1

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 125906. January 16, 1998] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. J !NITO !" INO, accused-appellant #E$ISION P NO, J.% Accused Juanito Aquino was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan Cit with !urder for allegedl "illing #ri$iti%o &a'atin on !arch (() *++*, The Infor$ation dated !a *-) *++* states. /That on or about the ((nd da of !arch) *++*) in the !unici0alit of &lanera) #ro%ince of Nue%a Eci1a) Re0ublic of the #hili00ines) and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the abo%e3na$ed accused) ar$ed with an ar$alite rifle) with intent to "ill) ta"ing ad%antage of the dar"ness of the night and with e%ident 0re$editation and treacher ) did then and there) wilfull ) unlawfull ) cri$inall and feloniousl shoot to death one #RI!ITIVO &A4ATIN) JR,) with an ar$alite) thereb hitting hi$ on the different 0arts of his bod which caused his instantaneous death, CONTRAR5 TO &A6,7*8 The accused 0leaded not guilt u0on arraign$ent on Dece$ber *() *++*,7(8 2ence) trial ensued, The 0rosecution showed that at around ten ocloc" in the e%ening of !arch (() *++*) #ri$iti%o &a'atin was alread in bed when he heard so$ebod "noc"ing at the door, #ri$iti%o stood u0) turned on the light and o0ened the window to see the %isitor, A $an standing outside the window fired successi%e shots on #ri$iti%o, #ri$iti%o was hit on the throat) chest and finger, 2e fell on the floor, The assailant then switched on his flashlight and focused it on the %icti$ to see if he was dead, The assailant thereafter left the 0re$ises, #ri$iti%o died on the s0ot,798 :lorida &a'atin) #ri$iti%os wife) identified the assailant as Juanito Aquino) the co$$on3law husband of her sister) Nenita Aquino, She testified that she was beside #ri$iti%o when he was shot and she saw the accused fire at her husband, The s0ot where the assailant stood was illu$inated b a trouble light and b light co$ing fro$ the neighbors house, She recogni'ed hi$ through his e es) nose) the sha0e of his face) and through his 0h sical built and gait,7;8 Do$inador Rosete) a neighbor of the &a'atins) also testified that he saw the accused holding a gun inside the 0re$ises of the &a'atin residence i$$ediatel after the shooting,7<8 The accused) howe%er) denied the charge, 2e testified that on !arch (() *++*) he was at I$elda Valle Ca$0 in #ala an Cit ) Nue%a Eci1a) $ore than thirt =9>? "ilo$eters fro$ the scene of the cri$e in San :eli0e) &lanera) Nue%a Eci1a, 2e was then wor"ing as an infor$er of the -+ th Infantr @atallion headed b Col, Juanito Siba an, 7A8 2is testi$on was corroborated b his co$$on3law wife) Nenita Aquino,7-8 The trial court con%icted the accused for $urder and i$0osed on hi$ an indeter$inate 0enalt of ten =*>? ears and one =*? da of prision mayor as $ini$u$ to eighteen =*B? ears and eight =B? $onths and one =*? da of reclusion temporal as $aCi$u$, It also ordered hi$ to 0a the heirs of the %icti$ #<>)>>>,>> as inde$nit ) #(>)>>>,>> as funeral and burial eC0enses and #*>)>>>,>> as $oral da$ages, Accused a00ealed to the Court of A00eals) contending that. *? the trial court erred in gi%ing 0robati%e %alue to the testi$onies of the 0rosecution witnesses des0ite the fact that the had not 0ositi%el identified accused Juanito Aquino as the assailantD and (? the trial court erred in finding the accused guilt be ond reasonable doubt of the cri$e of $urder,7B8 The Court of A00eals affir$ed the 1udg$ent of con%iction but found the 0enalt i$0osed b the trial court to be erroneous, It held. In su$) we find no re%ersible error in the trial courts conclusion that the offense co$$itted b the accused is !urder qualified b treacher as the attac" was sudden and the %icti$ was attac"ed while he was defenseless and at nighti$e =sic?, 6e are of the o0inion) howe%er) that the 0enalt i$0osed is not in accordance with law and 1uris0rudence, The 0enalt for $urder under Article (;B of the Re%ised #enal Code is reclusion temporal in its $aCi$u$ 0eriod to death, As the co$$ission of the cri$e was not attended b an $itigating or aggra%ating circu$stance) the a00licable sentence is the $ediu$ 0eriod of the 0enalt 0rescribed) which is reclusion perpetua, #eculiar in this 0articular instance is the fact that at the ti$e the offense was co$$itted) the Constitutional 0rohibition to =sic? the i$0osition of the death 0enalt was still in force, This should not be ta"en to $ean) howe%er) that the death 0enalt had then been abolished, The Constitution did not change the 0eriods of the 0enalt 0rescribed b Article (;B eCce0t onl that it 0rohibited the

2
i$0osition of the death 0enalt and reduced it to reclusion perpetua, The range of the $ediu$ and $ini$u$ 0enalt re$ained unchanged, C C C7+8 The Court of A00eals thus $odified the decision of the trial court and changed the 0enalt to reclusion perpetua) in accordance with Article (;B of the Re%ised #enal Code,7*>8 The Court of A00eals ele%ated the instant case to this Court 0ursuant to the second 0aragra0h of Section *9 of Rule *(; of the Re%ised Rules of Court which states. 6hene%er the Court of A00eals should be of the o0inion that the 0enalt of reclusion perpetua or higher should be i$0osed in a case) the Court after discussion of the e%idence and the law in%ol%ed) shall render 1udg$ent i$0osing the 0enalt of reclusion perpetua or higher as the circu$stances warrant) refrain fro$ entering 1udg$ent and forthwith certif the case and ele%ate the entire record thereof to the Su0re$e Court for re%iew, 6e acce0ted the case on Dece$ber ;) *++A,7**8 There are three issues in this case. *, 6hether the guilt of the accused has been 0ro%ed be ond reasonable doubtD (, 6hether the cri$e co$$itted was $urder or ho$icideD and 9, 6hether the 0enalt i$0osed b the trial court is correct, 6e resol%e the first issue in the affir$ati%e, :actual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight and res0ect) unless 0atent inconsistencies are ignored or where the conclusions reached are clearl unsu00orted b e%idence,7*(8 In the instant case) the conclusion reached b the lower courts as regards the guilt of accused3a00ellant is well3su00orted b testi$onies of witnesses who 0ositi%el identified hi$ as the assailant, 6itness :lorida &a'atin who was beside #ri$iti%o &a'atin when the latter was shot saw the accused3a00ellant fire at the %icti$, :lorida identified accused3a00ellant through his facial features and 0h sical built, She easil identified the accused3a00ellant because he is the co$$on3law husband of her sister and she had "nown hi$ for at least se%en =-? ears, :urther$ore) the site where the assailant stood was sufficientl illu$inated, :loridas testi$on was corroborated b witness Do$inador Rosete) a neighbor of the &a'atins, Do$inadors house is onl four =;? $eters awa fro$ the &a'atin residence, On the night of the $urder) he heard successi%e gun re0orts co$ing fro$ the direction of &a'atins house, 2e loo"ed out the window and saw accused3a00ellant holding a gun in front of &a'atins house, These circu$stances sufficientl 0ro%e the guilt of accused3a00ellant, Accused3a00ellants defense of alibi cru$bles in the face of the 0ositi%e identification $ade b these witnesses, Alibi is inherentl a wea" defense because it can be easil fabricated, Thus) it cannot 0re%ail o%er the 0ositi%e identification of the accused b witnesses, 7*98 :or alibi to 0ros0er) the accused $ust show that he was at such 0lace for such 0eriod of ti$e that it was 0h sicall i$0ossible for hi$ to be at the 0lace where the cri$e was co$$itted at the ti$e of its co$$ission, 7*;8 Accused3a00ellant clai$ed that he was in I$elda Valle Ca$0 in #ala an Cit ) Nue%a Eci1a at the ti$e of the co$$ission of the cri$e, I$elda Valle Ca$0) howe%er) is onl thirt "ilo$eters awa fro$ San :eli0e) &lanera and one can tra%el to and fro$ these 0oints b land, 2ence) it is not a re$ote 0ossibilit for accused3a00ellant to go to San :eli0e) &lanera on the e%ening of !arch (() *++* to carr out his e%il deed, Accused3a00ellant contends that the lower courts erred in gi%ing credence to the testi$onies of 0rosecution witnesses, 6e) howe%er) find no cogent reason to disturb the trial courts ruling as regards their credibilit ) as well as the %eracit of their testi$onies, After thoroughl eCa$ining the records) we find their testi$onies to be clear and credible) and the $inor inconsistencies in their testi$onies do not destro ) but e%en bolster their credibilit , As a rule) this Court res0ects the findings of the trial court on the issue of credibilit of witnesses) considering that it is in a better 0osition to decide the question) ha%ing heard the witnesses the$sel%es and obser%e their de0ort$ent and $anner of testif ing during the trial,7*<8 On the second issue) we hold that the cri$e co$$itted was $urder and not ho$icide since the "illing was qualified b treacher , Treacher is 0resent when the offender e$0lo s $eans) $ethods or for$s which tend to insure the eCecution of the cri$e without ris" to hi$self arising fro$ the defense which the offended 0art $ight $a"e, There is treacher when the attac" is sudden and uneC0ected) rendering the %icti$ unable to defend hi$self, 7*A8 The $anner b which #ri$iti%o &a'atin was "illed clearl shows the 0resence of treacher , :irst) the assailant "noc"ed on the door) as if to call the attention of the 0eo0le inside the house, 6hen #ri$iti%o loo"ed out the window) the assailant who was then standing outside the house suddenl fired successi%e shots at hi$, The assailant then focused his flashlight on the fallen %icti$ to insure that he was dead, Accused3a00ellants contention) therefore) that the cri$e co$$itted is onl ho$icide is untenable, Regarding the third issue) we agree with the Court of A00eals that the 0ro0er 0enalt to be i$0osed on accused3a00ellant should be reclusion perpetua, At the ti$e the cri$e was co$$itted) the i$0osable 0enalt for $urder was reclusion temporal in its $aCi$u$ 0eriod to death,7*-8 Since there was neither aggra%ating nor $itigating circu$stance attending co$$ission of the cri$e) the 0enalt should be i$0osed in its $ediu$ 0eriod)7*B8 that is) reclusion perpetua,7*+8 Accused3a00ellant cannot a%ail of the benefits of the Indeter$inate Sentence &aw because Indeter$inate Sentence &aw does not a00l to 0ersons con%icted of offenses 0unishable with reclusion perpetua, 7(>8

3
IN &IE' 'HEREOF) the Court finds accused3a00ellant EFI&T5 of !FRDER and sentences hi$ to reclusion 0er0etua, Accused3a00ellant is li"ewise ordered to 0a the heirs of the %icti$ #<>)>>>,>> as inde$nit ) #(>)>>>,>> as actual da$ages and #*>)>>>,>> as $oral da$ages, No costs, SO OR#ERE#. Regalado (Chairman), Mendoza and Martinez, JJ., concur,
7*8 7(8

Original Records) 0, *, Original Records) 0, (B, 798 TSN) A0ril B) *++() 00, ;3*>D TSN) !a *+) *++() 00, ;3-, 7;8 TSN) A0ril B) *++() 00, <3AD TSN) !a *+) *++() 00, A3-, 7<8 TSN) Januar *<) *++() 00, <3B, 7A8 TSN) October (() *++() 00, A3-, 7-8 TSN) Jul (+) *++() 00, -3B, 7B8 A00ellants @rief) 0, *D CA Rollo) 0, 9+, 7+8 CA Decision) 0, +D CA Rollo) 0, *(*,
7*>8

The dis0ositi%e 0ortion of the Decision of the Court of A00eals reads. 62ERE:ORE) the decision of the lower court is hereb !ODI:IED in the sense that instead of the indeter$inate 0enalt of Ten =*>? 5ears and One =*? Da of #rision !a or as $ini$u$) to Eighteen =*B? 5ears and Eight =B? !onths and One =*? Da of Reclusion Te$0oral) as $aCi$u$ the 0enalt i$0osed u0on the accused3a00ellant should be Reclusion #er0etua ) otherwise) the rest of the decision sub1ect of this a00eal is A::IR!ED, 2owe%er) since the 0enalt of Reclusion #er0etua $a be i$0osed onl b the Su0re$e Court) the case is hereb CERTI:IED) and the entire record E&EVATED to the Su0re$e Court, SO ORDERED,*> =CA Decision) 0, **D CA Rollo) 0, *(9? 7**8 Rollo) 0, (, 7*(8 #eo0le v, 2erbias) E,R, Nos, **(-*A3*-) Dece$ber *A) *++AD #eo0le v, Earcia) E,R, No, **(+B;) No%e$ber *;) *++A, 7*98 #eo0le v. Ob'unar) E,R, No, +(*<9) Dece$ber *A) *++AD #eo0le v, #ere') E,R, No, **>*>>3>() Dece$ber **) *++A, 7*;8 #eo0le v. &a no) E,R, No, **>B9) No%e$ber (*) *++A, 7*<8 #eo0le v. Estanislao) E,R, No, **B>-+) Dece$ber (;) *++A, 7*A8 #eo0le v, Isleta) E,R, No, **;+-*) No%e$ber *+) *++A, 7*-8 This has been a$ended b R,A, No -A<+ which too" effect on Dece$ber 9*) *++9, The 0enalt for !urder is now reclusion 0er0etua to death, 7*B8 Article A; of the Re%ised #enal Code, 7*+8 See #eo0le v. !uno') *-> SCRA *>- =*+B+?, 7(>8 Serrano v, Court of A00eals) (;- SCRA (>9 =*++<?D #eo0le v. @ahu an) (9B SCRA 99>D #eo0le v, Asturias) *9; SCRA ;>< =*+B<?,

E,R, No, ;B+9B) #eo0le %, Corral) -; #hil, 9<Re0ublic of the #hili00ines S PRE(E $O RT !anila EN @ANC Se0te$ber (-) *+;9 E,R, No, ;B+9B THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 0laintiff3a00ellee) %s, !(!#EO $ORR!L, defendant3a00ellant, Pedro C. Quitain for appellant. ffice of the !olicitor "eneral #e la Costa and !olicitor #e los $ngeles for appellee. O)!ET!, J.: A00ellant was 0rosecuted and con%icted in the Court of :irst Instance of Da%ao of a %iolation of article *<+ of the Re%ised #enal Code) which reads as follows. Art, *<+, G ther cases of evasion of service of sentence, G The 0enalt of prision correccional in its $ini$u$ 0eriod shall be i$0osed u0on the con%ict who) ha%ing been granted conditional 0ardon b the Chief ECecuti%e) shall %iolate an of the conditions of such 0ardon, 2owe%er) if the 0enalt re$itted b the granting of such 0ardon be higher than siC ears) the con%ict shall then suffer the uneC0ired 0ortion of his original sentence,

