, visited the SMC Sales Office to reconcile his account with SMC. During that visit Puzon allegedly requested to see BPI Check No. 17657. However, when he got hold of BPI Check No. 27903 which was attached to a bond paper together with BPI Check No. 17657 he allegedly immediately left the office with his accountant, bringing the ch ecks with them. • SMC sent a letter to Puzon demanding the return of the said checks. Puzon ignored the demand hence SMC filed a complaint against him for theft. ISSUE: Whether Puzon is guilty of the crime of theft? HELD: No, a check which is not given as a payment then the ownership of the said check did not transfer. The essential elements of the crime of theft are the following: (1) that there be a taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) th at the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. Negotiable Instruments Law provides that the person to whom an instrument is delivered acquires the title thereto as of the date of delivery. However, that delivery means that the party delivering did so for the purpose of giving effect thereto. Otherwise, it cannot be said that there has been delivery of the negotiable instrument. When the check was not given as payment and is merely used to secure an obligation, the ownership of the check was not transferred. •

•

•

FRANCO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 171328 | 16 February 2011 Crimes against Property DOCTRINE: An employee’s act of soliciting a client despite previous knowledge of several complaints against his or her employer for failure to deliver is tantamount to misrepresentation. misrepresentation. FACTS: •

Lourdes Antonio testified that Lyzah Franco, a friend of her niece, swindled her. Franco offered to assist Antonio in purchasing a used car and introduced herself as an Assistance Administrative Coordinator of Final Access Marketing, which was engaged in the sale and financing of secondhand and repossessed vehicles.

74

Criminal Law

•

•

•


Antonio agreed to the offer offer since she and her husband were looking for a used cab for their taxicab operation. They went to a showroom and chose a Blue Mazda 323 from the display. Franco went to Antonio’s house to collect the downpayment of P80,000. Franco promi sed the car will b delivered in 3 days but such did not materialize and could not be reached or found anymore. Franco denied involvement and was a mere employee of Final Access Marketing and knew of her employers’ scheme when it was reported.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of estafa HELD: Yes, the elements of estafa by means of deceit was proven by the false pretenses and fraudulent acts committed though misrepresentation. Under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC, the elements of the crime of estafa by means of deceit are: (1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense, fraudulent fraudulent act or fraudulent means must m ust be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means and was thus induced to part with his money or property; and (4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage •

PEOPLE v. TANCHANCO G. R. 177761 | 18 April 2012 Crimes Against Property DOCTRINE: Theft committed while holding a position which necessarily entails trust and confidence, not only because of its nature and function but includes representation, is qualified by such high degree of confidence. FACTS: •

•

•

•

Atty. Rebecca Manuel hired Remedios Tanchanco to work in her office as legal secretary and liaison officer, which includes the task tasks to process th e transfer of title’s of Manuel’s clients. In the course of Tanchanco’s employment, Manuel noticed Manuel noticed that the completion of the transfer of titles was taking longer than usual but Tanchanco attributed the delay to the cumbersome procedure and that the personnel processing the transfer cannot be bribed. However, Tanchanco suddenly abandoned her job. Manuel discovered that Tanchanco was stealing sums of money entrusted to her as payment for capital gains tax, documentary stamp tax, transfer tax and other expenses intended for the transfer of the titles of properties. This included the use of money which was as payment in relation to processing requirements as a liason officer. Tanchanco admitted that she worked for Manuel and merely denied the allegations of theft.

ISSUE: Whether or not Tanchanco is guilty of qualified theft HELD: Yes, grave abuse of confidence must be the result of relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the accused and the offended party that might create a high degree of confidence between then which is abused by accused. Under Article 308 of the the RPC, the t he elements of the crime of theft t heft are: (1) there was taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain; (4) the taking was without the consent of the owner; and •

75

Criminal Law

•


(5) the taking was accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Under Article 310, theft is qualified when committed with grave abuse of confidence.

D’AIGLE v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 174181| 27 Jun 2012 Crimes against Property

mer ely retaining properties for the purpose of preserving one’s right of lien over DOCTRINE: The act of merely them is immaterial and the failure to return upon demand of such properties is tantamount to appropriating the same for own personal use. FACTS: ● Andre L. D’Aigle was the managing director of Samfit Philippines. He was also a majority stockholder of TAC Manufacturing, an entity engaged in the fabrication of wire bending machine similar to that used by Samfit. ● Sometime thereafter, thereafter, he was dismissed from his duties due to alleged conflict of business interest. ● After he was dismissed, an audit was conducted which revealed that during the tenure of the D’Aigle, D’Aigle, some of the company properties under his custody were missing and were left unaccounted. ● A demand was sent to the petitioner to turn tur n over to Samfit all its equipment equipment under his custody. He ignored the demand. ● D’Aigle claims that Samfit owed TAC money and he merely mer ely held the property entrusted to him to preserve his lien over them. ISSUE: Whether or not D’Aigle is guilty of the crime of estafa HELD: Yes, the failure to account upon demand, for funds or property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. Under Article 315, par.1(b) of the RPC, the lements of estafa are: (1) That money, goods or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return, the same; (2) That there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) That there is a demand made ma de by the offended party on the offender •

MARQUEZ, et. al. v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 181138 | 3 December 2012 Crimes against Property DOCTRINE: If the store was not actually occupied at the time of the robbery and was not used as a dwelling, since the owner lived in a separate house, the crime committed is robbery in an uninhabited place. FACTS: •

Marlon Mallari suggested the Ricky Marquez, Roy Bernardo, and Jomer Magalong, with Ryan Benzon rob the Rice-in-a-Box store located at the corner of U.E 76

Criminal Law

•

•

•

•


Marquez then got a lead pipe and handed it to Magalong, which he and Bernardo used to destroy the padlock of the store. Mallari was designated as the look-out while petitioners and Benzon entered the store and carried away all the items inside it which consisted of rice cookers, a blender and food items. On the same day, owner o wner Sonia Valderosa was informed that her store was forcibly opened and that her freezer along with other items in the store were missing. Marquez, et. al. denied that they robbed the stall and claimed that it was already open when they passed by it.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of robbery in an inhabited place. HELD: No, robbery may be committed in two ways: (a) with violence against, or intimidation of persons and (b) by the use of force upon things. Under Article 302 of the RPC, robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building may be committed if any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window has been broken. On the other hand, robbery of an inhabited place defines inhabited house means any shelter, ship, or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even though th ough the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom when the robbery is committed. When the place robber is used as a store and not as a dwelling then the crime is one under Article 302. •

•

PEOPLE v. TORRES G.R. No. 189850| 22 September 2014 Crimes against Property DOCTRINE: To be convicted of robbery with homicide, the intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. FACTS: Espino was driving his car along C.M. Recto Avenue when Ronnie Torres suddenly blocked his path. Espino alighted from his vehicle and approached Ronnie, who tried to grab his belt-bag. Espino resisted and struggled with Ronnie for the possession of his belt- bag but the latter’s brothers, Jay Torres, Reynaldo Torres, Bobby Torres, and an unidentified companion suddenly appeared. With all of them brandishing bladed weapons, appellant and his brothers took turns in stabbing Espino in different parts of his body while the unidentified companion held him by t he neck. When Espino was already sprawled on the ground, they took his belt-bag, wallet and jewelries and immediately fled. An information was filed the charging siblings Reynaldo, Jay, Ronnie and appellant with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide committed against Espino. Only Bobby Torres was arrested as the others remain at-large to date. •

•

•

ISSUE: Whether or not Torres is guilty of crime of robbery with homicide HELD: Yes, the intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with int ent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. •

77

Criminal Law

•


A conviction requires that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. r obbery.

PEOPLE v. NIELLES G.R. No. 200308 | 23 February 2015 Crimes Against Property DOCTRINE: An employee who has the functions and responsibilities which include billings and collections is one who enjoys confidence reposed in her by her employer. FACTS: •

•

•

Flores was engaged in the business of guaranteeing purchase orders and gift checks of Shoemart and Landmark and selling or transferring them for consideration. Nieles worked as Flores' house help but was eventually hired to work at Flores' office performing clerical jobs. When Flores' business grew, appellant was assigned to bill and collect from sub-guarantors, and to encash and deposit checks. On July 15, 2004, Nielles collected P640,353.86 from the sub-guarantors. However, she did not remit the amount to Flores or deposit it in Flores account. Instead, she issued 15 personal checks totaling P640,353.86 and deposited them to Flores' account. All the checks were dishonored upon presentment due to "account closed." Nieles absconded and was charged with the crime of Qualified Theft. Nielles contends that since Flores she could not have personally known whether she indeed collected the amounts. She posited that mere issuance of the 15 checks is not proof that she received or collected payments from the sub-guarantors or that she failed to remit the monies belonging to Flores.

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of qualified theft HELD: Yes, the taking of personal property committed in connection with a position wherein one enjoys the confidence reposed upon him by another is committed with grave abuse of confidence and constituted the crime of qualified theft. The elements of qualified theft are: 1) taking of personal property; 2) that said property belongs to another; 3) that the said taking was done with intent to gain; 4) that it was done without the owner's consent; 5) that it was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, or of force upon things; 6) that it was done with grave abuse of confidence. •

PASCUAL v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 204873| 27 July 2016 Crimes against Property DOCTRINE: In proving the complex crime of estafa through falsification of publication document, both the elements of estafa and falsification must be established for conviction. FACTS:

78

Criminal Law

•

•

•

•


Spouses Wee purchased a real property in Las Pinas. They directed their secretary, Tiongco, Ti ongco, to process the transfer of title to the said property and to pay the capital gains tax thereon. Remegio Montero, a business partner of Wee, referred the secretary to Esther Pascual, an employee of the City Assessor’s office. Pascual offered to facilitate the payment through her connections at t he BIR office. They went to the BIR Office where the secretary gave the money to Pascual. Pascual gave a photocopy of the BIR official receipt and promised that the Certificate of Title would be given to her within 3 months. However, the title was never delivered and it was discovered that the receipt given was fake. A complaint for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document was filed against Pascual and Montero. Pascual denied that she mislead Tiongco into believing that she was connected with the BIR and that she did not take advantage of her official position at BIR as it was not her make or prepare BIR receipts.

ISSUE: Whether Pascual may be held liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. HELD: Yes, estafa through falsification of public document is a complex crime where two different offenses are tried as one because one offense was committed as a necessary means to commit the other, or because a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. The elements of the crime of Falsification of Public Document are: (1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, employee, or notary public; (2) that he takes advantage of his official position; (3) that he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding; and (4) that such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the proceeding. •

•

PEOPLE v. BUENAMER G.R. No. 206227 | 31 August A ugust 2016 Crimes against Property DOCTRINE: The lack of intent to kill a person who is being robbed does not negate the liability for the crime of homicide. FACTS: •

• •

Stanley Buenamer and Jerome Lambada boarded a passenger FX taxi. Armed with firearms, they declared a hold-up and demanded the valuables of the passengers. One of the passengers tried to regain possession of his belongings, Buenamer boxed him. The passenger fell off and the passenger jeepney ran over him. Buenamer and Lambada were arrested. An information for robbery with homicide was filed against them. Buenamer insisted that the prosecution was not able to positively identified the perpetraators of the crime and that there was no intent to kill the passenger.

ISSUE: Whether or not Buenamer is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery.

79

Criminal Law


HELD: Yes, in the crime of robbery with homicide the main intent is rob and the killing is merely incidental. The elements of robbery with homicide are: (1) The taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) The property taken belongs to another; (3) The taking is with animo lucrandi; and (4) By reason of the robbery, or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed. A death which resulted from the acts committed to complete the crime of robbery makes the it a complex crime of robbery with homicide, despite the absence of intent to kill. •

•

PEOPLE v. GAMBA G.R. No. 215332 | 24 July 2017 Crimes against Property DOCTRINE: In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, robbery should be the main purpose of the malefactor and the killing must be merely incidental. FACTS: ● Mark Gamba boarded a jeepney together with t hree unidentified men. They pulled out their guns and declared a hold-up. One of the passengers refused to give his cellphone. Hence, Gamba kicked and shot him which resulted r esulted in his death. ● Days later, Gamba was arrested and was charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. ● Gamba denied committing the robbery and averred that at the time of the robbery, he has been engaged in a drinking spree with his friends in another place.

s pecial complex crime of robbery with homicide. ISSUE: Whether or not Gamba is guilty of the special HELD: Yes, the intent to rob preceded the taking of human life which was merely incidental, resulting by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. For one to be held liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, there must be: (1) taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain, (3) with the use of violence and intimidation, and (4) on the occasion or by reason of robbery, the crime of homicide was committed. •

PEOPLE v. LOMAQUE G.R. No. 189297 | 5 June 2013 Crimes against Chastity DOCTRINE: Lascivious conduct is defined as a crime committed through the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks with the intention to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. FACTS: ● Lomaque was charged with one count of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5 of RA No. 7610 against his 8-year-old stepdaughter. ● Lomaque allegedly caressed AAA’s breast, smelled her vagina and inserted his finger in it.

80

Criminal Law

●

●

●


AAA’s harrowing experience with Lomaque continued and she eventually became pregnant. Lomaque asked BBB to bring AAA to the doctor for medical check-up, they then discovered that AAA was pregnant. BBB, mother of AAA, inquired who the father was, AAA told her that it was Lomaque, a matter which appellant admitted but when BBB became hysterical, Lomaque retracted and concocted a story that somebody else caused the pregnancy of AAA. After giving birth, AAA returned to their house. There she saw appellant kissing her younger sister, CCC. Afraid that CCC might suffer the same fate she had, she decided to file a complaint against Lomaque with the help of Bantay-Bata.

ISSUE: Whether or not Lomaque is guilty of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. HELD: Yes, the act of smelling the victim’s genital area and inserting a finger in the genital to gratify or arouse one’s sexual desire is considered c onsidered a lascivious act. The elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 are: (1) That the offender commits any acts of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances: a) By using force or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or c) When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) That the offended party is another person of either sex. In addition, the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, 5 , Article III of RA 7610 are: 1) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; 2) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and 3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. •

•

LOPEZ v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 172203 | 14 February 2011 Crimes Against Honor DOCTRINE: In the crime of libel, the fact that the language is offensive to a person does not make it actionable by itself. FACTS: Lopez was charged with Libel by Mayor Escalante of Cadiz City, because of the former’s posting of a billboard stating “CADIZ FOREVER” “BADING AND SAG AY NEVER”, “Bading” as the Mayor is famously called claims that Lopez’s act has him maligned and dishonored. Lopez admitted having placed all the billboards because he is aware of all the things happening around Cadiz City. He mentioned “BADING” because he was not in conformity with the many things the mayor had done in Cadiz City and the message was a wake-up call for Cadiz City •

•

ISSUE: Whether or not Lopez is guilty of libel HELD: No, there are no derogatory imputations of a crime, vice or defect or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending, directly or indirectly, to cause his dishonor. Neither does the phrase in its entirety, employ any unpleasant language or somewhat harsh and uncalled for that would reflect on private respondent’s integrity. Pursuant to Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code, if the defamatory statement is made against a public official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of the •

•

81

Criminal Law


allegations is shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends.

LAGAYA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 176251| 25 July 2012 Crimes against Honor DOCTRINE: When the statement in question is injurious on its face, it is presumed that the same was made with malice FACTS

Martinez was the Plant Manager for an agency of the DOH. While she was attending a seminar, Martinez had a misunderstanding with one of the resource speakers. As a result, Lagaya, the Director Dir ector General, issued a Memorandum which addressed Martinez’s behavior. However, the same contained some statements that Martinez believed was libelous. The statements were that Martinez should s hould “be submitted for further psychological and/or psychiatric treatment to prevent further deterioration of her mental and emotional stability ” An Information was filed against Petitioner Lagaya charging him with the crime of libel as defined under Art. 355, in relation to Arts. 353 and 354 of the RPC. Lagaya admits to having signed the Memorandum, but claims that it was done in good faith and in the performance of official duties.