4
It a00ears that after ser%ing three ears) three $onths) and twent da s of a sentence of eight ears and one da of prision mayor 0lus a fine of #(<> for falsification of a 0ublic docu$ent) a00ellant) on Jul 9*) *+*9) was released fro$ @ilibid in %irtue of a conditional 0ardon eCtended to hi$ b Eo%ernor3Eeneral :orbes and dul acce0ted b hi$) the conditions being as follows. =*? /that he shall not reside in the cit of !anila nor in the 0ro%ince of Ri'al hereafter during the 0eriod of his sentence and =(? shall not again be guilt of an infraction of the law 0unishable b i$0rison$ent for one ear or $ore,/ @ecause of ha%ing %oted in the general elections of June <) *+9;) notwithstanding his legal disqualification on account of 0re%ious con%iction) a00ellant was 0rosecuted in cri$inal cases Nos, 9(A( and 9(A9 in the Court of :irst Instance of Da%ao for illegal %oting and 0er1ur in election $atter) res0ecti%el ) and was con%icted in both cases and sentenced in the first case to suffer siC $onthsH i$0rison$ent and to 0a a fine of #9>> and in the second case to suffer one ear of i$0rison$ent and to 0a a fine of #9>>, @oth sentences were affir$ed b this Court on Januar 9*) *+9A) in E, R, Nos, ;(9>>and ;(9**, The onl question for us to decide is whether a00ellant) in %iew of his subsequent con%iction for %iolation of the Election &aw as abo%e stated) %iolated that condition of his 0ardon that he /shall not again be guilt of an infraction of the law 0unishable b i$0rison$ent for one ear or $ore,/ A00ellantHs 0rinci0al contention is that said condition should be inter0reted as being li$ited to the duration of his sentence, The trail court) in a well30re0ared decision) anal 'ed the two conditions of the 0ardon and 0ointed out that while the first condition regarding the choice of residence was li$ited to the duration of the sentence against the 0risoner) no such li$itation was $ade as to the second condition regarding an future infraction of the law 0unishable b i$0rison$ent for one ear or $ore, Counsel for the a00ellant critici'es the trial courtHs inter0retation as /nothing $ore than a resort to 0edantic technicalit ,/ 2e argues that if the condition of the 0ardon in question is to be inter0reted to eCtend indefinitel be ond the 0eriod of the sentence) or) in other words) for the rest of a00ellantHs life) a00ellant will /fore%er be in a situation where the 0ro%erbial sword of Da$ocles will be 0er0etuall hanging o%er his head) constantl eC0osed to the danger of being sub1ected to two 0unish$ents) to wit. the 0unish$ent for the cri$e that he $ight unfortunatel co$$it) and the 0unish$ent for the %iolation of the condition of his 0ardon,/ /Fnder such circu$stances)/ he continues) / the 0ardon ceases to be a 0ardon, It beco$es an eternal conde$nation, The 0ardon is not a relief, It is a 0er0etual torture, The 0ardon is not correctional, It is inhu$an, And all these are inco$0atible with the funda$ental conce0t of 0ardon,/ 6e cannot acce0t counselHs %iew, 2is criticis$ of the trial courtHs inter0retation as being /nothing $ore than a resort to 0edantic technicalit / is unwarranted) ill3$easured) and unsee$l , 2is conce0t of a conditional 0ardon is $anifestl wrong, 2e considers it unreasonable and un1ust for a 0risoner) whose re$aining ter$ of i$0rison$ent is re$itted) to be sub1ected to the condition that he shall not again %iolate the law e%en after the eC0iration of the ti$e during which he would ha%e been confined were it not for the 0ardon, 6e thin" such condition is 0erfectl reasonable, Christ 2i$self in 2is di%ine $erc i$0osed it when 2e 0ardoned a sinner and said. /Eo and sin no $ore,/ 6e fail to see an in1ustice in it, In the first 0lace) if the in1unction against future %iolation of law were to be li$ited to the ti$e of the sentence against the 0risoner) societ would gain nothing b the re$ission of that sentenceD it could 0rotect itself better against his 0ossible recidi%is$ or rela0se into cri$inalit during that 0eriod of ti$e b not re$itting his sentence, In the second 0lace) a conditional 0ardon is ordinaril granted on the basis of the 0risonerHs good beha%ior in the 0enitentiar and on the assu$0tion that he has been sufficientl refor$ed and that if released he would beco$e law3abidingD and to fortif such assu$0tion it is dri%en ho$e to hi$ that a rela0se on his 0art would sub1ect hi$ to two 0unish$ents as indicated b counsel, Therefore) in his case the sword of Da$ocles is but a sword of Justice) 0ointing to hi$ the road that leads awa fro$ the 0enal institution towards the goal of ha00iness and freedo$, It would see$ to be an aberration to regard such constant ad$onition to be good as /an eternal conde$nation,/ In his second assign$ent of error a00ellant atte$0ts to bolster u0 his inter0retation of the condition of his 0ardon b in%o"ing his own testi$on to the effect that one Cl de @, El ) who read to hi$ the 0ardon in Corregidor) eC0lained to hi$ that during the 0eriod of his con%iction he should not co$$it an %iolation of the law or an cri$e 0unishable for $ore than one earD and that because of these eC0lanations he acce0ted the 0ardon, A00ellant e%en went to the eCtent of swearing that /had !r, El eC0lained to $e that the conditions i$0osed in the 0ardon would continue throughout $ life) I would not ha%e acce0ted the 0ardon and would ha%e 0referred to ser%e the rest of $ sentence in 0rison,/ In other words) a00ellant would ha%e the court belie%e that he would ha%e 0referred to sta for nearl fi%e $ore long ears in the 0enitentiar rather than be 0er0etuall en1oined fro$ co$$itting a cri$e, That is abnor$al) if not 0re0osterous, And et counsel for the a00ellant has the te$erit of urging us to belie%e and acce0t such testi$on in lieu of the ter$s of the 0ardon itself) and he e%en co$$ents thereon in the following language. /Rather than carr fore%er a burden of not co$$itting a cri$e 0unishable b one ear or $ore because he is a social being) the accused3a00ellant testified that he would ha%e ser%ed the full sentence instead,/ That is 0lainl another aberration, 6e are astounded b the incredible fact that a law er could in all sole$nit assert before this Court that it is a burden not to co$$it a cri$e, The onl error we find in the sentence of the trial court is the a00lication to the accused of the Indeter$inate Sentence &aw) thru o%ersight) no doubt) of section ( of said law) which sa s that it shall not a00l to those who ha%ing been granted conditional 0ardon shall ha%e %iolated the ter$s thereof, The 0enalt 0ro%ided b article *;<+ of the Re%ised #enal Code for the offense in question is 0rision correccional in its $ini$u$ 0eriod) the $ediu$ degree of which is one ear) one $onth) and ele%en da s to one ear) eight $onths) and twent da s, 6herefore) the 1udg$ent a00ealed fro$ is hereb $odified b sentencing the a00ellant to suffer on ear) one $onth) and ele%en da s of prision correccional and to 0a the costs, %ulo, C.J., Paras and &oco'o, JJ., concur. Moran, J., concurs in the result. Re0ublic of the #hili00ines S PRE(E $O RT !anila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L*285+, F-.ruary 22, 19,+ THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 0laintiff3a00ellee) %s, ELI!S J!R!NILL!, RI$!R#O S /O, FR!N$O 0RILL!NTES an1 HE(!N GORRI$ET!, a22u3-1. ELI!S J!R!NILL!, RI$!R#O S /O, an1 FR!N$O 0RILL!NTES, defendants3a00ellants, ffice of the !olicitor "eneral (eli) *. Ma+asiar, $ssistant !olicitor "eneral (elicisimo R. Rosete and !olicitor $ntonio M. Martinez for plaintiff,appellee. !i)to P. #imaisip for defendants,appellants.

!" INO, J.:p This is an a00eal of defendants Elias Jaranilla) Ricardo Su o and :ranco @rillantes fro$ the decision of the Court of :irst Instance of Iloilo) which con%icted the$ of robber with ho$icide) sentenced each of the$ to reclusion perpetua and ordered the$ to 0a solidaril the su$ of siC thousand 0esos to the heirs of Ra$onito Jabatan and the su$ of fi%e hundred 0esos to Valentin @a lon as the %alue of fighting coc"s =Cri$inal Case No, **>B(?, The e%idence for the 0rosecution shows that at around ele%en oHcloc" in the e%ening of Januar +) *+AA) Eorriceta) who had 1ust co$e fro$ :ort San #edro in Iloilo Cit ) was dri%ing a :ord 0ic"u0 truc" belonging to his sister) Re$ia E, Valencia, 6hile he was in front of the Eli'alde @uilding on J, !, @asa Street) he saw Ricardo Su o) Elias Jaranilla and :ranco @rillantes, The hailed Eorriceta who sto00ed the truc", Jaranilla requested to bring the$ to !andurriao) a district in another 0art of the cit , Eorriceta de$urred, 2e told Jaranilla that he =Eorriceta? was on his wa ho$e, Jaranilla 0re%ailed u0on Eorriceta to ta"e the$ to !andurriao because Jaranilla ostensibl had to get so$ething fro$ his uncleHs 0lace, So) Jaranilla) @rillantes and Su o boarded the 0ic"u0 truc" which Eorriceta dro%e to !andurriao, F0on reaching !andurriao) Eorriceta 0ar"ed the truc" at a distance of about fift to se%ent $eters fro$ the 0ro%incial hos0ital, Jaranilla) Su o and @rillantes alighted fro$ the %ehicle, Jaranilla instructed Eorriceta to wait for the$, The trio wal"ed in the direction of the 0la'a, After an inter%al of about ten to twent $inutes) the rea00eared, Each of the$ was carr ing two fighting coc"s, The ran to the truc", Jaranilla directed Eorriceta to start the truc" because the were being chased, Eorriceta dro%e the truc" to Jaro =another district of the cit ? on the sa$e route that the had ta"en in going to !andurriao, It is i$0ortant to note the 0ositions of Eorriceta and his three co$0anions on the front seat of the trac", Eorriceta the dri%er) was on the eCtre$e left, NeCt to hi$ on his right was Su o, NeCt to Su o was @rillantes, On the eCtre$e right was Jaranilla, 6hile the truc" was tra%ersing the detour road near the !andurriao air0ort) then under construction) Eorriceta saw in the $iddle of the road #atrol$en Ra$onito Jabatan and @en1a$in Castro running towards the$, Eorriceta slowed down the truc" after #atrol$an Jabatan had fired a warning shot and was signalling with his flashlight that the truc" should sto0, Eorriceta sto00ed the truc" near the 0olice$an, Jabatan a00roached the right side of the truc" near Jaranilla and ordered all the occu0ants of the truc" to go down, The did not heed the in1unction of the 0olice$an, @rillantes 0ulled his re%ol%er but did not fire it, Su o did nothing, Jaranilla) all of a sudden) shot #atrol$an Jabatan, The shooting frightened Eorriceta, 2e i$$ediatel started the $otor of the truc" and dro%e straight ho$e to &a #a') another district of the cit , Jaranilla "e0t on firing towards Jabatan, Jaranilla) Su o and @rillantes alighted in front of EorricetaHs house, Eorriceta 0ar"ed the truc" inside the garage, Jaranilla warned Eorriceta not to tell an bod about the incident, Eorriceta went u0 to his roo$, After a while) he heard 0olice$en shouting his na$e and as"ing hi$ to co$e down, Instead of doing so) he hid in the ceiling, It was onl at about eight oHcloc" in the $orning of the following da that he decided to co$e down, 2is uncle had counselled hi$ to surrender to the 0olice, The 0olice$en too" Eorriceta to their headquarters, 2e recounted the incident to a 0olice in%estigator,

6
Victorino Tres0eces) whose house was located o00osite the house of Valentin @a lon on Taft Street in !andurriao) testified that before $idnight of Januar +) *+AA) he conducted a friend in his car to the housing 0ro1ect in the %icinit of the 0ro%incial hos0ital at !andurriao, As he neared his residence) he saw three $en e$erging fro$ the canal on Taft Street in front of @a lonHs house, 2e noticed a red :ord 0ic"u0 truc" 0ar"ed about fift ards fro$ the 0lace where he saw the three $en, Shortl thereafter) he es0ied the three $en carr ing roosters, 2e i$$ediatel re0aired to the 0olice station at !andurriao, 2e re0orted to #atrol$en Jabatan and Castro what he had 1ust witnessed, The two 0olice$en requested hi$ to ta"e the$ in his car to the 0lace where he saw the three sus0icious3 loo"ing $en, F0on arri%al thereat) the $en and the truc" were not there an $ore, Tres0eces and the 0olice$en followed the truc" s0eeding towards Jaro, On reaching the detour road leading to the air0ort) the 0olice$en left the car and crossed the runwa which was a shortcut, Their ob1ecti%e was to interce0t the truc", Tres0eces turned his car around in order to return to !andurriao, At that $o$ent he heard gunshots, 2e sto00ed and again turned his car in the direction where shots had e$anated, A few $o$ents later) #atrol$an Castro ca$e into %iew, 2e was running, 2e as"ed Tres0eces for hel0 because Jabatan) his co$rade) was wounded, #atrol$an Castro and Tres0eces lifted Jabatan into the car and brought hi$ to the hos0ital, Tres0eces learned later that Jabatan was dead, Doctor Ra $undo &, Torres) the chief $edico3legal officer of the Iloilo Cit 0olice de0art$ent) conducted an auto0s on the re$ains of #atrol$an Jabatan, 2e found. =*? Contusion on left e ebrow, =(? @ullet wound one centi$eter in dia$eter) 0enetrating left anterior aCilla) directed diagonall downward to the right) 0erforating the left u00er lobe of the lungs through and through) bitting the left 0ul$onar arter and was reco%ered at the right thoracic ca%it D both thoracic ca%it was full of blood, Cause of death. Shoc") he$orrhage) secondar to bullet wound, Valentin @a lon) the owner of the fighting coc"s) returned ho$e at about siC oHcloc" in the $orning of Januar *>) *+AA, 2e disco%ered that the door of one of his coc" 0ens or chic"en coo0s =EChs, A and A3*? was bro"en, The feeding %essels were scattered on the ground, F0on in%estigation he found that siC of his fighting coc"s were $issing, Each coo0 contained siC coc"s, The coo0 was $ade of ba$boo and wood with ni0a roofing, Each coo0 had a door which was loc"ed b $eans of nails, The coo0s were located at the side of his house) about two $eters therefro$, @a lon re0orted the loss to the 0olice at !andurriao, At about ten oHcloc") a grou0 of detecti%es ca$e to his house together with the 0olice 0hotogra0her who too" 0ictures of the chic"en coo0s, The siC roosters were %alued at one hundred 0esos each, Two da s later) he was su$$oned to the 0olice station at !andurriao to identif a rooster which was reco%ered so$ewhere at the air0ort, 2e readil identified it as one of the siC roosters which was stolen fro$ his chic"en coo0 =ECh, @?, Eorriceta) Jaranilla) Su o and @rillantes were charged with ro'o con homicidio with the aggra%ating circu$stances of use of a $otor %ehicle) nocturnit ) band) conte$0t of or with insult to the 0ublic authorities and recidi%is$, The fiscal utili'ed Eorriceta as a state witness, 2ence) the case was dis$issed as to hi$, On :ebruar () *+A-) after the 0rosecution had rested its case and before the defense had co$$enced the 0resentation of its e%idence) Jaranilla esca0ed fro$ the 0ro%incial 1ail, The record does not show that he has been a00rehended, The 1udg$ent of con%iction was 0ro$ulgated as to defendants Su o and @rillantes on October *+) *+A- when it was read to the$ in court, The signed at the botto$ of the last 0age of the decision, -here .as no promulgation of the /udgment as to Jaranilla) who) as alread stated) esca0ed fro$ 1ail =See Sec, A) Rule *(>) Rules of Court?, 2owe%er) the notice of a00eal filed b defendantsH counsel de oficio erroneousl included Jaranilla, Inas$uch as the 1udg$ent has not been 0ro$ulgated as to Jaranilla) he could not have appealed, 2is a00eal through counsel cannot be entertained, Onl the a00eals of defendants Su o and @rillantes will be considered, In con%icting Su o) Jaranilla and @rillantes of ro'o con homicidio) the trial court assu$ed that the ta"ing of the siC fighting coc"s was robber and that #atrol$an Jabatan was "illed /b reason or on the occasion of the robber / within the 0ur%iew of article (+; of the Re%ised #enal Code, In this a00eal the a00ellants contend that the trial court erred in not finding that Eorriceta was the one who shot the 0olice$an and that Jaranilla was dri%ing the :ord truc" because Eorriceta was allegedl drun", Through their counsel de oficio) the further contend that