•

•

•

•

•

ISSUE: Whether or not Lagaya is guilty of libel HELD: Yes, libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; (d) the victim must be identifiable. Malice is the doing of an act conceived in the spirit of mischief or criminal indifference to the rights of others or which must partake of a criminal or wanton nature, is presumed from any defamatory imputation, imputation, particularly when it injures the reputation of the person defamed. •

•

SPECIAL LAWS PEOPLE v. MALLARI G.R. No. 179041 | 1 April 2013 Anti-Carnapping Law DOCTRINE: In the special complex crime of carnaping with homicide the killing is done in the course of the commission of the robbery or on occasion thereof. FACTS: ●

An information was filed charging Arnel Mallari and co-accused with violation of R.A. No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping (Anti-Carnapping Act).

●

The prosecution’s prosecution’s lone witness was Mahilac, a self-confessed member of FX gang, a syndicate notorious for carjacking Toyota FX vehicles. Ramos, Posadas and Mallari were members of the gang. Mahilac testified that they met at a restaurant to have a meeting.

82

Criminal Law


●

As they were departing from the restaurant, a Toyota FX was flagged down by Mallari. They then arrived at Cagayan de Oro and agreed to proceed to Iligan City. Mallari told Mahilac not to board the Toyota FX because its back portion reeked of the dried blood of the FX driver Medel, who was stabbed to death while resisting the group.

●

Mallari denied knowledge of the carnapping incident and claimed that he was at home with his family at the time of the commission of the crime. In addition, he stated that Mahilac was his employer and did not know why he was implicatedto the crime.

c arnapping with homicide. ISSUE: Whether or not Mallari is guilty of the complex crime of carnapping HELD: Yes, to prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping but also the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated in the course of t he commission of the carnapping or on occasion thereof. Under Section 2 of RA No. 6539, carnapping is “the taking, “the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. The special complex crime of carnapping with homicide is punishable under Section 14 of RA 6539, as amended by Section 20 of RA 7659. •

•

PINLAC v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 197458 | 11 November N ovember 2015 Anti-Child Abuse Act DOCTRINE: A child is deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse" when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. FACTS: •

•

Nicanor Pinlac was accused and convicted of sexual assault of AAA, a 14-yr old boy. The sexual assault was allegedly committed during a fraternity initiation. Pinlac took aside AAA during the fraternity initiation, persuading him to imbibe alcohol and smoke marijuana until the latter was in a daze, and forcibly disrobing him before performing oral sex on him. Pinlac repeated this process the next day as well. Pinlac denied the charges against him and he claimed that he was pre-occupied with the campaigning as he was a candidate for barangay kagawad. Further, he claimed that the case was instigated by BBB, AAA’s mother, one of his opponents for the position.

ISSUE: Whether or not Pinlac is guilty of Sexual Abuse under RA 7610 Anti-Child Abuse Law? (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act) HELD: Yes, A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group. The law covers not only a situation s ituation in which a child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in any lascivious conduct. The elements of sexual abuse under RA 7610 are: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. ag e. •

•

83

Criminal Law


BUSTILLO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 160718 | 12 May 2010 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act DOCTRINE: There is a disputable presumption that official duty been regularly performed and may be overcomed by no less than clear and convincing evidence. FACTS: •

•

•

•

•

Anuncio Bustillo as Municipal Mayor; Agustin Billedo, Jr. as Vice Mayor, and Agustin Sumilhig, Jr. as member member of Sangguniang Bayan, Bayan, were all charged with the alleged violation of Section Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Bustillo, et. al. allegedly committed an offense in relation to their official duties and taking advantage of their official position, conspired and confederated, by passing Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 95-27 which authorized the transfer without cost to San Francisco Water District (SFWD) of one Tamaraw FX vehicle and six units of KE Kawasaki motorcycles The properties transferred were purchased for the Municipality of Bunawan out of the Countryside Development Development Fund (CDF) of Congressman Ceferino Paredes, Paredes, Jr. The Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 95-27 was nullified by the Sangguniang Sa ngguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur, however, SFWD refused to surrender the motor vehicle and motorcycles to the Municipality of Bunawan. Subsequently, SFWD executed a Deed of Donation for the properties in favor of the Municipality of Bunawan as the projects funded by the CDF of Congressman Paredes were already completed. The Sandiganbayan found Bustillo, et. al. guilty of violating v iolating Section 3(e) of RA 3019.

an d ISSUE: Whether or not Bustillo, et. al. is guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act? HELD: No, the act of transferring possession of the vehicles were made in good faith and does not give rise to the elements of the crime. •

Absence any evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity, public officers’ acts officers’ acts are presumed regular.

•

The elements of violating Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 are: (1) that the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) that said public officer commit the prohibited act during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions; (3) that they caused undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private party; (4) that such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and (5) that such public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

CHUA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 196853 | 13 July 2015 Bouncing Checks Law DOCTRINE: When no proof as to when notice of non-payment was received by the drawer, then the presumption or prima facie evidence provided in Section 2 of BP 22 cannot arise, since there would simply be no way of reckoning the t he crucial 5-day period. 84

Criminal Law


FACTS: •

•

•

•

•

Chua issued several postdated PSBank checks of varying amounts to See pursuant to their rediscounting arrangement arrangement at a 3% rate. However, See claimed that when he deposited the checks, they were dishonored either due to insufficient funds or closed account. Despite demands, Chua failed to make good the checks. Hence, See filed a Complaint for violations of BP 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. Attached was the demand letter at issue. In a Resolution, the prosecutor found probable cause and recommended the filing of charges against Chua. Accordingly, 54 counts of violation of BP 22 were filed against him. Chua asserts that the presumption that the issuer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds only arises after it is proved that the issuer actually received a notice of dishonor and within five days from receipt thereof failed failed to pay the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment. Here, the date when Chua allegedly received the demand letter was not established by the prosecution.

ISSUE: Whether or not Chua is guilty of violating BP 22 HELD: No, the absence of the date of actual receipt on the face of the demand letter prevented the legal presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds from arising. The elements of violation of BP 22 are: (1) The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of the issue he does not have sufficient funds in credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. Section 2 of BP 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds, which, however, arises only after it is proved that the issuer haf received a written notice of dishonor and that within five days from receipt thereof, he failed failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangement for its payment. •

•

PEOPLE v. ALBERTO G. R. No. 179717 | 5 February 2010 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

Non-compliance with the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence DOCTRINE: Non-compliance confiscated will not result to appellants acquittal oft he crime charged.

FACTS: •

•

The Drug Enforcement Unit of the Makati Police Station received a tip from an informant that the appellant was selling shabu. An entrapment team was immediately formed by the Makati Police Station. The informant contacted Nieva Alberto through a cellular phone and they a greed to meet at J.P. Rizal Extension, Comembo, Makati City, to consummate the transaction. Whereupon, the informant and the police team proceeded to the designated area. Upon their arrival thereat, the informant approached the Alberto and introduced the poseurbuyer, PO1 Inopia. Alberto asked PO1 Inopia how much shabu he needed and the latter handed over the P500.00 buy-bust money and the crystalline substance. Thereafter, PO1 Inopia lighted 85

Criminal Law


his cigarette, which was the pre-arranged signal for the consummation of the illegal sale. PO1 Santos responded and together with PO1 Inopia arrested the appellant and retrieved from her the buy-bust money. The sachet containing the white crystalline substance was marked with the initials “NDA”and sent to the crime laboratory for examination. The examination showed that the contents of the plastic sachet weighed 0.25 gram and are positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, shabu, a dangerous drug. An Information charging appellant for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 was then filed. Alberto denies selling the illegal drug and claimed that there was a frame-up and the police even demanded money from him for the charges to be dropped.

•

• •

ISSUE: Whether or not Alberto is guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs HELD: Yes, 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. In a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) he identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and an d the payment thereof. •

PEOPLE v. MORALES G.R. No. 172873 |19 March 2010 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: Failure to establish the identity of the corpus delicti warrants the dismissal of a charge for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act FACTS: ●

Police officers from Station 9 conducted a buy-bust operation on Roldan Morales. After the exchange of the drugs and the marked money, they arrested Morales. They recovered the marked money from the appellant and proceeded to frisk the t he latter. Upon conducting the body search, they found another sachet of shabu and two aluminum foils. Morales was brought to the Police Station for detention, while the items seized from him were brought to the Crime Laboratory for examination. Morales was charged with possession and s ale of shabu.

●

Morales denied the charges against him. He averred that two male persons in civilian clothes suddenly approached and handcuffed him. He claimed that nothing was found on him and yet the policemen still brought him to the police station.

ISSUE: Whether or not Morales is guilt of illegal possession of and sale of dangerous drugs HELD: No, failure to comply with the procedural requirements results to an acquittal. ●

Section 21(1) of RA 9165 requires that: “The apprehending “The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photography the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were 86

Criminal Law


confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof”. ●

The seized drugs as not marked immediately after the arrested. Likewise, there was neither an inventory and take a photograph of the confiscated items.

●

Procedural lapses in the handling and identification of the seized items raise doubts as to whether the items presented in court were the exact same items that were confiscated from appellant when he was apprehended.

PEOPLE v. BERDADERO G.R. No. 179710 | 29 June 2010 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: What is material in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or delicti or illicit drug in evidence. FACTS: The Investigation Section of Batangas City Police Station received a r eport from an informant that the appellant Berdadero was selling shabu. In response, PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas organized a buy-bust operation and designated informant as the poseur-buyer. The 2 police officers and the informant went to the target area and parked the van that they were using in front of appellant Berdadero’s house. Thereafter, informant alighted from the van and talked to appellant Berdadero. Berdadero. A few minutes later, Aldrin Berdadero went inside his house. When he returned, he handed to the informant 2 plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance in exchange for the marked money. Afterwards, informant gave the pre-arranged signal that the t he sale was consummated. Berdadero claimed that he was a victim of a frame-up. An Information was filed against appellant Berdadero for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, where the accused willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, dispense or deliver shabu. •

•

•

• • •

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant Berdadero is guilty?

re quirement was observed and the integrity and an d evidentiary value of HELD: Yes, the chain of custody requirement the seized items or the corpus delicti was preserved. In a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, 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 an d the payment thereof. In prosecution of drug cases, the existence of the t he dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The da ngerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital v ital to a judgment of conviction. •

•

PEOPLE v. GONZAGA G.R. No. 184952|11 October 2010 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: The chain of custody in handling the shabu allows flexibility

87

Criminal Law


DOCTRINE: The failure to present the informant is not fatal as it is not indispensable.

dangerous DOCTRINE : Failure to present the market money is not fatal to the conviction of illegal sale of dangerous drugs FACTS: ●

A confidential informant arrived to report that Marianto Gonzaga, alias Jun, was selling illegal drugs. The police immediately organized conducted a buy-bust operation. The confidential informant introduced one of the police officers to Gonzaga. The latter gave clutch bag that contained two small plastic sachets of white crystalline substance. In exchange, they handed over the envelope with the buy-bust money.

●

After such, the officers immediately arrested Gonzaga. He was charged with violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act (RA) No. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

●

Gonzaga denied the allegations against him and claimed that he was only collecting payment from a debtor when he was suddenly arrested. In addition, he claims that the police officers did not follow the procedure required required in handling the seized items, the informant and the marked mark ed money was not presented.

ISSUE: Whether or not the failure to observe the required procedure results to acquittal HELD: No, as long as the integrity of the seized items were preserved. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. In a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, 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 an d the payment thereof. •

•

ISSUE: Whether or not the non-presentation of the informant is fatal to the conviction

drug -pushing, HELD: No, presentation of the informant is not necessary to a successful prosecution for drug-pushing, as such testimony is merely corroborative of or cumulative with that of the poseur-buyer ISSUE: Whether or not the non-presentation of the marked money is detrimental to the conviction HELD: No, the presentation of marked money is not required by law nor jurisprudence. It does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction tr ansaction is presented before the court. •

AURELIO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 174980 | 31 August A ugust 2011 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act DOCTRINE: Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness is not fatal when it does not refer to the elements of the crime. FACTS: •

An informant reported a illegal trade of shabu. s habu. The authorities set up a buy-bust team went to the house of Radito Aurelio. After transacting with Aurelio and buying t he shabu, Aurelio was 88

Criminal Law

•

•


arrested and the marked money and a plastic sachet which later was confirmed to contain shabu was recovered from the accused. Two Informations were filed charging the accused Aurelio with violating RA 9165. It was alleged that Aurelio was found to be in the possession of 0.05 grams of shabu. Aurelio denied that charges. He claimed claimed that he went out to buy cigarettes when, 2 men grabbed him and told him to proceed to his house. Thereafter, they brought him to the City Hall of Mandaluyong where he was questioned about the alleged shabu incident. He then claimed that the police demanded Php 30,000.00 for his liberty. When he was unable to do so, he was charged with selling and possessing shabu. This was corroborated by Aurelio’s sister Aurelio’s sister and by his neighbour as well.

ISSUE: Whether or not Aurelio is guilty of selling and possessing shabu HELD: Yes, inconsistencies that refer to trivial and insignificant details do not destroy or diminish other evidence presented. In prosecuting the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: 1) Identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and 2) The delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. On the other hand, when prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, there must be proof that: 1) The accused was in possession of an item or object identified identified as a prohibited or regulated drug; 2) Such possession was not authorized by law; and an d 3) The accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. •

•

PEOPLE v. FUNDALES, JR. G.R. No. 184606 | 5 September 2012 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: The testimony of the laboratory analyst is not essential to establish the corpus delicti for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act. FACTS: ●

The Anti-Illegal Drug Special Task Force received an information from a confidential informant about the illegal drug trade operations conducted by t he Fundales brothers.

●

They formed a buy-bust team and proceeded to the house. They posed themselves as buyers and upon handing the mark money, they apprehended Calexto Fundales.

●

He was charged with illegal sale s ale and possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia.

●

Fundales denied the charges and claimed that he was just at home when suddenly 8 persons entered their house without permission and arrested them. In addition, he claims that there was a failure to present the forensic chemist who conducted the examination of the alleged illegal drug.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Fundales is guilty of violation of R.A. No. 9165? HELD: Yes, the non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. 89

Criminal Law

•

•


The conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs if the following elements are present: (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 thereto. The corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst, what is important is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are properly preserved.

PEOPLE v. ANESLAG G.R. No. 185386 | 21 November N ovember 2012 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: In buy-bust operation, the use of fluorescent powder to a buy-bust money to prove the commission of the offense is not required r equired by law or jurisprudence. FACTS: A buy-bust operation was conducted by the police of Illigan City. In the said buy -bust operation appellants Bernabe Aneslag and Jocelyn Concepcion, with Menda Aneslag and Mae Elarmo were arrested for the illegal sale of shabu. Bernabe and Concepcion denied that they committed the charged cr ime. They contended that the police failed to comply with the chain of custody rule. They alleged alleged that there was a 30-gram 30 -gram discrepancy on the volume of the drugs seized as the Information indicated the sale of 240 grams of shabu but the trial court found that only 210 grams were sold. Further, they claimed that the drugs were not immediately marked when it was seized, no certificate of inventory was prepared and no photographs taken. In addition, Aneslag claimed that he was not subjected to ultra -violet powder examination or finger printing casting doubt as to whether he was the one who allegedly received and counted the boodle money, as claimed by the prosecution. •

•

•

ISSUE: Whether or not the use of fluorescent power on buy-bust money is required HELD: No, neither law nor jurisprudence requires the police to apply fluorescent powder to the buybust money to prove the commission of the offense. The same holds true for the conduct of finger print examination on the money used in the buybust operation. The essential requirement is the delivery of the prohibited drugs to th e poseurbuyer and the presentation of the confiscated drugs b efore the court. The essential requirement is the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, which was proven by the prosecution in this cas e. •

•

PEOPLE v. EYAM G.R. No. 184056 | 26 November 2012 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

knowledge. DOCTRINE: Mere possession of illegal drugs is prima facie evidence of knowledge. DOCTRINE: Non-presentation of FACTS:

90

Criminal Law

•

•

•

•


A security guard S/G was doing routinary inspection of people entering the Guadalupe Commercial Complex. Complex. When George Eyam Eyam was inspected, something something bulky was in his back Thinking that he was carrying a bomb, S/G ordered him to empty his pocket. Eyam brought out a plastic sachet and when asked what it contained, he replied “shabu”. He was apprehended and brought to the security office of the complex. S/G marked the plastic sachet with appellant’s initials. Then, together with the the Officer -in-Charge (OIC) of the security office, he brought appellant and the plastic sachet to the Police Community Precinct 2 for recording purposes and subsequently, to the Drug Enforcement Unit for investigation. Police investigator received received the plastic sachet containing containing the suspected suspected shabu. Thereafter, he prepared a request for laboratory examination and submitted the specimen to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. Eyam denied the charges and claimed that a man in front of him was frisked and the S/G recovered something wrapped in a newspaper. However, the man suddenly ran away so S/G pursued him. Unable to catch the man, S/G S/G returned and pointed at Eyam as the one one who carried the package.