7
the ta"ing of roosters was theft and) alternati%el ) that) if it was robber ) the cri$e could not be robber with ho$icide because the robber was alread consu$$ated when Jabatan was "illed, After e%aluating the testi$onies of Eorriceta and @rillantes as to who was dri%ing the truc" and who shot 0olice$an) this Court finds that the trial court did not err in gi%ing credence to EorricetaHs declaration that he was dri%ing the truc" at the ti$e that Jaranilla shot Jabatan, The i$0robabilit of a00ellantsH theor is $anifest, The truc" belonged to EorricetaHs sister, 2e was res0onsible for its 0reser%ation, 2e had the obligation to return it to his sister in the sa$e condition when he borrowed it, 2e was dri%ing it when he saw @rillantes) Jaranilla and Su o and when he allegedl in%ited the$ for a paseo, There is no indubitable 0roof that Jaranilla "nows how to dri%e a truc", The theor of the defense $a be %iewed fro$ another angle, If) according to the a00ellants) Eorriceta as"ed Jaranilla to dri%e the truc" because he =Eorriceta? was drun" then that circu$stance would be inconsistent with their theor that Eorriceta shot Jabatan, @eing su00osedl intoCicated) Eorriceta would ha%e been do'ing when Jabatan signalled the dri%er to sto0 the truc" and he could not ha%e thought of "illing Jabatan in his inebriated state, 2e would not ha%e been able to shoot accuratel at Jabatan, @ut the fact is that the first shot hit Jabatan, So) the one who shot hi$ $ust ha%e been a sober 0erson li"e Jaranilla, !oreo%er) as Jaranilla and his two co$rades were interested in concealing the fighting coc"s) it was Jaranilla) not Eorriceta) who would ha%e the $oti%e for shooting Jabatan, Consequentl ) the theor that Eorriceta shot Jabatan and that Jaranilla was dri%ing the truc" a00ears to be 0lausible, 6as the ta"ing of the roosters robber or theftI There is no e%idence that in ta"ing the siC roosters fro$ their coo0 or cages in the ard of @a lonHs house %iolence against or inti$idation of 0ersons was e$0lo ed, 2ence) article (+; of the Re%ised #enal Code cannot be in%o"ed, Neither could such ta"ing fall under article (++ of the Re%ised #enal Code which 0enali'es robber in an inhabited house =casa ha'itada?) 0ublic building or edifice de%oted to worshi0, The coo0 was not inside @a lonHs house, Nor was it a de0endenc thereof within the $eaning of article 9>* of the Re%ised #enal Code, 2a%ing shown the ina00licabilit of Articles (+; and (++) the neCt inquir is whether the ta"ing of the siC roosters is co%ered b article 9>( of the Re%ised #enal Code which reads. ART, 9>(, Ro''ery in an uninha'ited place or in private 'uilding,GAn robber co$$itted in an uninhabited 0lace or in a building other than those $entioned in the first 0aragra0h of article (++) if the %alue of the 0ro0ert eCceeds (<> 0esos) shall be 0unished b prision correccional in its $ediu$ and $aCi$u$ 0eriods 0ro%ided that an of the following circu$stances is 0resent. *, If the entrance has been effected through an o0ening not intended for entrance or egress, (, If an wall) roof) floor or outside door or window has been bro"en, 9, If the entrance has been effected through the use of false "e s) 0ic"loc"s or other si$ilar tools, ;, If an door) wardrobe) chest) or an sealed or closed furniture or rece0tacle has been bro"en, <, If an closed or sealed rece0tacle) as $entioned in the 0receding 0aragra0h) has been re$o%ed) e%en if the sa$e be bro"en o0en elsewhere, CCC CCC CCC In this connection) it is rele%ant to note that there is an inaccurac in the English translation of article 9>(, The controlling S0anish original reads. ART, 9>(, Ro'o en lugar no ha'itado o edificio particular,GEl robo co$etido en un lugar no habitado o en un edificio que no sea de los co$0rendidos en el 0arrafo 0ri$ero del articulo (++) ,,, , =To$o (A) &e es #ublicas ;-+?, The ter$ /lugar no habitado/ is erroneousl translated, as /uninhabited 0lace/) a ter$ which $a be confounded with the eC0ression /uninhabited 0lace/ in articles (+< and 9>> of the Re%ised #enal Code) which is the translation of despo'lado and which is different fro$ the ter$ lugar no ha'itado in article 9>(, The ter$ lugar no ha'itado is the anton $ of casa ha'itada =inhabited house? in article (++,

8
One essential requisite of robber with force u0on things under Articles (++ and 9>( is that the $alefactor should enter the building or de0endenc ) where the ob1ect to be ta"en is found, Articles (++ and 9>( clearl conte$0late that the $alefactor should enter the building =casa ha'itada o lugar no ha'itado o edificio?, If the cul0rit did not enter the building) there would be no robber with force u0on things, =See Albert) Re%ised #enal Code) *+9( edition) 0, ABB?, Thus) where the accused bro"e the show3window of the @o$ba #alace @a'ar at Ri'al A%enue) !anila and re$o%ed fort watches therefro$) the cri$e was theft and not robber because he did not enter the building, The show3window was outside the store, =#eo0le %s, Adorno) CA ;> O, E, <A-) 0er !onte$a or) J,) who later beca$e a $e$ber of this Court?, 4 In the instant case) the chic"en coo0 where the siC roosters were ta"en cannot be considered a building within the $eaning of article 9>(, Not being a building) it cannot be said that the accused entered the sa$e in order to co$$it the robber b $eans of an of the fi%e circu$stances enu$erated in article 9>(, The ter$ /building/ in article 9>() for$erl <*( of the old #enal Code) was construed as e$bracing an structure not $entioned in article (++ =$eaning not an /inhabited house or 0ublic building or edifice de%oted to worshi0/ or an de0endenc thereof? used for storage and safe"ee0ing of 0ersonal 0ro0ert , As thus construed) a freight car used for the shi0$ent of sugar was considered a 0ri%ate building, The unnailing of a stri0 of cloth nailed o%er the door) the custo$ar $anner of sealing a freight car) was held to constitute brea"ing b force within the $eaning of article <*() now article 9>(, =F,S, %s, !agsino) ( #hil, -*>?, The ruling in the Magsino case is in conflict with the rulings of the Su0re$e Court of S0ain that a railroad e$0lo ee who) b force) o0ens a sealed or loc"ed rece0tacle de0osited in a freight car) does not co$$it robber , 2e is guilt of theft because a railroad car is neither a house nor a 'uilding within the $eaning of article 9>( which corres0onds to article <(< of the *B-> S0anish #enal Code, Article 9>( refers to houses or buildings which) while not actuall inhabited) are habitable, Thus) a 0ig st is not a building within the $eaning of article 9>(, The stealing of hogs fro$ a 0ig st is theft and not robber ) although the cul0rit brea"s into it, Article 9>( refers to habitable buildings, =Eue%ara) Re%ised #enal Code) *+9+ Edition) 0ages <<<3A) citing II 2idalgo Codigo #enal A9A3-) A;() which in turn cites the decisions of the S0anish Su0re$e Court dated !arch () *BBA and A0ril (<) *BB-?, 44 As $a be seen fro$ the 0hotogra0hs =EChs, A and A3*? @a lonHs coo0) which is "nown in the dialect as tang+al or+ulungan) is about fi%e ards long) one ard wide and one ard high, It has wooden stilts and ba$boo stri0s as bars, The coo0 barel reaches the shoulder of a 0erson of a%erage height li"e @a lon, It is di%ided into siC co$0art$ents or cages, A co$0art$ent has an area of less than one cubic ard, A 0erson cannot be acco$$odated inside the cage or co$0art$ent, It was not intended that a 0erson should go inside that co$0art$ent, The ta"ing was effected b forcibl o0ening the cage and 0utting the hands inside it to get the roosters, Therefore) the ta"ing of the siC roosters fro$ their coo0 should be characteri'ed as theft and not robber , The assu$0tion is that the accused were ani$ated b single cri$inal i$0ulse, The conduct of the accused re%eals that the cons0ired to steal the roosters, The ta"ing is 0unishable as a single offense of theft, Thus) it was held that the ta"ing of two roosters in the sa$e 0lace and on the sa$e occasion cannot gi%e rise to two cri$es of theft =#eo0le %s, De &eon) ;+ #hil, ;9-) citing decision of Su0re$e Court of S0ain dated Jul *9) *B+; and 9A C, J, -++D #eo0le %s, Tu$los) A- #hil, 9(>D #eo0le %s, Villanue%a) ;+ O,E, <;;B) &3*>(9+) August -) *+<9?, Nocturnit and use of a $otor %ehicle are aggra%ating, Those circu$stances facilitated the co$$ission of the theft, The accused intentionall sought the co%er of night and used a $otor %ehicle so as to insure the success of their nefarious enter0rise =#eo0le %s, Tan) B+ #hil, A;-) AA>D #eo0le %s, Eardon) *>; #hil, 9-(?, Also to be a00reciated against a00ellants Su o and @rillantes is the aggra%ating circu$stance of recidi%is$ which was alleged in the infor$ation, The ad$itted their 0re%ious con%ictions for theft =*9>) *9( tsnD EChs, I and JD Art, *;7+8) Re%ised #enal Code?, The theft of siC roosters %alued at siC hundred 0esos is 0unishable b prision correccional in its $ini$u$ and $ediu$ 0eriods =Art, 9>+798) Re%ised #enal Code?, That 0enalt should be i$0osed in its $aCi$u$ 0eriod because onl aggra%ating circu$stances are 0resent =Art, A;798) Re%ised #enal Code?, Although recidi%ists) a00ellants Su o and @rillantes are not habitual delinquents, The are entitled to an indeter$inate sentence =Sec, () Act No, ;*>9?, 6ith res0ect to the "illing of #atrol$an Jabatan) it has alread been noted that the e%idence for the 0rosecution 0oints to Jaranilla as the $alefactor who shot that unfortunate 0eace officer, The "illing was ho$icide because it was $ade on the s0ur of the $o$ent, The treacherous $ode of attac" was not consciousl or deliberatel ado0ted b the offender =F,S, %s, Na$it) 9B #hil, +(AD #eo0le %s, Tu$aob) B9 #hil, -9BD #eo0le %s, Abalos) B; #hil, --*?, The twent 3four ear old Jabatan was an agent of authorit on night dut at the ti$e of the shooting, 2e was wearing his unifor$, The "illing should be characteri'ed as a direct assault =atentado? u0on an agent of authorit =Art, *;B) Re%ised #enal Code? co$0leCed with