ISSUE: Whether or not Eyam is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drug HELD: Yes, the failure to show that there is authority to carry or possess the illegal drug is sufficient to hold one liable for illegal possession. For illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. •

ISSUE: Whether or not the non-presentation of the forensic chemist is fatal HELD: No, the presentation of the forensic chemist is not an essential element in the conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. In the conviction, what is essential is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized item as it i t would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. •

PEOPLE v. ROBELO G.R. No. 184181 | 26 November N ovember 2012 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

DOCTRINE: The absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation as there is no textbook method of conducting the same. FACTS: An informant informed the police that a certain “kalbo” (petitioner) was selling shabu. The police officers organized a buy-bust operation to apprehend Joseph Robelo. The buy-bust operation was executed and Robelo was apprehended. Robelo was charged for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Dr ugs Act. Robelo interposed the defense that the alleged buy-bust operation is tainted with infirmity due to the absence of a prior surveillance or investigation. •

• •

91

Criminal Law


ISSUE: Whether or not prior surveillance or investigation is necessary for a buy-bust operation to be valid? HELD: No, as long as the constitutional rights of the suspected drug dealer are not violated, the regularity of the operation will always be upheld. Buy-bust operations has been proven to be an effective e ffective mode of apprehending drug pusher. There is no prescribed method on how the th e operation is to be conducted. In this regard, police authorities are given wide latitude in employing their own ways of trapping or apprehending drug dealers in flagrante delicto. •

•

PEOPLE v. SERASPE G.R. No. 180919 | 9 January 2013 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

s elling of drugs which are: (1) the identity of the buyer b uyer DOCTRINE: The two essential elements of illegal selling and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the t he delivery of the thing sold and the payment pa yment for it. FACTS: •

•

•

•

•

Police chief inspector Dandan received a call from a confidential informant who told him about the drug trafficking activities of the appellants in Cainta, Las Pinas, Muntinlupa, Taguig, and Paranaque. A police team was then formed to conduct an operation as a response to the tip they got. While undercover, they met with the civilian informant and proceeded to the house of one of t he accused, Espiritu. After the negotiations to buy 2 kilos of shabu worth P750,000, the undercover policemen left. Espiritu promised to call them once the shabu becomes available. Weeks later, the police got a call from Espiritu and the parties arranged a meeting in SM Bacoor. The meeting was only to acquire a sample from the accused. The sample acquire was tested positive for shabu. The two parties then agreed to meet in a food court in Las Pinas City for the delivery of the drugs. Five days later, on the days of the meeting, the buy-bust team secured the venue and prepared the marked bills. Espiritu arrived with one of the other accused, Simpresueta M. Seraspe. After making sure that the undercover police brought the money, Espiritu ordered Seraspe to get the drugs. Thirty minutes later, Seraspe came back with her mother who was carrying a bag filled with shabu. After examining the contents, the team arrested Espiritu, Seraspe and her mother. They also recovered the marked bills. The accused however, contended that they were induced by the authorities to sell the dangerous drugs.

ISSUE: Whether or not Seraspe is guilty of violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act?

HELD: Yes, the elements of illegal drugs were sufficiently proven. The two essential elements of illegal selling of drugs which are: (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 for it. •

PEOPLE v. FERNANDEZ G.R. No. 188841 | 6 March 2013 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

92

Criminal Law


DOCTRINE: When a case involves violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary. FACTS: ●

At about 10 p.m. of 21 July 2001, the police and intelligence forces of Camarines Sur implemented a search warrant at the residence of Jaime Fernandez. The police found inside Fernandez’ house Fernandez’ house four transparent plastic sachets of shabu, one tin can of marijuana leaves and cash amounting to P3,840.

●

After seizing the items, an inventory was conducted in the presence of the Barangay Chairman and Kagawad. pictures of the items were also taken and marked. mark ed. The items were brought to the Crime Laboratory where they were received. After chemical examination, they yielded positive results for the presence of marijuana and shabu.

●

On the basis thereof, a criminal case against the Fernandez and his son was file for illegal possession.

●

Fernandez and his son denied the charge of illegal possession and alleged that they were framedup

ISSUE: Whether or not prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? HELD: Yes, The integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the t he evidence has been tampered with. The integrity of the evidence is established when the chain of custody is proven from the time the items were confiscated, eventually marked and until the t ime it is presented during the trial. •

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR G.R. No. 190621 | 10 February 2014 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: The failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized will not render the evidence inadmissible. FACTS: •

•

•

PO2 Soriano received an information from a confidential informant that a certain alias Bumski was engaged in the illicit sale of dangerous drugs. They conducted a surveillance operation on alias Bumski, who turned out to be Glenn Salvador. A police team was then formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. A poseur buyer was introduced to Bumski as a drug dependent who wanted to purchase shabu. Accused Parcon later arrived and asked Salvador for shabu. Salvador gave her a small heat-sealed plastic sachet that she placed. The poseur buyer then handed to appellant the buy-bust money and the latter gave him a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Soriano then immediately arrested appellant and recovered from his right hand pocket the buy bust money. PO1 Pineda arrested Parcon and recovered from her a plastic s achet also containing white crystalline substance. Salvador and Parcon were then taken to the Baler Police Station. The items recovered r ecovered during the buy-bust operation were marked and turned over to the designated investigator.

93

Criminal Law


Salvador denied the charge and claimed that he was only framed by the police and they even attempted to extort money from him. In addition, he claims that the police officers failed to make a physical inventory and take photographs of the items seized.

•

ISSUE: Whether or not Salvador is guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs HELD: Yes, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved, such is s ufficient to uphold a conviction. ●

The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photographed the objects confiscated does not ipso facto result in the unlawful arrest of the accused or render inadmissible in evidence the items seized.

●

In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and an d the payment therefor.

●

There are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, namely: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for examination; and, fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.

PEOPLE v. BIS G.R. No. 191360 | 10 March 2014 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. FACTS: ●

A civilian informant tipped the San Fernando City Police Station about the alleged drug pushing activity of Sherwin Bis at his residence. A team composed of Police Officers Espejo, Arce, and Casem went to the area to conduct a surveillance and confirmed that drug activities were indeed happening. Their superior who ordered them to conduct a buy-bust operation.

●

The team proceeded to the target area, Espejo approached appellant who was standing in front of his house. He told him, " Pards pakikuha ng isang bulto.". bulto .". Bis looked at Espejo and asked " where is your money?". money?". After Espejo handed the ₱1,000.00 marked money, the latter went inside the house. He later gave Espejo three plastic sachets placed in another plastic container. Espejo made the prearranged signal. At once, Espejo introduced himself together with Arce and Casem who already rushed to assist him, as members of the police. Forthwith, Bis was placed under arrest and apprised of his constitutional rights.

●

Bis was brought to the police station wherein a further search on him yielded aluminum foils and the marked money. Espejo marked the three plastic sachets he bought from appellant. The results of the laboratory examination yielded positive for the presence shabu.