9
ho$icide, The two offenses resulted fro$ a single act, =Art, ;B) Re%ised #enal CodeD #eo0le %s, Euillen) B< #hil, 9>-D #eo0le %s, &o1o) Jr,) <( #hil, 9+>?, The e%idence for the 0rosecution does not 0ro%e an cons0irac on the 0art of a00ellants Jaranilla) Su o and @rillantes to "ill Jabatan, The cons0ired to steal the fighting coc"s, The cons0irac is shown b the $anner in which the 0er0etrated the theft, The went to the scene of the cri$e together, The left the ard of @a lonHs residence) each carr ing two roosters, The all boarded the getawa truc" dri%en b Eorriceta, The theft was consu$$ated when the cul0rits were able to ta"e 0ossession of the roosters, It is not an indis0enable ele$ent of theft that the thief carr ) $ore or less far awa ) the thing ta"en b hi$ fro$ its owner =#eo0le %s, !ercado) A< #hil, AA<D Duran %s, Tan) B< #hil, ;-AD F,S %s, Adiao) 9B #hil, -<;?, It is not reasonable to assu$e that the "illing of an 0eace officer) who would forestall the theft or frustrate a00ellantsH desire to en1o the fruits of the cri$e) was 0art of their 0lan, There is no e%idence to lin" a00ellants Su o and @rillantes to the "illing of Jabatan) eCce0t the circu$stance that the were with Jaranilla in the truc" when the latter shot the 0olice$an, Eorriceta testified that Su o did not do an thing when Jabatan a00roached the right side of the truc" and ca$e in close 0roCi$it to Jaranilla who was on the eCtre$e right, @rillantes 0ulled his re%ol%er which he did not fire =;-) <93<< tsn?, !ere 0resence at the scene of the cri$e does not necessaril $a"e a 0erson a co30rinci0al thereof, Jaranilla heard EorricetaHs testi$on that he =Jaranilla? shot Jabatan, Instead of ta"ing the witness stand to refute the testi$on of Eorriceta) Jaranilla esca0ed fro$ 1ail, That circu$stance is an ad$ission of guilt, The instant case is different fro$ People vs. Ma'assa) A< #hil, <AB where the %icti$ was "illed on the occasion when the accused too" his chic"ens under the house, It is distinguishable fro$ the People vs. "ardon) *>; #hil, 9-( and People vs. !alamudin 0o. 1) <( #hil, A-> =both cited b the Solicitor Eeneral? where the robber was clearl 0ro%en and the ho$icide was 0er0etrated on the occasion of the robber , As alread noted) theft) not robber ) was co$$itted in this case, The situation in this case bears so$e analog to that found in the People vs. &asisten) ;- #hil, ;+9 where the ho$icide co$$itted b a $e$ber of the band was not a 0art of the co$$on 0lan to co$$it robber , 2ence) onl the 0erson who 0er0etrated the "illing was liable for robber with ho$icide, The others were con%icted of robber onl , There is a hiatus in the e%idence of the 0rosecution as to the 0artici0ation of Su o and @rillantes in the "illing of Jabatan b Jaranilla, As alread stated) no robber with ho$icide was co$$itted, Therefore) it cannot be concluded that those two a00ellants ha%e an res0onsibilit for JabatanHs death, Their co$0licit in the ho$icide co$$itted b Jaranilla has not been established, 62ERE:ORE) the 1udg$ent of the trial court con%icting a00ellants Ricardo Su o and :ranco @rillantes of robber with ho$icide is re%ersed, The are acquitted of ho$icide on the ground of reasonable doubt, As co30rinci0als with Elias Jaranilla in the theft of the siC fighting coc"s) the are =a? each sentenced to an indeter$inate 0enalt of siC =A? $onths of arresto mayor as $ini$u$ to four =;? ears and two =(? $onths ofprision correccional as $aCi$u$ and =b? ordered to inde$nif solidaril the co$0lainant) Valentin @a lon) in the su$ of fi%e hundred 0esos =#<>>?, Each a00ellant should 0a one3third of the costs, As to the liabilit of Elias Jaranilla for theft and ho$icide) with direct assault u0on an agent of authorit ) trial court should render a new 1udg$ent consistent with this o0inion =See Sec, *+) Art, IV) Constitution?, So ordered, 2aldivar (Chairman), (ernando, $ntonio and (ernandez, JJ., concur.

S-5ara6- O57n7on3

10
0!RRE#O, J., concurring. I concur, I a$ in full accord with the findings of fact and the legal rationali'ation and conclusions in the $ain o0inion %er abl written for the Court b !r, Justice Aquino, I would li"e to $a"e the obser%ation) howe%er) that I cannot find an error in the literal translation of the ter$ /lugar no habitado/ used in the controlling S0anish teCt Article 9>( into /uninhabited 0lace/ a00earing in the English %ersion, The correct conce0t of the said ter$ as used in Article 9>( is indeed different fro$ the /uninhabited 0lace/ conte$0lated in Articles (+< and 9>>) which $eans /des0oblado/ or o0en countr G referring to a /lugar/) $eaning 0lace) site or s0ace where nobod li%es or is usuall found, And) of course) it is also clear to $e that Article 9>( refers to as an /uninhabited 0lace/ is reall an unoccu0ied or uninhabited house) the anton $ of the /casa habitada/ referred to in Article (++, @ut I cannot bring self to the thought that the word /lugar/ in Article 9>( $a literall be translated to an thing else than /0lace) site s0ace/, I si$0l cannot see in it the s0ecific connotation of house or building, !a be it is the wording of the S0anish teCt that is so$ewhat inaccurate) unless it can be shown) which I a$ afraid cannot be done) that colloquiall or so$ewhere in the S0anish s0ea"ing world) said word $eans house or building or an structure wherein 0ersonal 0ro0erties $a be de0osited) stored or "e0t, I would 0refer to footnote Article 9>( the sa$e wa Justice &uis @, Re es of the Court of A00eals does) thus. The /uninhabited 0lace/ $entioned in Article 9>( is a building) because 0aragra0hs Nos, * and 9 s0ea" of /entrance)/ which necessaril refers to a building, =The Re%ised #enal Code b &uis @, Re es) Vol, II) *+AB) 0, A*-,? In that wa ) I belie%e the true and correct $eaning of the 0ro%ision is clarified without attributing an 0ossible $isconstruction to fault literal translation) which I a$ con%inced does not eCist, I reiterate) the error in translation noted in the $ain o0inion is ine%itable G for while the literal translation is indubitabl accurate) on the other hand) as a $atter of construction) the correct inter0retation is different, E%identl ) the S0anish teCt uses /lugar/ for house) building or structure) and) to $ $ind) that is not the sense that word is usuall understood in S0anish, @ut I agree that what is conte$0lated in Article 9>( is not /des0oblado/ but si$0l an unoccu0ied or uninhabited house) building or structure, In other words) it a00ears that the correct eC0ression that should be in Article 9>( is /uninhabited house)/ disregarding) consequentl ) the inaccurate reference to /lugar/ in the S0anish teCt and stic"ing) b wa of construction) to the correct conce0t of the thing reall conte$0lated,

S-5ara6- O57n7on3 0!RRE#O, J., concurring. I concur, I a$ in full accord with the findings of fact and the legal rationali'ation and conclusions in the $ain o0inion %er abl written for the Court b !r, Justice Aquino, I would li"e to $a"e the obser%ation) howe%er) that I cannot find an error in the literal translation of the ter$ /lugar no habitado/ used in the controlling S0anish teCt Article 9>( into /uninhabited 0lace/ a00earing in the English %ersion, The correct conce0t of the said ter$ as used in Article 9>( is indeed different fro$ the /uninhabited 0lace/ conte$0lated in Articles (+< and 9>>) which $eans /des0oblado/ or o0en countr G referring to a /lugar/) $eaning 0lace) site or s0ace where nobod li%es or is usuall found, And) of course) it is also clear to $e that Article 9>( refers to as an /uninhabited 0lace/ is reall an unoccu0ied or uninhabited house) the anton $ of the /casa habitada/ referred to in Article (++, @ut I cannot bring self to the thought that the word /lugar/ in Article 9>( $a literall be translated to an thing else than /0lace) site s0ace/, I si$0l cannot see in it the s0ecific connotation of house or building, !a be it is the wording of the S0anish teCt that is so$ewhat inaccurate) unless it can be shown) which I a$ afraid cannot be done) that colloquiall or so$ewhere in the S0anish s0ea"ing world) said word $eans house or building or an structure wherein 0ersonal 0ro0erties $a be de0osited) stored or "e0t, I would 0refer to footnote Article 9>( the sa$e wa Justice &uis @, Re es of the Court of A00eals does) thus. The /uninhabited 0lace/ $entioned in Article 9>( is a building) because 0aragra0hs Nos, * and 9 s0ea" of /entrance)/ which necessaril refers to a building, =The Re%ised #enal Code b &uis @, Re es) Vol, II) *+AB) 0, A*-,?

11
In that wa ) I belie%e the true and correct $eaning of the 0ro%ision is clarified without attributing an 0ossible $isconstruction to fault literal translation) which I a$ con%inced does not eCist, I reiterate) the error in translation noted in the $ain o0inion is ine%itable G for while the literal translation is indubitabl accurate) on the other hand) as a $atter of construction) the correct inter0retation is different, E%identl ) the S0anish teCt uses /lugar/ for house) building or structure) and) to $ $ind) that is not the sense that word is usuall understood in S0anish, @ut I agree that what is conte$0lated in Article 9>( is not /des0oblado/ but si$0l an unoccu0ied or uninhabited house) building or structure, In other words) it a00ears that the correct eC0ression that should be in Article 9>( is /uninhabited house)/ disregarding) consequentl ) the inaccurate reference to /lugar/ in the S0anish teCt and stic"ing) b wa of construction) to the correct conce0t of the thing reall conte$0lated, Foo6no6-3 J 3Criminal 4a.5 Qualifications of the crime5 -heft5 &rea+ing sho.,.indo.s5 6ntrance is necessary in the crime of ro''ery,GThe offense co$$itted b the accused is $erel that of theft and not of robber ) or the reason that although the show3window was bro"en o0en) the accused did not enter the sa$e but $erel introduced his hand thru the bro"en glass in order to re$o%e the watches fro$ the show3window) and for the further reason that the show3 window in question was outside the store, There is robber with force u0on things onl when doors or wind are bro"en in order to enter a building to steal or when doors or wardrobes are bro"en) inside a building, 2ere there had been no entrance,/ =S llabus) #eo0le %s, Adorno) CA ;> O,E, <A-, See #eo0le %s, Inga ) II ACR (-<) 0er Albert) J, and F, S, %s, Callotes) ( #hil, *A) where the $anner of entrance was not 0ro%en?, JJ /El guardafreno de un ferrocarril que iba solo en el furgon de cola) abrio el baul de un %ia1ero fracturando la cerradura eCtra1o algunos efectos, Condenado co$o autor del delito de robo) inter0uso recurso de casacion alegando que era estafa el !inisterio fiscal de adherio 0or conce0tuar que el delito era hurto, El Tribunal Su0re$e esti$a la adhesion 0or considerar. que los hechos declarados 0robados no constitu en el delito de robo en lugar inhabitado calificado 0or la Sala sentenciadora) 0or no referirse los articulos <(* <(< del Codigo #enal en las eC0resiones de lugar habitado e inhabitado al $aterial $o%il de ferrocarriles) si tan solo a lugares y casa 7ue puedan servir de al'er gue o ha'itacion para las personas) distinguiendolas unica$ente 0or el ob1eto a que se dedican,/!entencia de 89 de $'ril de 1::;, Varios su1etos saltando la cerea de una 'ahurda) 0enetraron en esta sustra1eron cuatro cerdos, anula la sentencia) 0or considerar.

Condenados co$o autores del delito de robo) el Tribunal Su0re$o casa

Kue si bien es cierto que el delito de robo se caracteri'a 0or la fuer'a en las cosas o %iolencia sobre las 0ersonas con que reali'a el delicuente la sustraccion de cosa a1ena con ani$o de lucro) es $enester ade$as que el hecho se encuentre co$0rendido en alguno de los casos es0ecificades en el ca0itulo del Codigo que trata de los robos) 0orque no ha ningun articulo que 0ene generica$ente el robo tal cual se define en el articulo <*<. Kue la sustraccion de cerdos i$0utada a los recurrentes no se halla co$0rendida en el articulo <(<) co$o erronea$ente su0one el Tribunal sentenciador) 0orque al hablarse en dicho articulo de lugar no ha'itado, es en contraposicion a lugar o casa ha'itada de que trata el articulo <(*) 0orque) en uno otro caso) el Codigo se refiere a lugares o cases 7ue puedan servir de al'ergue o ha'itacion para las personas, distinguiendolos, solamente por el o'/eto a 7ue estos lugares se dedican) no a los de$as abiertos o $era$ente cerrados) cual es la 'ahurda de cerdos donde los recurrentes reali'aron la sustraccion) 0ues el hecho cri$inal no re%iste) en este ulti$o caso) la i$0ortancia transcendencia que en aquellos. Kue la Audiencia sentenciadora ha incurrido en error de derecho al calificar de delito de robo un hecho que solo 0uede serlo co$o hurto 0or no hallarse co$0rendido en ninguno de los casos es0ecificados en el ca0itulo sobre los robos,/ !entencia de 8 de Marzo de 1::<,

THIR# #I&ISION T2E #EO#&E O: T2E #2I&I##INES) A00ellee) E,R, No, *A+B-( 7:or$erl E,R, Nos, *<B;(B3(+8

12

#resent. 3 %ersus 3 KFISF!@INE) J., Chairperson, CAR#IO) CAR#IO !ORA&ES) TINEA) and VE&ASCO) JR,) JJ. #ro$ulgated. Se0te$ber (-) (>>A C33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333C #E$ISION TINEA) J.. Celestino Eardon =Eardon? was charged with two =(? counts of Ra0e in se0arate Infor$ations which read. Cri$inal Case No, *(<B That on or about !arch) *++<) $ore or less A.>> #,!, at 7@8aranga CCC) 7!8unici0alit of CCC) 7#8ro%ince of Sorsogon) #hili00ines) and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the abo%e3na$ed accused7)8 with abuse of confidence and b $eans of force and inti$idation did then and there) willfull ) unlawfull and feloniousl ) ha%e carnal "nowledge of one AAA 7*8 who was alone on the afore$entioned date and ti$e) without the latterLs consent and against her will) to her da$age and 0re1udice,7(8 Cri$inal Case No, *(<+ That on or about August (+) *++-) $ore or less A.>> oLcloc" in the afternoon at 7@8aranga CCC) 7!8unici0alit of CCC) 7#8ro%ince of Sorsogon) #hili00ines) and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the abo%e3na$ed accused) with abuse of confidence and b $eans of force and inti$idation) did then and there) willfull ) unlawfull and feloniousl ) ha%e carnal "nowledge of one AAA 798 who was alone on the afore$entioned date and ti$e) without the latterLs consent and against her will) to her da$age and 0re1udice,7;8 Eardon 0leaded not guilt u0on arraign$ent, After trial) the Regional Trial Court of Irosin) Sorsogon) @ranch <<) in a Decision7<8 dated Dece$ber ;) (>>() con%icted Eardon as charged, The dis0ositi%e 0ortion of the decision states. 'HEREFORE) 0re$ises considered) the 7C8ourt finds accused Celestino Eardon guilt be ond reasonable doubt of the ( counts of RA#E defined and 0enali'ed in Art, 99< of the R#C) as a$ended b RA -A<+ and RA B9<9 and sentenced hi$ to RE$L SION PERPET ! for each count of ra0e, The 0eriod of the detention is credited to his fa%or in accordance with Art, (+ R#CD to inde$nif the %icti$ of the su$ of#<>)>>>7,>>8 for each count or a total of #*>>)>>>,>> as ci%il inde$nit D to 0a the su$ of #<>)>>>,>> for each count or a total of #*>>)>>>,>> as $oral da$ages 0lus #(<)>>>,>> for each count or a total of#<>)>>>,>> as eCe$0lar da$ages, SO ORDERED,7A8 Confor$abl with the Decision of this Court in People v. Mateo)7-8 the case was transferred to the Court of A00eals for inter$ediate re%iew,7B8 The a00ellate court affir$edEardonLs con%iction in a Decision7+8 dated Jul (B) (>><, The case is again before us for our final dis0osition, The records disclose the following facts.

CE&ESTINO EARDON) A00ellant)

13

AAA testified that in !arch *++<) she and her ounger brother AA 7*>8 li%ed in the house of their $aternal grand0arents) @@7**8 and accused Celestino Eardon) in CCC) Sorsogon,7*(8 At about A.>> oLcloc" one night) while her grand$other was at the town 0ro0er 0urchasing so$e goods and AA was slee0ing in the other roo$) her grandfather) Eardon) accosted her with a "nife and ordered her to lie down, Eardon then undressed her and too" off his 0air of shorts, 2e threatened to "ill her if she told an one what ha00ened, 2e then held her breast and inserted his 0enis into her %agina, She felt 0ain in her %aginal area during the intercourse, She struggled to no a%ail because Eardon 0ointed a "nife to her chest, 6hen she stood u0) she noticed blood oo'ing fro$ her genitals to the floor, She did not tell her grand$other what ha00ened for fear that Eardon $ight $a"e good his threat of har$ing her and her brother,7*98 The incident was re0eated three =9? $ore ti$es but AAA could onl re$e$ber that the fourth abuse ha00ened at around A.>> in the e%ening of August (+) *++-, AAALs grand$other was at the town 0ro0er and she was left ho$e with Eardon, That night) AAA was washing the dishes when Eardon held her hand and 0ulled her towards a roo$, 2e 0ointed a "nife to her chest) told her to lie down and undress herself) and too" off his 0air of shorts, 2e then inserted his 0enis into her %agina, Again) she felt 0ain, She did not tell her grand$other about the incident but confided in her sister) CC,7*;8 Dr, Nerissa @, Tagu$ =Dr, Tagu$?) the resident 0h sician of Irosin District 2os0ital who eCa$ined AAA) eC0lained that she found old lacerations on the latterLs h $en which could ha%e been caused b the insertion of an instru$ent, She also $entioned that AAALs %agina can ad$it two =(? fingers which is not nor$al for a *;3 ear old girl,7*<8 AAALs sister) CC) was also 0resented in court, She recounted that in Se0te$ber *++-) AAA left their grand0arentsL house in CCC and ca$e to li%e with her in CCC, 6hen she told AAA to go bac" to CCC) AAA refused and told her that their grandfather) Eardon) ra0ed her four =;? ti$es since !arch *++<, The sisters re0orted the $atter to their ste0$other) DD,7*A8Afterwards) the went to the CCC 0olice to lodge a co$0laint against Eardon,7*-8 :or the defense) &eonardo Eracilla =Eracilla? testified that Eardon wor"ed as an abaca stri00er of a three =9?3hectare 0lantation in a hill 0lace "nown as CCC) an hourLs wal" fro$EardonLs house in CCC, According to Eracilla) it was i$0ossible for Eardon to ha%e ra0ed AAA because Eardon s0ent $ost of his ti$e in CCC, S0ecificall ) Eracilla clai$ed that he andEardon started stri00ing abaca on August (< and finished on August (+) *++-, On August 9*) *++-) the ca$e down fro$ CCC to sell abaca he$0 in the po'lacion, Afterwards) Eardonwent bac" to CCC,7*B8 Eardon hi$self too" the witness stand to den that he ra0ed his granddaughter AAA, Eardon clai$ed that the $oti%e behind the filing of the cri$inal cases against hi$ was his wifeLs refusal to ield custod of AAA and her siblings to their ste0$other, Allegedl ) this refusal led EE)7*+8 the brother of the childrenLs ste0$other) to forcibl ta"e custod of the children,7(>8

In his @rief)7(*8 Eardon a%ers that there are $aterial contradictions in AAALs testi$on that cast serious doubt on her clai$ that she was ra0ed, In the first alleged incident of ra0e) AAA clai$ed that she fought Eardon e%en as the latter 0ointed his "nife at her, 2owe%er) AAALs brother who was slee0ing in the other roo$ was not roused b an unusual sound, The 0eriod in which Eardon 0ut down his "nife to undress would also ha%e allegedl gi%en AAA a chance to esca0e had her testi$on been true, !oreo%er) the fact that no cri$inal charges were brought against Eardon e%en after AAALs father alread learned of the first three ra0es allegedl discredits her clai$, So does the fact that AAA did not eChibit an strange beha%ior after the su00osed ra0e, The Office of the Solicitor Eeneral =OSE? insists on the affir$ation of EardonLs con%iction, According to the OSE in its @rief) AAALs testi$on that she was ra0ed b Eardonwhile her brother was slee0ing in the neCt roo$ is entirel 0lausible because ra0e can be consu$$ated e%en when the ra0ist and the %icti$ are not alone, That it $a ha%e been 0ossible for AAA to esca0e while Eardon 0ut down his "nife li"ewise does not affect the truthfulness of AAALs testi$on ,
7((8

The OSE also e$0hasi'es that while CC testified that she did not notice an unusual beha%ior on AAALs 0art) CC did recall AAA ha%ing said that Eardon threatened to "ill her and her brother if the truth were "nown, :urther) EardonLs defense of alibi cannot 0re%ail o%er AAALs 0ositi%e identification of hi$ as the one who ra0ed her, Considering that CCC is a $ere hourLs wal" fro$ the house in CCC where the ra0e was co$$itted) Eardon was not able to 0ro%e that it was 0h sicall i$0ossible for hi$ to be at the scene of the cri$e, The Re%ised #enal Code defines the cri$e of Ra0e thus. Art, 99<, =hen and ho. rape is committed.>Ra0e is co$$itted b ha%ing carnal "nowledge of a wo$an under an of the following circu$stances. *, @ using force or inti$idationD

14

*, (,

6hen the wo$an is de0ri%ed of reason or otherwise unconsciousD and 6hen the wo$an is under twel%e ears of age or is de$ented, The cri$e of ra0e shall be 0unished b reclusion perpetua. CCCC

The death 0enalt shall also be i$0osed if the cri$e of ra0e is co$$itted with an of the following attendant circu$stances. *, 6hen the %icti$ is under eighteen =*B? ears of age and the offender is a 0arent) ascendant) ste030arent) guardian) relati%e b consanguinit or affinit within the third ci%il degree) or the co$$on3law s0ouse of the 0arent of the %icti$, CCCC M AAA narrated in agoni'ing detail 0unctuated b unfeigned tears that her own grandfather) Eardon) had carnal "nowledge of her through force and inti$idation on four different occasions although she re$e$bered onl those that ha00ened in !arch *++< and on August (+) *++-, She described how Eardon held a "nife to her chest) undressed her and succeeded to consu$$ate his re%olting lust, AAA atte$0ted to resist her grandfatherLs seCual assault) but the latterLs 0h sical su0eriorit ) aided b his "nife3 brandishing and clear $oral ascendanc ) 0re%ailed, She testified. q3 aN q3 aN q N aN qN aN qN aN qN aN qN aN qN aN qN aN qN aN qN aN qN aN qN aN 6hile ou were there together with ha00enedI 5es) sir, our brother and Celestino Eardon) do ou recall an incident that

6hat was it aboutI 2e was carr ing a "nife and then he undressed $e and he undressed hi$self, 6ho was this 0erson carr ing a "nife and undressed ouI Celestino Eardon, 6here did this ha00enI In the house, 6hose houseI In the house of $ grand$other 7@@8,7(98 In what 0articular 0lace of that house did this incident ha00enedI In the roo$, 6hose roo$I The roo$ where I and $ brother sta ed, After noticing hi$ holding a "nife) what ca$e 7into8 our $indI I was afraid, 5ou said he undressed ou) which 0art of our clothing did he re$o%eI 2e re$o%ed $ short, 6hat else did he re$o%eI ! 0ant , 6hat were ou doing as Celestino Eardon was re$o%ing our short7s8 and 0ant I I was l ing then, 6ho $ade ou lie downI It was Celestino Eardon, Did ou not fight bac"I I fought bac",

15

qN aN qN aN qN aN qN aN

6h 7sic8 did 7sic8 Celestino Eardon able to undress ou when ou said ou fight 7sic8 bac"I I was fighting bac" but he still undressed $e, 6hen he undressed ou7)8 where was the "nife he was holding7I8 It was 0laced on the floor while he was undressing $e, 6as he able to re$o%e our short7s8 and 0ant I 5es) sir, 5ou said that after undressing ou 7Celestino8 Eardon undressed hi$self also) which 0art of his clothing did he ta"e offI 2is short7s8, CCCC

qN aN qN

6hat did he do after thatI 2e inserted his, 6hat do ou $ean b 7O8he inserted his7O8I

ATT5, ARRIESEADO. The witness is ha%ing a hard ti$e to answer, 6ITNESS. 2is 0enis, #ROS, #FRA. qN aN qN 6here did he insert his 0enisI 2e inserted his 0enis in $ %agina, 2ow was he able to do thisI

COFRT. The witness is cr ing, Do not be afraid to tell the court what ha00ened to ou) !ada$ witness, 6ITNESS. 2e la on to0 of $e and he had a 0ush and 0ull action, #ROS #FRA. qN aN qN aN qN aN 6hat was our 0ositionI I was l ing down, Did ou not close our legs so he cannot insert his 0enis 7in8to our %aginaI 2e o0ened it wide, Did ou not fightI I did,

COFRT. qN aN qN aN qN And what ha00ened to our effortI 2e was holding a "nife, 6hat did he do with that "nife while ou were tr ing to resist hi$I 2e 0ointed the "nife to $ chest, And what did ou do when he was 0ointing the "nife to our chestI 6ere ou still able to fightI

16
aN 5es) I still continue fighting hi$,7(;8

The foregoing eCcer0t fro$ AAALs account of the first incident of ra0e in !arch *++< is 0lain and forthright, 2er testi$on regarding the August (+) *++- ra0e is si$ilarl candid, The trial court) which had the unique o00ortunit to assess the truthfulness of her narration) was thoroughl con%inced of her credibilit , A00ellate courts ha%e consistentl deferred to the findings and conclusions $ade b a trial 1udge 0rinci0all because it is the latter who gets the o00ortunit to directl and inti$atel obser%e the witnesses and to deter$ine) b their de$eanor on the witness stand) the 0robati%e strength or wea"ness of that which the declare, The witnesses can re%eal $uch $ore than what can ordinaril be reflected in and 0ercei%ed fro$ the transcri0ts that $erel would contain the $atter which is stated but not how it is said, Tell3tale $ar"s of either honest or fabrication) truth or concoction) realit or i$agination) $a be gleaned fro$ a $eaningful 0ause or s0ontaneous read re0l ) the angr or subdued denial) the forthright stare or the elusi%e e es) the sudden 0allor or the flush of face) and all that characteri'es the de0ort$ent and 0eculiar outward beha%ior of witnesses when their res0onse to both direct eCa$ination and cross eCa$ination is elicited, These signs) a%ailable to the trial 1udge) are easil lost on the a00ellate court,7(<8 It should be stressed that this case has alread undergone inter$ediate re%iew b the Court of A00eals which reached the sa$e conclusion as the trial court, Our own 1udicious scrutin of the records co$0els us to concur,

AAALs clai$ that she was ra0ed b Eardon is corroborated b the testi$on of Dr, Tagu$ that there are old lacerations on AAALs genitalia located at the 9) A) + and ** oLcloc"0ositions, 6hen the unwa%ering and forthright testi$on of a ra0e %icti$ is consistent with the $edical findings) there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of carnal "nowledge ha%e been established,7(A8 That AAA failed to i$$ediatel re0ort the ra0e is not necessaril indicati%e of fabrication as Eardon suggests, As we held in People v. Melivo,7(-8 incest $agnifies the terror of ra0e because the 0er0etrator is a 0erson nor$all eC0ected to gi%e solace and 0rotection to the %icti$, Access to the %icti$ is guaranteed b the blood relationshi0) 0roCi$it $agnif ing the sense of hel0lessness and the degree of fear, The 0er0etrator ta"es full ad%antage of his blood relationshi0) ascendanc and influence o%er his %icti$) both to co$$it the seCual assault and to inti$idate the %icti$ into silence, In this case) not onl was AAA cowed into sub$ission and silence b the fact that Eardon is her grandfather) the latter also actuall threatened to "ill her and her brother if she told an one what ha00ened, A0art fro$ ruling that the 0rosecution successfull 0ro%ed that Eardon had seCual intercourse with AAA against her will) both courts also re1ected EardonLs defense of alibi declaring that the latter was not able to sufficientl de$onstrate that it was 0h sicall i$0ossible for hi$ to be at the locus criminis when the ra0es were co$$itted, 6e quote with fa%or the trial courtLs finding. The defense does not 0reclude accusedLs 0resence at the scene of the cri$e, Eranting he was at CCC) CCC) CCC) Sorsogon on August (+) *++- at A.>> oLcloc" in the e%ening) stri00ing abaca with the witness) it was not 0h sicall i$0ossible for hi$ to be at ho$e in CCC) CCC) Sorsogon) since CCC is $erel $ore than ( "ilo$eters awa fro$ CCC and could be reached in an hour b wal"ing nor$all , It $ust be noted that the accused is %er fa$iliar with the terrain of the $ountain of CCC as he has another house there aside fro$ his house in CCC, In this case) the 0h sical i$0ossibilit of accused Celestino Eardon being at the locus criminis was not 0ro0erl established,7(B8 The defense of alibi will 0re%ail o%er a %icti$Ls clear and 0ositi%e identification of the 0er0etrator if it is co$0ellingl established not onl that the latter was so$ewhere else when the cri$e was co$$itted) but that he was so situated fro$ the cri$e scene or its i$$ediate %icinit that the 0ossibilit of his 0resence there is re$ote or i$0robable) e%en i$0ossible, 7(+8 The defense of denial is also wea" and worthless in the face of AAALs 0ositi%e identification of Eardon as her ra0ist,79>8 EardonLs argu$ent that the instant case was filed against hi$ because of his wifeLs refusal to grant custod of AAA and her siblings to their ste0$other is ludicrous, It was AAA herself and not her ste0$other who filed the ra0e charges against Eardon, No oung girl would falsel accuse her own grandfather of such an atrocious cri$e as ra0e) willingl undergo an eCa$ination of her 0ri%ate 0arts) and eC0ose herself to a 0ublic trial) unless she is $oti%ated b a desire to see" 1ustice for the wrong co$$itted against her,79*8 Carnal "nowledge of a wo$an b use of force and inti$idation is ra0e as defined under Art, 99< of the Re%ised #enal Code and is 0unishable b reclusion perpetua. Ra0e is 0unishable b reclusion perpetua to death when it is co$$itted with the use of a deadl wea0on, And when the offended 0art is under *B ears of age and the offender is an ascendant of the %icti$) ra0e is qualified and beco$es 0unishable b death as 0ro%ided under the Death #enalt &aw, 79(8 In this case) howe%er) the aggra%ating circu$stance of use of a deadl wea0on) and the qualif ing circu$stances of the %icti$Ls $inorit and her relationshi0 with the accused as the latterLs granddaughter were not 0ro0erl alleged in the Infor$ations) although the aggra%ating circu$stance of use of