●

Bis denied the charges and claimed that he was suddenly grabbed by Espejo and was taken to the police station. Further, he claims that the police did not observe the chain of custody.

ISSUE: Whether or not Bis is guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs

94

Criminal Law


HELD: Yes, the failure to comply with Section 21(a) of the IRR of RA 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity of the items seized/confiscated. •

PEOPLE v. APLAT G.R. No. 191727| 31 March 2014 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: The inventory and marking of the seized items need not be made onsite. FACTS: ●

SPO4 Sison received information from a civilian informant that his acquaintance named "Manuel" was looking for a prospective buyer of dried marijuana leaves. SPO4 Sison i nstructed the informant to get in touch with Manuel and accept the latter’s offer. latter’s offer. The informant shortly returned to tell SPO4 Sison that Manuel accepted the offer to buy.

●

A buy-bust team and the sale was completed. There was brucks of marijuana seized from Aplat and Danglay. After Aplat and Danglay were apprised of their violation and constitutional rights, the team brought them to the police station.

●

At the police station, the suspected marijuana bricks were marked. They likewise placed their signatures on the sando plastic bag. Aplat and Danglay were also identified at the police station and the suspected dried marijuana leaves inventoried and photographed in their presence as well as of the representatives from the DOJ, the media and an elected e lected barangay official. The bricks were brought to the Crime Laboratory and found the bricks positive for marijuana.

●

Aplat and Danglay denied the charges and claimed that there was no buy-bust operation, no money recovered and no bricks of marijuana seized from them.

ISSUE: Whether or not Aplat is guilt for the illegal sale of marijuana HELD: Yes, inventory and marking of the seized items can be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending authorities. The failure to mark the items seized is not fatal to the conviction of illegal sale of marijuana. Under Section 21(a) of the IRR of RA 9165, in cases of warrantless seizures, as in this case, inventory and marking of the seized item can be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending authorities, whichever is practicable, and not necessarily at the place of seizure. • •

PEOPLE v. MARCELO G.R. No. 181541| 18 August 2014 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: The presentation of the poseur-buyer is not an indispensable requirement. FACTS: ●

A certain Tarog informed P/Insp. Rabulan that appellant would arrive at his unit in Visitor’s Inn Visitor’s Inn to deliver and sell an unspecified quantity of shabu. Prior thereto, there were already reports that Marissa Marcelo and her husband are engaged in selling shabu. P/Insp. Rabulan thus ordered a surveillance of the area and formed a buy-bust team. 95

Criminal Law


●

Tarog was instructed to act as poseur-buyer and was given two 500-peso bills and five 100-peso bills as marked money. Inside the unit, they saw through a slightly open door that Marcelo is sitting on a couch with her back turned to the door as she was giving shabu to Tarog who was in turn handing to her the marked money. The police officers thus immediately entered the unit and took the shabu from Tarog and handed it to P/Insp. Rabulan, while the latter took the buy-bust money.

●

About an hour later, a certain Arbitria entered the room and saw Marcelo sitting on a couch with a sachet containing white crystalline substance beside her . PO2 Jimenez conducted a body search on Marcelo in the presence of Arbitria, but no prohibited drug was recovered. Subsequently, the team photographed appellant appellant with the shabu and money and thereafter brought her to the police station. The specimen confiscated tested positive for shabu.

●

Marcelo claimed that there was no buy-bust operation conducted against her and she is a victim of a frame-up.

ISSUE: Whether or not Marcelo is guilty of illegal sale of marijuana HELD: Yes, the testimony of the poseur-buyer is merely cumulative or corroborative when the information is directly known by the police officers as well. When the information is equally known to the police officers who gave the evidence for the prosecution the failure to present the poseur-buyer will not be fatal to the prosecution. When all took part in the planning and implementation of the buy-bust operation, and all were direct witnesses to the actual sale of the illegal drug, the arrest, and the recovery of the marked money, then the testimony of the poseur-buyer is no longer indispensable. •

•

PEOPLE v. BATURI G.R. No. 189812 | 1 September 2014 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: Failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule is not fatal. FACTS: •

•

•

•

A confidential informant reported to the PDEA the t he illegal drug activities of Reynaldo Baturi. An order for a surveillance to verify the information was conducted. Upon reaching the area, the confidential informant informant introduced PO3 Velasquez to appellant as a buyer of shabu. The two closed a deal regarding the sale of 10 "bultos" of shabu that would transpire the next day in Baturi ’s house. A team was immediately formed to conduct an entrapment operation. The sale was perfected and the items were seized. PO3 Velasquez examined the contents of t he carton and upon seeing that it contained plastic sachets with white crystalline granules, he made the signal. SPO1 Ferrer immediately showed up and recovered the buy-bust money from appellant, while PO3 Velasquez seized the carton containing the sachets of white crystalline granules. After informing appellant of his rights, the police officers arrested and took him to the PDEA office. A Certificate of Inventory was then prepared which was signed by two barangay officials and a media representative. Baturi was requested to sign the certificate of inventory which he refused. This whole process was photographed. Later, the white crystalline substance was found positive for shabu. Baturi denied selling shabu and claimed that he is a victim of a frame-up. Further, he claims that the shabu presented in trial is not the same as the one allegedly seized from him.

ISSUE: Whether or not Baturi is guilty of the illegal sale of marijuana

96

Criminal Law


i nventory and the formal request for examination of the t he confiscated substance is HELD: Yes, certificate of inventory not formally offered, the same may still be admitted against the adverse party. For it to be admitted it must, first, it has been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and, second, it has itself been incorporated in the records r ecords of the case. In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur: (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. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and probative value of the seized items. •

•

•

PEOPLE v. ARAZA G.R. No. 190623 | 17 November N ovember 2014 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: The failure to submit a pre-coordination report and physical inventory of the seized dangerous drugs is not fatal fa tal to the prosecution of illegal possession. DOCTRINE: It is not necessary to present all persons who came into contact with the seized drug to testify in court. FACTS: •

•

•

•

PO1 Talacca accompanied the Barangay Chairman, Barangay Tanods and several members of t he barangay council in confiscating a video karera machine inside the house of a certain Sacdo. While confiscating said machine, PO1 Talacca saw nine persons, including Araza, sniffing shabu or engaging in a pot session inside the house of Sacdo. He arrested and frisked them. Recovered from the pocket of Araza was a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which PO1 Talacca suspected to be shabu. PO1 Talacca immediately seized said sachet and brought Araza and his companions to the police station. He turned over the said sachet to the chief investigator who marked the same in his presence. An information for violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 or illegal possession of dangerous drugs was filed against Araza. Araza denied the charges and claimed that he was merely sleeping when he was suddenly frisked and his wallet was confiscated.

ISSUE: Whether or not the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs has been established. HELD: Yes, failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution under the law. What is essential is the preservation of the of the integrity and th e evidentiary value of the seized items. The elements of illegal possession are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. •

•

ISSUE: Whether or not the failure to present some of the officers who came into contact with the seized drug is fatal HELD: No, the non-presentation as witness of the evidence custodian and the officer on duty is not a crucial point against the prosecution.

97

Criminal Law

•


As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand.