17
a deadl wea0on and the qualif ing circu$stance of relationshi0 were established during trial, 2ence) the 0ro0er i$0osable 0enalt is reclusion perpetua. !oreo%er) Eardon shall not be entitled to 0arole in %iew of Re0ublic Act =R,A,? No, +9;A) Sec, 9 of which states that O708ersons con%icted of offenses 0unished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, b reason of this Act) shall not be eligible for 0arole under Act No, ;*>9) otherwise "nown as the Indeter$inate Sentence &aw) as a$ended,P7998 6e should 0oint out that the benefit of 0arole cannot be eCtended to Eardon e%en if he co$$itted the cri$es for which he is now con%icted 0rior to the effecti%it of R,A, No, +9;A, 79;8 Sec, ( of the Indeter$inate Sentence &aw 0ro%ides that the law Oshall not a00l to 0ersons con%icted of offenses 0unished with death 0enalt or life3 i$0rison$ent,P Although the law $a"es no reference to 0ersons con%icted to suffer the 0enalt of reclusion perpetua such as Eardon) the Court has consistentl held that the Indeter$inate Sentence &aw li"ewise does not a00l to 0ersons sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In People v. 6nri7uez,79<8 we declared. 7R?eclusion perpetua is the onl 0enalt that can be i$0osed against the a00ellants, As correctl argued b the Solicitor Eeneral) Act No, ;*>9) otherwise "nown as the @ndeterminate !entence 4a.) cannot be a00lied in the case of a00ellants considering the 0roscri0tion in Sec, ( thereof) viz. CCCC Indeed) in People v. $sturias, !errano v. Court of $ppeals, People v. 4ampaza and People v. -an) to na$e a few cases) we in effect equated the 0enalt of reclusion perpetua as s non $ous to life3i$0rison$ent for 0ur0oses of the Indeter$inate Sentence &aw) and ruled that the latter law does not a00l to 0ersons con%icted of offenses 0unishable with the said 0enalt , Consequentl ) we affir$ the Court of A00eals in not a00l ing the Indeter$inate Sentence &aw) and in i$0osing u0on a00ellants the 0enalt of reclusion perpetua instead,79A8 Reclusion perpetua is an indi%isible 0enalt without a $ini$u$ or $aCi$u$ 0eriod, #arole) on the other hand) is eCtended onl to those sentenced to di%isible 0enalties as is e%ident fro$ Sec, < of the Indeter$inate Sentence &aw) which 0ro%ides that it is onl after Oan 0risoner shall ha%e ser%ed the $ini$u$ 0enalt i$0osed on hi$P that the @oard of Indeter$inate Sentence $a consider whether such 0risoner $a be granted 0arole,79-8 To reiterate) gi%en that the Infor$ations failed to allege the aggra%ating circu$stance of use of a deadl wea0on and the qualif ing circu$stances of $inorit and relationshi0) Eardonis guilt of si$0le ra0e onl , Accordingl ) the trial court and the Court of A00eals correctl awarded to AAA) for each count of ra0e) #<>)>>>,>> as ci%il inde$nit ) #<>)>>>,>> as $oral da$ages) and #(<)>>>,>> as eCe$0lar da$ages consistent with current 1uris0rudence,79B8 !oral da$ages) se0arate and distinct fro$ the ci%il inde$nit ) are auto$aticall granted in ra0e cases, ECe$0lar da$ages) on the other hand) are i$0osed to deter fathers and) in this case) grandfathers) with aberrant seCual beha%iors fro$ seCuall abusing their daughters,79+8 62ERE:ORE) the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Irosin) Sorsogon) @ranch <<) in Cri$inal Cases Nos, *(<B3*(<+) as well as the Decision of the Court of A00eals in CA3E,R, CR32,C, No, >***>) are A::IR!ED, A00ellant CE&ESTINO EARDON is sentenced) in each of the cri$inal cases sub1ect of this re%iew) to suffer the 0enalt of reclusion perpetuawithout eligibilit for 0arole and to 0a the %icti$) AAA =to be identified through the Infor$ations filed with the trial court in this case?) the a$ounts of #<>)>>>,>> as ci%il inde$nit ) #<>)>>>,>> as $oral da$ages and the further su$ of #(<)>>>,>> as eCe$0lar da$ages 0lus costs, SO ORDERED, Re0ublic of the #hili00ines Su0re$e Court !anila

SE$ON# #I&ISION PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, A00ellee) 3 versus 3 THE G.R. No. 1,8,,1 Pr-3-n6% CORONA) C.J,)J CAR#IO) J.) Chairperson) #ERA&TA) A@AD) and !ENDO4A) JJ,

!L0ERTO !NTI$!(!R! y $!0ILLO an1

18
FERN!N#O $!L!G !S FERN!N#E) a.8.a. Pro9u:;a6-1% L!N#O $!L!G !S, June B) (>** A00ellants, < **************************************************< #E$ISION PER!LT!, J.% This is an a00eal fro$ the Decision7*8 of the Court of A00eals =CA? in CA3E,R, CR32,C, No, >><<A) affir$ing the trial courtHs 1udg$ent finding a00ellants :ernando Calaguas :ernande' =&ando? and Alberto Cabillo Antica$ara =Al? guilt be ond reasonable doubt of the cri$e of !urder in Cri$inal Case No, ;;+B3R and of the cri$e of Qidna00ing and Serious Illegal Detention in Cri$inal Case No, ;;B*3R, &ando) Al) Dic" TaRedo =Dic"?) Roberto TaRedo =@et?) !ar%in &i$ =!ar%in?) Necitas OrdeRi'a3TaRedo =Cita?) and :red Doe are charged with the cri$es of !urder and of Qidna00ingSSerious Illegal Detention in two se0arate Infor$ations) which read. :or !urder =Cri$inal Case No, ;;+B3R? That on or about the earl $orning of !a -) (>>() in Sitio Rosalia) @rg , San @artolo$e) !unici0alit of Rosales) #ro%ince of #angasinan) and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the abo%e3na$ed accused) being then ar$ed with a hand gun) cons0iring) confederating and $utuall hel0ing one another) with intent to "ill) with treacher ) e%ident 0re$editation and su0erior strength) did then and there) willfull ) unlawfull and feloniousl ta"e Sul0acio Abad) dri%er of the Estrellas) hog tied =sic? hi$) brought =sic? to a secluded 0lace) shoot and bur in a shallow gra%e) to the da$age and 0re1udice of the heirs of the %icti$, Contrar to Article (;B) Re%ised #enal Code, :or Qidna00ingSSerious Illegal Detention =Cri$inal Case No, ;;B*3R? That on or about the - th da of !a (>>() $ore or less 9.>> oHcloc" in the earl $orning) at the Estrella Co$0ound) @rg , Car$en East) !unici0alit of Rosales) #ro%ince of #angasinan) and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the abo%e3na$ed accused) who are 0ri%ate 0ersons) cons0iring) confederating and $utuall hel0ing one another) ar$ed with firear$s) did then and there willfull ) unlawfull and feloniousl "idna0 Sul0acio Abad and AAA) 7(8 both e$0lo ees of the Estrellas) thereb de0ri%ing the$ of their libert ) all against their will for a 0eriod of twent 3se%en =(-? da s, That in the course of the "idna00ing) Sul0acio Abad was "illed Rosales) #angasinan and AAA was ra0ed for se%eral ti$es b her abductors, Contrar to Article (A- of the Re%ised #enal Code) in relation to RA -A<+, 6hen arraigned of the afore$entioned cri$es) &ando) Al and Cita all 0leaded not guilt ) while Dic") @et) !ar%in and :red Doe re$ained at3large, Thereafter) a 1oint trial ensued, As su$$ari'ed in the #eo0leHs brief) the facts as established b the e%idence of the 0rosecution are as follows. About 9 oHcloc" in the earl $orning of !a -) (>>() househel0er AAA and dri%er Abad Sul0acio were slee0ing in their e$0lo ersH house located in @aranga Car$en East) Rosales) #angasinan, Their e$0lo ers) Conrado Estrella and his wife) were out of the house at that ti$e =TSN) Dece$ber ;) (>>() 00, ;3-?, !o$entaril ) AAA was 1olted fro$ slee0 when she heard %oices sa ing) O6e will "ill her) "ill her nowP and another %oice sa ing) ONot etTP 2iding under her blan"et) AAA later heard so$eone sa ing) O6e onl need $one ) we onl need $one ,P Thereafter) she heard so$eone tal"ing in Ilocano which she could not understand, Then she heard so$ebod sa ) OCebuana an) Cebuana an) "ararating lang galing Cebu,P AAA heard the 0ersons con%ersing which she esti$ated about four to fi%e $eters awa =TSN) i'id,) 00, **3*(?, Thereafter) AAA obser%ed about siC =A? 0ersons enter the house) who she later identified as accused Dic" TaRedo) !ar%in &i$) @ert TaRedo) a certain :red and a00ellants Alberto Antica$ara alias OAl Ca$ara)P and :ernando :ernande' alias O&ando Calaguas,P One of the intruders a00roached her and told her not to $o%e =TSN) i'id,) 0, B?, and buried in @rg , Car$en)

19
&ater) when AAA thought that the intruders were alread gone) she atte$0ted to run but to her sur0rise) so$eone wearing a bonnet was watching her, So$eone) who$ she later recogni'ed as Dic" TaRedo) ta00ed her shoulder, AAA as"ed TaRedo) O6h Qu aIP TaRedo re0lied) OSo$ebod will die,P After a brief co$$otion) a00ellant alias O&ando CalaguasP as"ed the grou0 sa ing) O6hat shall we do nowIP The then decided to tie AAA, &ater) AAA was untied and led her outside the house, Outside) AAA saw Abad) who was also tied and blindfolded) seated inside a %ehicle =TSN) A0ril (A) (>>;) 00, A3*>?, The grou0 later brought AAA and Abad to the fish0ond owned b their e$0lo ers, AAA saw Cita TaRedo there, The grou0 brought Abad outside the %ehicle and led hi$ awa =TSN) Dece$ber () (>>() 00, *93*BD TSN) :ebruar *-) (>>9) 00, <3B?, &ater) alias O:redP returned telling the grou0) O!a"e the decision now) Abad has alread four bullets in his bod ) and the one left is for this girl,P 6hen Cita TaRedo $ade a $otion of cutting her nec") a00ellant alias O&ando CalaguasP and O:redP boarded the %ehicle ta"ing along with the$ AAA, The later 0roceeded towards San !iguel Tarlac) where &ando Calaguas resided, The sta ed in &andoHs house where the "e0t AAA fro$ !a - to !a +) (>>( =TSN) Dece$ber ;) (>>() 00, *B3((D TSN) :ebruar *-) (>>9) 00, -3+?, On !a +) (>>() a00ellant &ando Calaguas told AAA that :red and @ert TaRedo would "ill her, &ando then brought AAA to a hotel in Tarlac) telling AAA that he would lea%e her there as soon as :red and @ert TaRedo lea%e the 0lace, 2owe%er) once inside the hotel roo$) a00ellant &ando Calaguas seCuall $olested AAA, &ando told AAA to follow what he wanted) threatening her that he would turn her o%er to :red and @ert TaRedo, After &ando ra0ed AAA) he brought her bac" to his house, &ater) :red) @ert TaRedo and &ando Calaguas transferred AAA to Riles) Tarlac =TSN) i'id,) 00, +3*9?, AAA was brought to the residence of :redHs niece) a certain !inda) where :red "e0t AAA as his wife, At nightti$e) :red would re0eatedl ra%ish AAA) threatening her that he would gi%e her bac" to a00ellant &ando Calaguas who) AAA "new) "illed Abad Sul0acio, She was afraid &ando $ight also "ill her =TSN) i'id,) 00, *;3*A?, On !a (() (>>() :red brought AAA to Carnaga =should be Qananga?) &e te) together with his wife !arsha and their children, AAA sta ed in the house of !arshaHs brother Sito) where she was $ade as a house hel0er =TSN) i'id,) 0, *-?, On June ;) (>>() AAA esca0ed fro$ the house of Sito, She 0roceeded to Isabel) &e te and sought the hel0 of her friend Susana Ilagan, After hearing AAAHs 0light) Susana called AAAHs brother in Cebu) who later fetched AAA in Isabel) &e te and brought her to !andaue Cit , 6hen the arri%ed in !andaue Cit ) the i$$ediatel re0orted the incident to the 0olice authorities, On June (9) (>>() AAA eCecuted a Sworn State$ent =ECh, OD)P TSN) i'id,) 00, *B3 (>?, !eanwhile) Dr, Ronald @andonil) !edico3&egal Officer of the National @ureau of In%estigation =N@I?) conducted an auto0s on the cada%er of Sul0acio Abad, Dr, @andonil 0re0ared Auto0s Re0ort No, N3T(3(93# =ECh, OAP? which contains the following findings) to wit. C Re$ains 0laced in a sealed $etal coffin) wra00ed in two =(? la ers of blac") 0lastic garbage bags) and co%ered in =sic? a red3stri00ed cotton blan"er, A thic" la er of li$e e$beds the whole torso, C Re$ains in a far ad%anced state of deco$0osition) with the head co$0letel de%oid of soft tissue, A cloth is wra00ed around the e esoc"ets and tied to the bac" of the s"ull, The s"ull does not show an signs of dents) chi0s nor fractures, The other recogni'able bod 0art is the chest area which retained a few soft tissues and s"in) but generall far ad%anced in deco$0osition, The whole ga$ut of internal organs ha%e undergone liquefaction necrosis and ha%e been turned into gra ish3blac" 0ultaceous $asses, 6orn on to0 of the re$aining chest is a sando shirt with obser%able holes at the left side) both front and bac", A large hole is seen at the area of the left ni00le) with traces of burning at its edges and inward in direction, A tied cloth is also obser%able at the re$nants of the left wrist, C At the u00er chest) which is the $ost recogni'able) re$aining and intact 0art of the torso) a hole) *,> c$, C (,> c$s,) with signs of burning) edges in%erted) is seen at the left anterior aCillar line 1ust below the left ni00le, Another hole is seen *,< c$s, C (,< c$s, in dia$eter) edged a%erted =sic? at the right chest) along the right anterior aCillar line) <,> c$s, below the right ni00le, A 9rd hole) al$ost unrecogni'able is seen at the left groin area, C The other 0arts of the cada%er are too far ad%anced in deco$0osition to ha%e re$ar"able findings,

20
CAFSE O: DEAT2. EFNS2OT 6OFNDS) TRFNQ798 In his defense) &ando denied ha%ing co$$itted the cri$es charged and inter0osed alibi as a defense, 2e clai$s that at the ti$e of the incident on !a -) (>>() he was in @aranga !aliga a) San !iguel) Tarlac) with his fa$il , 2e denied e%er going to the Estrella far$ in Sitio Rosalia) @aranga San @artolo$e) Rosales) #angasinan, Al clai$ed that he acted as a loo"out and was tas"ed to re0ort to his co$0anions if an 0erson or %ehicle would a00roach the house of the Estrellas, 2e said that he was forced to follow what was ordered of hi$ and did not re0ort the $atter to the 0olice because he was threatened to be "illed) including the $e$bers of his fa$il who were in Cebu, On August (9) (>>;) the Regional Trial Court =RTC? of Rosales) #angasinan) @ranch <9) rendered its Decision) 7;8 the dis0ositi%e 0ortion of which states. 62ERE:ORE) 1udg$ent is hereb rendered as follows. I, In Cri$inal Case No, ;;+B3R for !urder.

A, Accused Nicetas OCitaP TaRedo is hereb acquitted of the cri$e charged for insufficienc of e%idenceD @, Accused :ernando Calaguas :ernande' =al as &ando Calaguas? and Alberto Antica$ara =al as Al Ca$ara? are hereb found guilt be ond reasonable doubt) as 0rinci0al) of the cri$e of !urder qualified b treacher ) defined and 0enali'ed under Article (;B of the Re%ised #enal Code, Considering the 0resence of aggra%ating circu$stance of 0re3$editation) with no $itigating circu$stance to offset the sa$e) the 0enalt of DEAT2 is hereb i$0osed u0on the two =(? accused :ernando Calaguas :ernande' =&ando Calaguas? and Alberto Antica$ara =Al Ca$ara?, The are also ordered 1ointl and se%erall 7to8 0a the heirs of the %icti$ Abad Sul0acio the following. *? :ift Thousand #esos =#<>)>>>,>>? as $oral da$agesD (? Se%ent 3:i%e Thousand #esos =#-<)>>>,>>? as inde$nit for the death of the %icti$D 9? :ift 3Se%en Thousand One 2undred Twent 3Two #esos and Thirt Centa%os =#<-)*((,9>? as actual da$agesD and ;? The cost of suit, II, e%idenceD @? Accused :ernando Calaguas :ernande' =al as &ando Calaguas? and Alberto Antica$ara =al as Al Ca$ara? are hereb found guilt be ond reasonable doubt) as 0rinci0al) of the cri$e of Qidna00ingSSerious Illegal Detention of the %icti$ AAA as charged) defined and 0enali'ed under Article (A- of the Re%ised #enal Code) as a$ended b R,A, -A<+, Considering that the %icti$ AAA was ra0ed during her detention) the $aCi$u$ 0enalt of DEAT2 is hereb i$0osed u0on the two accused) :ernando Calaguas :ernande' =&ando Calaguas? and Alberto Antica$ara =Al Ca$ara?, The two accused are also ordered to 0a ) 1ointl and se%erall ) the %icti$ AAA the a$ount of. *? One 2undred Thousand #esos =#*>>)>>>,>>? as $oral da$agesD (? :ift Thousand #esos =#<>)>>>,>>? as eCe$0lar da$agesD and 9? Cost of suit, As to the rest of the accused who are still at3large) let this case be set to the archi%es until the are a00rehended, SO ORDERED,7<8 In light of the CourtLs ruling in People v. Mateo)7A8 the records of the cases were forwarded b the RTC to the CA for its re%iew, The CA rendered a Decision dated Dece$ber *<) (>>A) affir$ing the decision of the RTC in Cri$inal Case Nos, ;;+B3R and ;;B*3R, 2owe%er) in %iew of the abolition of the death 0enalt 0ursuant to Re0ublic Act =R,A,? No, +9;A) which was a00ro%ed on June (;) (>>A) the a00ellants were sentenced to reclusion perpetua, On Januar +) (>>-) &ando) through the #ublic Attorne Hs Office =#AO?) a00ealed the Decision of the CA to this Court, &ando had assigned the following errors in his a00eal initiall 0assed u0on b the CA) to wit. I T2E TRIA& COFRT ERAVE&5 ERRED IN 2O&DINE T2AT CONS#IRAC5 EUISTED @ET6EEN AND A!ONE T2E A&&EEED #ER#ETRATORS O: T2E CRI!E, II Cri$inal Case No, ;;B*3R for Qidna00ingSSerious Illegal Detention. A? Accused Nicetas OCitaP TaRedo is hereb acquitted of the cri$e charged for insufficienc of

21
ASSF!INE T2AT T2E ACCFSED3A##E&&ANT IS EFI&T5) T2E &O6ER COFRT ERAVE&5 ERRED IN CONVICTINE 2I! O: T2E CRI!E O: !FRDER INSTEAD O: 2O!ICIDE, III T2E TRIA& COFRT ERAVE&5 ERRED IN I!#OSINE F#ON T2E ACCFSED3A##E&&ANT T2E SF#RE!E #ENA&T5 O: DEAT2 :OR T2E CRI!E O: QIDNA##INESSERIOFS I&&EEA& DETENTION) AEERAVATED @5 RA#E) IN S#ITE O: T2E :ACT T2AT T2E CRI!E O: RA#E 6AS NOT DF&5 #ROVEN @E5OND REASONA@&E DOF@T, IV T2E TRIA& COFRT ERAVE&5 ERRED IN EIVINE SCANT CONSIDERATION TO T2E EVIDENCE #RESENTED @5 T2E ACCFSED3A##E&&ANT 62IC2 IS !ORE CREDI@&E T2AN T2AT O: T2E #ROSECFTION V T2E TRIA& COFRT ERAVE&5 ERRED IN RENDERINE A VERDICT O: CONVICTION DES#ITE T2E :ACT T2AT T2E EFI&T O: T2E ACCFSED3A##E&&ANT 6AS NOT #ROVEN @E5OND REASONA@&E DOF@T, 7-8 On Januar +) (>>-) Al) through the #AO) a00ealed the Decision of the CA to this Court, Al had assigned the following errors) to wit. I T2E TRIA& COFRT ERRED IN :INDINE T2E ACCFSED3A##E&&ANT EFI&T5 O: T2E CRI!E O: QIDNA##INESSERIOFS I&&EEA& DETENTION IN S#ITE O: T2E :AI&FRE O: T2E #ROSECFTION TO #ROVE @E5OND REASONA@&E DOF@T T2AT 2E CONS#IRED 6IT2 2IS CO3ACCFSED TO CO!!IT T2E CRI!E C2AREED, II T2E TRIA& COFRT ERAVE&5 ERRED IN I!#OSINE F#ON T2E ACCFSED T2E SF#RE!E #ENA&T5 O: DEAT2 :OR T2E S#ECIA& CO!#&EU CRI!E O: QIDNA##INESSERIOFS I&&EEA& DETENTION 6IT2 RA#E) IN S#ITE O: T2E :ACT T2AT 2E 2AD NO #ARTICI#ATION IN T2E CO!!ISSION O: 7T6O8 SEUFA& A@FSES AEAINST T2E VICTI!, III T2E TRIA& COFRT ERAVE&5 ERRED IN :INDINE T2E ACCFSED3A##E&&ANT EFI&T5 O: T2E CRI!E O: !FRDER IN S#ITE O: T2E :AI&FRE O: T2E #ROSECFTION TO #ROVE @E5OND REASONA@&E DOF@T T2AT 2E CONS#IRED 6IT2 2IS CO3ACCFSED TO CO!!IT T2E SA!E, 7B8 In ca0sule) the $ain issue is whether the a00ellants are guilt of the cri$es charged, In $r797na: $a3- No. ++98*R =or (ur1-r% $7r2u936an67a: E>71-n2The trial court found that although there was no direct e ewitness in the "illing of Sul0acio in the earl $orning of !a -) (>>( at Sitio Rosalia) @aranga San @artolo$e) Rosales) #angasinan) the 0rosecution adduced sufficient circu$stantial e%idence to establish with $oral certaint the identities and guilt of the 0er0etrators of the cri$e, Circu$stantial e%idence consists of 0roof of collateral facts and circu$stances fro$ which the eCistence of the $ain fact $a be inferred according to reason and co$$on eC0erience ,7+8 Circu$stantial e%idence is sufficient to sustain con%iction if. =a? there is $ore than one circu$stanceD =b? the facts fro$ which the inferences are deri%ed are 0ro%enD =c? the co$bination of all circu$stances is such as to 0roduce a con%iction be ond reasonable doubt, 7*>8 A 1udg$ent of con%iction based on circu$stantial e%idence can be sustained when the circu$stances 0ro%ed for$ an unbro"en chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion 0ointing to the accused) to the eCclusion of all others) as the 0er0etrator,7**8 In this case) the circu$stantial e%idence 0resented b the 0rosecution) when anal 'ed and ta"en together) lead to the inesca0able conclusion that the a00ellants are res0onsible for the death of Sul0acio, The Court quotes with a00ro%al the lower courtHs enu$eration of those circu$stantial e%idence. The testi$on of AAA had clearl established the following facts. *, At about 9.>> in the earl $orning of !a -) (>>() while she and the %icti$ Abad Sul0acio were slee0ing inside the house of the Estrella fa$il in @aranga Car$en) Rosales) #angasinan se%eral 0ersons entered to rob the 0laceD

22
(, Inside the house) she saw and recogni'ed the accused &ando Calaguas and Dic" TaRedo) and heard the latter uttering Oso$ebod will diePD 9, @ringing her outside the house) &ando 0ushed her into the Re%o where she saw inside Abad Sul0acio who was blindfolded and with his hands tiedD ;, Inside the Re%o) she recogni'ed the accused Dic" TaRedo) &ando Calaguas) !ar%in &i$) Roberto TaRedo) Alberto Antica$ara and :redD <, The Re%o then 0roceeded towards the fish0ond owned b the Estrellas in Sitio Rosalia) @rg , San @artolo$e) Rosales) #angasinanD A, The last ti$e that she saw Abad Sul0acio was when he was dragged out fro$ the %ehicle b &ando) :red) !ar%in and Al u0on reaching Sitio Rosalia, At that) ti$e Dic" TaRedo sta ed with her in the %ehicleD -, Thereafter) when :red returned to the %ehicle) she heard hi$ uttered =sic?. O!a"e a decision now, Abad has alread four =;? bullets in his bod ) and the one left is for this girl,P7*(8 In addition to these circu$stances) the trial court further found that AAA heard :red utter ABsapan natin pare, +ung sino ang masagasaan, sagasaan.P = ur agreement is that .hoever comes our .ay should 'e eliminated?, !oreo%er) N@I Agent Eerald V, Eeralde testified that on June (9) (>>() a00ellant Al ad$itted his 0artici0ation as loo"out and na$ing his co$0anions Dic") &ando) :red) !ar%in and @et as the ones who too" AAA and Sul0acio fro$ the house of the Estrellas and brought the$ to the fish0ond, Al also 0ointed and led the authorities to a shallow gra%e in Sitio Rosalia) @aranga San @artolo$e) Rosales) #angasinan) where the re$ains of Sul0acio were buried, The auto0s conducted on the bod ) 0re0ared b the !edico &egal Officer Dr, @andonil) shows that se%eral holes were found on %arious 0arts of the bod of the %icti$ and Dr, @andonil concluded that the cause of the %icti$Hs death was the gunshot wounds, The re0ort also indicates that a 0iece of cloth was found wra00ed around the e e soc"ets and tied at the bac" of the s"ull) and another cloth was also found tied at the re$nants of the left wrist, In the case at bar) although no one directl saw the actual "illing of Sul0acio) the 0rosecution was able to 0aint a clear 0icture that the a00ellants too" Sul0acio awa fro$ the house of the Estrellas) tied and blindfolded hi$) and brought hi$ to another 0lace where he was re0eatedl shot and buried, $on357ra2y Fnder Article B of the Re%ised #enal Code) there is cons0irac when two or $ore 0ersons co$e to an agree$ent concerning a felon and decide to co$$it it, It $a be inferred fro$ the acts of the accused before) during or after the co$$ission of the cri$e which) when ta"en together) would be enough to re%eal a co$$unit of cri$inal design) as the 0roof of cons0irac is frequentl $ade b e%idence of a chain of circu$stances,7*98 To be a cons0irator) one need not 0artici0ate in e%er detail of the eCecutionD he need not e%en ta"e 0art in e%er act or need not e%en "now the eCact 0art to be 0erfor$ed b the others in the eCecution of the cons0irac , Each cons0irator $a be assigned se0arate and different tas"s which $a a00ear unrelated to one another but) in fact) constitute a whole collecti%e effort to achie%e their co$$on cri$inal ob1ecti%e, Once cons0irac is shown) the act of one is the act of all the cons0irators, The 0recise eCtent or $odalit of 0artici0ation of each of the$ beco$es secondar ) since all the cons0irators are 0rinci0als,7*;8 In the 0resent case) 0rior to the co$$ission of the cri$e) the grou0 $et at the landing field in Car$en) #angasinan and discussed their 0lan to rob the house of the Estrellas with the agree$ent that whoe%er co$es their wa will be eli$inated, 7*<8 A00ellant Al ser%ed as a loo"out b 0osting hi$self across the house of the Estrellas with the tas" of re0orting an $o%e$ents outside, :red then cli$bed the old unser%iceable gate of the Estrella co$0ound and then o0ened the s$all door and the rest of the grou0 entered the house of the Estrellas through that o0ening, 7*A8 After al$ost an hour inside the house) the left on board a %ehicle with AAA and Sul0acio, AAA and Sul0acio were brought to Sitio Rosalia) @rg , San @artolo$e) Rosales) #angasinan, In that 0lace) Sul0acio was "illed and AAA was brought to another 0lace and de0ri%ed of her libert , These circu$stances establish a co$$unit of cri$inal design between the $alefactors in co$$itting the cri$e, Clearl ) the grou0 cons0ired to rob the house of the Estrellas and "ill an 0erson who co$es their wa , The "illing of Sul0acio was 0art of their cons0irac , :urther) Dic"Hs act of ar$ing hi$self with a gun constitutes direct e%idence of a deliberate 0lan to "ill should the need arise, A00ellant Al atte$0ts to e%ade cri$inal liabilit b alleging that he was onl forced to 0artici0ate in the co$$ission of the cri$e because he and his fa$il were threatened to be "illed,AlHs defense fails to i$0ress us, Fnder Article *( 7*-8 of the Re%ised #enal Code) a 0erson is eCe$0t fro$ cri$inal liabilit if he acts under the co$0ulsion of an irresistible force) or under the i$0ulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater in1ur ) because such 0erson does not act with freedo$, 7*B8 To a%ail of this eCe$0ting circu$stance) the e%idence $ust establish. =*? the eCistence of an uncontrollable fearD =(? that the fear $ust be real and i$$inentD and =9? the fear of an in1ur is greater than) or at least equal to) that co$$itted, 7*+8 :or such defense to 0ros0er) the duress) force) fear or inti$idation $ust be 0resent) i$$inent and i$0ending) and of such nature as to induce a well3grounded a00rehension of death or serious bodil har$ if the act be done, A threat of future in1ur is not enough,7(>8 There is nothing in the records to substantiate a00ellant AlHs insistence that he was under duress fro$ his co3accused while 0artici0ating in the cri$e that would suffice to eCe$0t hi$ fro$ incurring cri$inal liabilit , The e%idence shows that Al was tas"ed to act as a loo"out and directed to station hi$self across the house of the Estrellas, Al was there fro$ -.9> 0,$, to *.>> a,$, 7(*8 of the following da ) while the rest of the grou0 was waiting in the landing field, Thus) while all alone) Al had e%er o00ortunit to esca0e since he was no longer sub1ected to a real) i$$inent or reasonable fear, 2owe%er) he o0ted to sta across the house of the