PEOPLE v. GANDAWALI G.R. No. 193385 | 1 December 2014 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: Strict compliance with the requisites under R.A. No. 9165 is not necessary as long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug is properly preserved. FACTS: A buy-bust team was formed after a confidential informant informed the Baler Police Station that a possible drug deal would take place at San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City. During the sale, P02 Soriano gave the money to Gandawali, who in turn gave it to Pagalad. Pagalad then took the money and brought out a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from pocket and gave it to Gandawali, who then handed the sachet to P02 Soriano. They were arrested and brought to the police station. st ation. The sachets were marked by P02 Soriano together with the 500 peso bill used which was turned over to the desk officer for proper disposition. Thereafter, a r equest for laboratory examination was made and it was submitted for examination. The test result indicated that the specimen tested positive for shabu. It was admitted by a police officer that no physical inventory of the seized item was made and no photograph was taken as mandated by law. Gandawali and Pagalad denied the accusations against them th em and claimed that the police tried to extort P15,000 in exchange for their release. r elease. However, However, they were unable to produce it, hence their incarceration. They claimed that the elements of the offense o ffense were not proven and the police failed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seiz ed item. •

•

•

•

•

ISSUE: Whether or not the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs seized was duly proven HELD: Yes, prosecution proved crucial links in the chain of custody that showed that t he evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drugs were properly preserved. Under the implementing rules, the most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165 outlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs. As long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved, strict compliance of the requisites under Section 21 may be disregarded. •

•

PEOPLE v. BUTIAL G.R. No. No. 192785 | 4 February 2015 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: The initial link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the plastic sachets from appellant and their marking by the t he apprehending officer. FACTS:

98

Criminal Law

•

•


The Information filed against appellant Jomer Butial alleged that he willfully and criminally sold, delivered and gave away to a poseur buyer shabu contained into 2 transparent plastic sachets weighing 0.1gm without necessary government authority. Butial argued for the first time in this appeal the illegality of his warrantless arrest. He also contends that the prosecution was unable to prove all the elements of the offense of illegal sale of drugs. Further, he points to the failure of the police officers to properly observe the procedure outlined in Section 21, RA 9165 and argues that the same constitutes c onstitutes a break in the chain of custody.

ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution failed to show that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti have been preserved HELD: Yes, the records reveal that the confiscated sachets subject of the illegal sale of shabu were not marked. In a successful prosecution for the illegal sale of drugs, the “shabu”, “shabu”, which which constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, must definitely be shown to have been preserved. It is through the chain of custody that ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. The initial link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the plastic sachets from appellant and their marking by the apprehending officer. Failure to make the initial marking is fatal to the prosecution of a case under RA 9165 •

•

PEOPLE v. NEPOMUCENO G.R. No. 194999 | 9 February 2015 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: The lack of the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs as mandated by law is not fatal and does not affect the integrity of the evidence seized FACTS: •

•

The prosecution claims that they formed a buy-bust team to entrap the appellant after receiving a report from a confidential informant that the appellant was selling shabu. Their operation was a success they were able entrap the th e appellant. In her defense, Gloria Nepomuceno denied selling shabu. She claims that while she was standing in front of her house, a group of men in civilian clothes arrested her. She claims that asked her to empty her pockets and asked of the whereabouts of a certain Johnny who allegedly supplied illegal drugs in the area.

ISSUE: Whether she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt? HELD: Yes, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses, especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the th e contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant’s self -serving and uncorroborated denial. In addition, the crucial factor in drugs cases is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. There was no irregularity shown to have attended the chain of custody of the shabu seized. s eized. •

•

PEOPLE v. BASILIO 99

Criminal Law


G.R. No. 195774| 23 February 2015 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: Marking of the seized item in the police station is not fatal to the prosecution of the case FACTS: Pursuant to an information received, PSI Olonan organized a team to conduct a “buy -bust” operation against a certain "Kagi" who was said to be active in the illegal sale of drugs. The buy-bust buy-bust operation resulted to the arrest of “Kagi, who was l ater identified as Larry Basilio. The qualitative examination of the specimen seized from appellant, which weighed 0.083 gram, tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Basilio denied the accusation against him and averred that he was on his way home when 5 policemen suddenly accosted him; he surmised that the arrest was due to his failure to give information about alias "Peter” whom the policemen were looking for. •

•

•

ISSUE: Whether or not Basilio is guilty of the offense of illegal sale of shabu HELD: Yes, while R.A. No. 9165 provides for the immediate marking of the seized item, it does not specify a time frame when and where said marking should be done. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. •

ISSUE: Whether the failure to conduct an inventory of the seized item and to photograph is fatal

item’s evidentiary HELD: No, non-compliance with Section 21, Article of RA 9165 did not affect the seized item’s evidentiary weight and admissibility in evidence. ●

What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.

PEOPLE v. PERONDO G.R. No. 193855 |18 February 2015 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: The presentation of the poseur-buyer is not indispensable for the successful prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of shabu FACTS: •

•

Virgilio Perondo was arrested by virtue of a buy-bust operation. The qualitative examination conducted on the contents of the plastic sachet handed by appellant revealed to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Thus, an information for violation of Sec 5, Art II of Republic Act No. 9165 was filed.

•

ISSUE: Whether or not Perondo is guilty of violating Section 5 of R.A. 9165 HELD: Yes, the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is not fatal to the prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of shabu. The relevant information the poseur-buyer may have may also equally known to the police officers who testified for the prosecution. This is considering that all participated in the planning and •

100

Criminal Law


implementation of the buy-bust operation and where all directly witnessed the actual sale of the shabu.

PEOPLE v. REYES G.R. No. 194606 | 18 February 2015 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: The crime of illegal delivery of a dangerous drug can be committed even without consideration or payment. FACTS: ●

Upon a tip of a confidential informant that Alfredo Reyes was selling and delivering of shabu.

●

Sr. Insp. Lizardo formed a buy-bust team with SPO1 S PO1 Acosta as poseur-buyer which led to the arrest of the Alfredo Reyes. P/Insp. Laya conducted a qualitative examination on the contents of the plastic sachets and confirmed the same to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

●

An Information charging appellant with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 was filed against Reyes.

●

Reyes denied the charges and claimed that he was just framed. Further, he claims that the police did not observe the chain of custody.

ISSUE: Whether or not Reyes is guilty of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs HELD: Yes, the non-presentation of marked money is immaterial The crime of illegal delivery of a dangerous drug, there must be evidence that: (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) Such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration. •

PEOPLE v. DIAZ G.R. No. 197818 | 25 February 2015 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

prosecution’s failure DOCTRINE: An accused may still be found guilty of violation of RA 9165, despite the prosecution’s failure to abide with the procedure set in Sec. 21 of the same law, if it is shown that the chain of custody remains unbroken. FACTS: •

•

•

Following a report of a confidential informant Allan Diaz' illegal drug trade activities in Kahilum I, Pandacan, Manila, a briefing was held where a buy-bust team was organized. After the consummation of the sale, Diaz was subsequently arrested. He was charged with illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 Diaz claimed that he was walking home when he was suddenly arrested. In addition, he claims that the the police officers failed to make proper marking, inventory, and taking of photograph of the seized specimen.

ISSUE: Whether or not Diaz is guilty of illegal sale of shabu?

101

Criminal Law


HELD: Yes. It is settled that an accused may still be found guilty, despite the failure to faithfully observe the requirements provided under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken. In addition, objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. •

TIONCO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 192284 | 11 March 2015 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: The failure of the arresting officers to strictly comply with RA 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible when the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are sufficiently established. FACTS: ●

PO1 Sta. Maria and PO1 Reyes were conducting an anti-criminality patrol when they saw Alex Tionco holding and examining a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance believed to be shabu. They approached him and after ascertaining the contents of the plastic sachet, confiscated the same.

●

Tionco was arrested and an information for violation of RA 9165 was filed against him.

●

Tionco denied the charges against him and claimed he was suddenly arrested by the policemen. Further, he questions the non-compliance on the procedural requirements as provided under RA 9165.

dangerous drugs ISSUE: Whether or not Tionco is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous HELD: Yes, the lack of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items are not fatal in establishing the chain of custody. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. •

PEOPLE v. CUNANAN G.R. No. 198024 | 16 March 2015 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: Strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item has been preserved DOCTRINE: It is not impossible to sell illegal and dangerous drugs in public FACTS: •

•

Rafael Cunanan alias “Paeng Putol” was charged with the th e illegal sale of shabu. He was arrested after a confidential informant informed the EPD-District Intelligence Investigation Division of Pasig that a certain “Paeng Putol” was engaged in selling illegal drugs. A buy-bust team was formed to entrap Cunanan and P01 Gunda was the poseur-buyer who was introduced by the informant to Cunana as a drug addict looking to buy shabu. P01 bought shabu worth P200. He was then arrested and the two 100-peso bills used as buy-bust money was recovered from him.

102

Criminal Law

•

•

•


P01 Gunda stapled the marked money on a bond paper and labels it and marked the sachet. The seized items were brought to EPD Headquarters for further furt her investigation. Later, it was inventoried and photographed. The specimens were submitted for laboratory examination which tested positive for shabu. Accused Cunanan denied the charge and interposed the defense of frame-up and extortion. He alleged that he was just watching a bingo game when he was suddenly approached by three men who allegedly has a warrant for his arrest. The police allegedly asked for P50,000 as a settlement but he failed to gave the said amount. Cunanan claims that the police officers failed to comply with the chain of custody rule for failure to present in court the inventory and photographs taken. In addition, he claims that it was inconceivable that he would openly sell an illegal drug in a place where there are many people.

ISSUE: Whether or not the corpus delicti was not proven due to the police officer’s non-compliance HELD: No, non-compliance with the requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and the Implementing Rules and Regulations will not necessarily render the item seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible. The primordial concern is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. •

ISSUE: Whether or not it is inconceivable for one to sell dangerous drugs in public HELD: No, the Court has recognized that drug pushers now sell their prohibited drugs to any prospective customer. Drug pushers sell to a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, and even in daytime. •

PEOPLE v. HAVANA G.R. No. 198450 | 11 January 2016 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

c hain of custody, is fatal to the prosecution of the DOCTRINE: The failure to present the other links of the chain crime DOCTRINE: Coordination with PDEA is not an indispensable requirement in carrying out a buy-bust operation DOCTRINE: The presentation of the informant is not an indispensable requirement in the prosecution of the crime FACTS: •

•

•

•

A civil informant went to the police to report that the Fernando Havana was actively engaged in selling drugs. The informant was designated as a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation. They went to the house of the Havana where the informant allegedly bought drugs. When the appellant received the money, he was taken into custody. Havana denied the incident claiming that during the incident he was merely eating bread when the police took him in. He claims that it was his neighbor who was selling drugs. His testimony was corroborated by his daughter. He also argued that the belated submission of the pre-operation report to the PDEA after the buy-bust operation violates RA 9165.

ISSUE: Whether or not the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt?

103

Criminal Law


HELD: No, there was a failure to present the police officers who received the drugs in court. The Chain of Custody rule requires that for every exhibit to be admitted, the prosecution must present evidence that would support a finding that the matter m atter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. Statutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and related items are designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence to be presented against the accused. Their observance is the key to the successful prosecution of illegal possession or illegal sale of dangerous drugs. •

•

•

ISSUE: Whether or not the belated submission of the pre-operation report to the PDEA after the buy-bust operation violates RA 9165? HELD: No, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. The absence of coordination with the PDEA will not invalidate a buy-bust operation. •

ISSUE: Whether or not the presentation of an informant is necessary to successfully prosecute drug cases? HELD: No, the presentation of the informant is not indispensable to the success in prosecuting drugrelated cases. Informers are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. Unless their testimony is absolutely essential to the conviction of the accused, their testimony may be dispensed with since their narrations would be merely corroborative to the testimonies of the buy-bust team. •

PEOPLE v. ISMAEL G.R. No. 208093 | 20 February 2017 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: The failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt. FACTS: A confidential informant reported to SPO4 Araneta, that a certain Salim Ismael was engaged in selling shabu. A buy-bust team was formed where SPO1 Santiago was the poseur-buyer. Upon arrival at the scene of alleged illegal sale, he informant pointed to a man as appellant Ismael Salim, the target of the operation. SPO1 Santiago then walked towards appellant and told the latter that he wantedto buy shabu; shabu ; to this appellant replied “how much?” SPO1 Santiago answered that he wanted to buy P100.00 worth of the shabu, and gave appellant the P100.00 marked money; Ismael took from his left pocket one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance which he handed handed over to SPO1 Santiago. The police officers rushed in and arrested appellant upon seeing the exchange. Ismael was brought to the police station, and handed over the seized items Ismael denied selling shabu and questioned the non-complaince with the procedure of marking the seized drugs •

•

•

•

ISSUE: Whether or not Ismael is guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs? HELD: No, failure to mark the seized drugs is fatal as it is break to the chain of custody. 104

Criminal Law

•

•

•

•

•


In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug seized. It is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. The prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must b e established: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs ; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and an d (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that necessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

PEOPLE VS. GAYOSO G.R. No. 206590 | 27 March 2017 Comprehensive Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act DOCTRINE: To establish the offense of illegal possession or sale of dangerous drugs, the elements of the crime must be established coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. The chain of custody and the integrity of the seized item must be preserved. FACTS: ●

PNP Guiuan Police Station conducted a surveillance on Myrna Gayoso after receiving reports she was peddling prohibited drugs. After confirming that she is selling drugs, the police officers conducted a “confirmatory test“confirmatory test-buy.” buy.” The The sale was consummated and Gayoso took the marked money.

●

Thereafter, the other officers served the search warrant to Gayoso. They found sachets of shabu and several drug paraphernalia. Information for the illegal sale of a dangerous drug a nd for illegal possession of a dangerous drug was filed against her.

●

Gayoso denied the charges against her. She averred that the search warrant was presented to her only after the search and that the police officers fabricated the charges against her.

ISSUE: Whether the guilt of the accused is established or not? HELD: No, the failure to mark the items seized and to establish the other links of the chain fails to establish the corpus delicti of the crime. In the prosecution for illegal sale and possession of prohibited drugs, there must be proof that these offenses were committed, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. The chain of custody must be duly established, and the integrity of the seized drugs must be preserved. •

•

PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN G. R. No. 174504 | 21 March 2011 P.D. No. 1445 or The Government Auditing Code

105

Criminal Law


DOCTRINE: The mere failure to timely liquidate the cash advances is punishable under P.D. 1445, actual damage to the Government is not necessary FACTS: Manuel Barcenas, then vice mayor of Toledo, was charged with a violation of Section 89 of P.D. 1445 for failure to liquidate the cash advances made to him by the City Government of Toledo. The prosecution presented its lone witness, an auditor from CoA, and filed its formal offer of evidence and thereafter rested its case. Barcenas filed a Motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, which the Sandiganbayan granted. So private respondent filed a demurrer to evidence which was also granted. •

•

•

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in granting the demurrer for failure of the prosecution to prove that damage was suffered by the Government> HELD: No, actual damage to the government arising from the non-liquidation of the cash advance is not an essential element of the offense punished under the t he second sentence of Section 89 of P.D. No. 1445 as implemented by COA Circular No. 90-331. • The mere failure to timely liquidate the cash advance is the gravamen of the offense. • Verily, the law seeks to compel the accountable officer, by penal provision, to promptly render an account of the funds which he has received by reason of his office.

VILLARIN v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 175289 | 31 Aug 2011 P.D. 705 or The Forestry Reform Code DOCTRINE: Failure to present the confiscated timber in court was not fatal for conviction of P.D. 705.. Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the body or substance of the crime, it does not refer to the seized timber. FACTS: ●

The prosecution witness Granada testified that he noticed a utility jeep loaded with timber stop near his house, and identified Aniano Latayada as the driver and Boyatac as one of his companions. He further testified that these men unloaded the timber near Batinay Bridge. Upon further investigation, it was learned that Crisostomo Villarin, a Brgy. Captain requisitioned the timber.

●

According to the Petitioners, Villarin ordered the timber because he was pressured to repair the Batinay Bridge which had become impassable.

●

The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged. It I t further ruled that while the timber was intended for the repair of the bridge, it is still a face that the products were obtained without the necessary authority and legal documents required under the forest laws and regulations. This was affirmed by the CA.

●

Villarin and Latayada argue that their convictions were improper because the corpus delicti had not been established.

ISSUE: Whether the Petitioners are guilty of violating Sec. 68 of PD 705? HELD: Yes, under Sec. 68 of PD 705, mere possession of forest products without the legal documents required is considered a consummation of the offense. Further, that there was no intent for personal gain is inconsequential as the offense is malum prohibitum. Failure to present the confiscated timber in court was not fatal to the cause of the •

106

Criminal Law


prosecution. Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the c rime charged or to the body or substance of the crime. It does not refer to the seized timber.

107

Criminal Law Justice Del Castillo Digests

Recommend Documents