23
Estrellas for al$ost siC =A? hours) 7((8 and thereafter returned to the landing field where the grou0 was waiting for his re0ort, Subsequentl ) the grou0 0roceeded to the EstrellasL house, 6hen the grou0 entered the house) Al sta ed for al$ost one =*? hour outside to wait for his co$0anions, &ater) when the grou0 left the house aboard a %ehicle) Al rode with the$ in going to Sitio Rosalia) @rg , San @artolo$e) Rosales) #angasinan) bringing with the$ Sul0acio and AAA,7(98Clearl ) a00ellant Al had a$0le o00ortunit to esca0e if he wished to) but he ne%er did, Neither did he request for assistance fro$ the authorities or an 0erson 0assing b the house of the Estrellas during the 0eriod he was stationed there, Clearl ) Al did not $a"e an effort to 0erfor$ an o%ert act to dissociate or detach hi$self fro$ the cons0irac to co$$it the felon and 0re%ent the co$$ission thereof that would eCe$0t hi$self fro$ cri$inal liabilit ,7(;8 Therefore) it is ob%ious that he willingl agreed to be a 0art of the cons0irac , !:7.7 an1 #-n7a: A00ellant &ando denied ha%ing co$$itted the cri$e charged and inter0osed alibi as a defense, 2e clai$s that at the ti$e of the incident he was in his house at Tarlac) together with his fa$il , On the other hand) the a00ellants were 0ositi%el identified b AAA) as two =(? of the siC =A? $alefactors who forcibl too" her and Sul0acio fro$ the Estrella house in the earl $orning of !a -) (>>(, @oth the trial court and the CA found the testi$on of AAA credible, The Court gi%es great weight to the trial courtLs e%aluation of the testi$on of a witness because it had the o00ortunit to obser%e the facial eC0ression) gesture) and tone of %oice of a witness while testif ingD thus) $a"ing it in a better 0osition to deter$ine whether a witness is l ing or telling the truth,7(<8 @etween the categorical state$ents of the 0rosecution witness) on one hand) and the bare denial of the a00ellant) on the other) the for$er $ust 0erforce 0re%ail, An affir$ati%e testi$on is far stronger than a negati%e testi$on es0eciall when it co$es fro$ the $outh of a credible witness, Alibi and denial) if not substantiated b clear and con%incing e%idence) are negati%e and self3ser%ing e%idence undeser%ing of weight in law, The are considered with sus0icion and alwa s recei%ed with caution) not onl because the are inherentl wea" and unreliable but also because the are easil fabricated and concocted, 7(A8 Denial cannot 0re%ail o%er the 0ositi%e testi$on of 0rosecution witnesses who were not shown to ha%e an ill3$oti%e to testif against the a00ellants,7(-8 As to the defense of alibi, Aside fro$ the testi$on of a00ellant &ando that he was in Tarlac at the ti$e of the incident) the defense was unable to show that it was 0h sicall i$0ossible for &ando to be at the scene of the cri$e, @asic is the rule that for alibi to 0ros0er) the accused $ust 0ro%e that he was so$ewhere else when the cri$e was co$$itted and that it was 0h sicall i$0ossible for hi$ to ha%e been at the scene of the cri$e, #h sical i$0ossibilit refers to the distance between the 0lace where the a00ellant was when the cri$e trans0ired and the 0lace where it was co$$itted) as well as the facilit of access between the two 0laces, 7(B8 6here there is the least chance for the accused to be 0resent at the cri$e scene) the defense of alibi $ust fail, 7(+8 During the trial of the case) &ando testified that the distance between his house in @rg , !aliga a) San !iguel) Tarlac to the town of Rosales) #angasinan is onl around fort =;>? "ilo$eters, Such distance can be tra%ersed in less than 9> $inutes using a 0ri%ate car and when the tra%el is continuous,79>8 Thus) it was not 0h sicall i$0ossible for the a00ellant &ando to be at the locus criminis at the ti$e of the incident, In addition) 0ositi%e identification destro s the defense of alibi and renders it i$0otent) es0eciall where such identification is credible and categorical,79*8 "ua:7=y7n; an1 !;;ra>a67n; $7r2u936an2-3 In con%icting the a00ellants) the courts a 7uo a00reciated treacher in qualif ing the "illing to $urder and e%ident 0re$editation in i$0osing the 0enalt of death, There is treacher when the offender co$$its an of the cri$es against 0ersons) e$0lo ing $eans) $ethods or for$s in the eCecution thereof which tend directl and s0eciall to ensure its eCecution without ris" to hi$self arising fro$ the defense that the offended 0art $ight $a"e, 79(8 Two conditions $ust concur for treacher to eCist) na$el ) =a? the e$0lo $ent of $eans of eCecution ga%e the 0erson attac"ed no o00ortunit to defend hi$self or to retaliateD and =b? the $eans or $ethod of eCecution was deliberatel and consciousl ado0ted,7998 In the case at bar) it was 0ro%en that when AAA boarded the %ehicle) she saw Sul0acio tied and blindfolded, &ater) when the reached the fish0ond) Sul0acio) still tied and blindfolded) was led out of the %ehicle b the grou0, 6hen the re$ains of Sul0acio was thereafter found b the authorities) the auto0s re0ort indicated that a 0iece of cloth was found wra00ed around the e e soc"ets and tied at the bac" of the s"ull and another cloth was also found tied at the left wrist of the %icti$, There is no question therefore) that the %icti$Hs bod ) when found) still had his hands tied and blindfolded, This situation of the %icti$ when found shows without doubt that he was "illed while tied and blindfoldedD hence) the qualif ing aggra%ating circu$stance of treacher was 0resent in the co$$ission of the cri$e, In People v. sianas,79;8 the Court held that. C C C In the case at bar) the $eans used b the accused3a00ellants to insure the eCecution of the "illing of the %icti$s) so as to afford the %icti$s no o00ortunit to defend the$sel%es) was the act of t ing the hands of the %icti$s, Teresita saw the accused3a00ellants hog3tie the %icti$s and ta"e the$ awa with the$, &ater that night) Dionisio #al$ero saw the %icti$s) still hog3tied) wal"ing with the accused3a00ellants, The following da ) the %icti$s were found dead) still hog3tied, Thus) no $atter how the stab and hac" wounds had been inflicted on the %icti$s in the case at bar) we are sure be ond a reasonable doubt that Jose) Ronilo and Re $undo Cui'on had no o00ortunit to defend the$sel%es because the accused3a00ellants had earlier tied their hands, The fact that there were twel%e 0ersons who too" and "illed the Cui'ons further assured the attain$ent of accused3a00ellantsH 0lans without ris" to the$sel%es,79<8

24
The aggra%ating circu$stance of su0erior strength cannot be se0aratel a00reciated because it is absorbed b treacher ,79A8 The circu$stance of e%ident 0re$editation requires 0roof showing. =*? the ti$e when the accused deter$ined to co$$it the cri$eD =(? an act $anifestl indicating that the accused has clung to his deter$inationD and =9? sufficient la0se of ti$e between such deter$ination and eCecution to allow hi$ to reflect u0on the consequences of his act, 79-8 The essence of0re$editation is that the eCecution of the act was 0receded b cool thought and reflection u0on the resolution to carr out the cri$inal intent during a s0ace of ti$e sufficient to arri%e at a cal$ 1udg$ent, 79B8 :ro$ the ti$e the grou0 $et at the landing field at around A.9> 0,$, of !a A) (>>() and discussed the 0ossibilit of "illing an one who stands on their wa ) u0 to the ti$e the too" Sul0acio awa fro$ the EstrellasL house and e%entuall "illed hi$ thereafter at around 0ast 9.>> a,$,) $ore than eight hours had ela0sed N sufficient for the a00ellants to reflect on the consequences of their actions and desist fro$ carr ing out their e%il sche$e) if the wished to, Instead) a00ellants e%identl clung to their deter$ination and went ahead with their nefarious 0lan, In $r797na: $a3- No. ++81*R =or ?71na557n; an1 S-r7ou3 I::-;a: #-6-n67on. The Court finds a00ellant &ando guilt of the s0ecial co$0leC cri$e of "idna00ing and serious illegal detention with ra0e) defined in and 0enali'ed under Article (A- of the Re%ised #enal Code, The ele$ents of "idna00ing and serious illegal detention under Article (A- of the Re%ised #enal Code79+8 are. =*? the offender is a 0ri%ate indi%idualD =(? he "idna0s or detains another or in an other $anner de0ri%es the latter of his libert D =9? the act of detention or "idna00ing $ust be illegalD and =;? in the co$$ission of the offense) an of the following circu$stances is 0resent. =a? the "idna00ing or detention lasts for $ore than 9 da sD or =b? it is co$$itted b si$ulating 0ublic authorit D or =c? an serious 0h sical in1uries are inflicted u0on the 0erson "idna00ed or detained or threats to "ill hi$ are $adeD or =d? the 0erson "idna00ed or detained is a $inor) fe$ale) or a 0ublic officer,7;>8 The cri$e of "idna00ing was 0ro%en be ond reasonable doubt b the 0rosecution, A00ellants &ando and Al) both 0ri%ate indi%iduals) forcibl too" AAA) a fe$ale) awa fro$ the house of the Estrellas and held her ca0ti%e against her will, Thereafter) a00ellant &ando brought AAA to his house in San !iguel Tarlac) whereb she was de0ri%ed of her libert for al$ost one $onth, It is settled that the cri$e of serious illegal detention consists not onl of 0lacing a 0erson in an enclosure) but also in detaining hi$ or de0ri%ing hi$ in an $anner of his libert , 7;*8 :or there to be "idna00ing) it is enough that the %icti$ is restrained fro$ going ho$e, 7;(8 Its essence is the actual de0ri%ation of the %icti$Hs libert ) cou0led with indubitable 0roof of the intent of the accused to effect such de0ri%ation,7;98 Although AAA was not confined in an enclosure) she was restrained and de0ri%ed of her libert ) because e%er ti$e a00ellant &ando and his wife went out of the house) the brought AAA with the$, The foregoing onl shows that AAA was constantl guarded b a00ellant &ando and his fa$il , The cri$e of ra0e was also established b the 0rosecution, A00ellant &ando succeeded in ha%ing carnal "nowledge of AAA through the use of threat and inti$idation, AAA testified that on !a +) (>>() a00ellant &ando brought her to a hotel to hide her fro$ :red and @ert) who intended to "ill her, A00ellant &ando told her to follow his orders) otherwise) he will gi%e her to :red and @ert, 6hile in the hotel) a00ellant &ando ra0ed her,7;;8 Clearl ) for fear of being deli%ered to :red and @ert and of losing her life) AAA had no choice but to gi%e in to a00ellant &andoHs lustful assault, In ra0e cases) the credibilit of the %icti$Hs testi$on is al$ost alwa s the single $ost i$0ortant factor, 6hen the %icti$Hs testi$on is credible) it $a be the sole basis for the accusedHs con%iction, 7;<8 This is so because owing to the nature of the offense) in $an cases) the onl e%idence that can be gi%en regarding the $atter is the testi$on of the offended 0art ,7;A8 The last 0aragra0h of Article (A- of the Re%ised #enal Code 0ro%ides that if the %icti$ is "illed or dies as a consequence of the detention) or is ra0ed or sub1ected to torture or dehu$ani'ing acts) the $aCi$u$ 0enalt shall be i$0osed, In People v. 4arraCaga)7;-8 this 0ro%ision gi%es rise to a s0ecial co$0leC cri$e, Thus) 6e hold that a00ellant &ando is guilt be ond reasonable doubt of the s0ecial co$0leC cri$e of "idna00ing and serious illegal detention with ra0e in Cri$inal Case No, ;;B*3R, 2owe%er) the Court does not agree with the CA and trial courtHs 1udg$ent finding a00ellant Al liable for Ra0e in Cri$inal Case No, ;;B*3R, In People v. !uyu)7;B8 6e ruled that once cons0irac is established between se%eral accused in the co$$ission of the cri$e of robber ) the would all be equall cul0able for the ra0e co$$itted b an one of the$ on the occasion of the robber ) unless an one of the$ 0ro%es that he endea%ored to 0re%ent the others fro$ co$$itting ra0e, 7;+8 Also) in People v. Canturia,7<>8 the Court held that. C C C :or while the e%idence does con%incingl show a cons0irac a$ong the accused) it also as con%incingl suggests that the agree$ent was to co$$it robber onl D and there is no e%idence that the other $e$bers of the band of robbers were aware of CanturiaHs lustful intent and his consu$$ation thereof so that the could ha%e atte$0ted to 0re%ent the sa$e, C C C The foregoing 0rinci0le is a00licable in the 0resent case because the cri$e of robber with ra0e is a s0ecial co$0leC cri$e defined in and 0enali'ed under Article (+;) 0aragra0h * of the Re%ised #enal Code) and the cri$e of "idna00ing with ra0e in this case is li"ewise a s0ecial co$0leC cri$e as held in the case of People v. 4arraCaga,7<*8 There is no e%idence to 0ro%e that a00ellant Al was aware of the subsequent e%ents that trans0ired after the "illing of Sul0acio and the "idna00ing of AAA, A00ellant Al could not ha%e 0re%ented a00ellant &ando fro$ ra0ing AAA) because at the ti$e of ra0e) he was no longer associated with a00ellant &ando, AAA e%en testified that onl :red and a00ellant &ando brought her to Tarlac) 7<(8 and she ne%er saw a00ellant Al again after

25
!a -) (>>() the da she was held ca0ti%e, She onl saw a00ellant Al once $ore during the trial of the case, 7<98 Thus) a00ellant Al cannot be held liable for the subsequent ra0e of AAA, T@- P-na:67-3 In Cri$inal Case No, ;;+B3R) the attendant circu$stance of treacher qualified the "illing to $urder, The 0enalt for $urder under Article (;B of the Re%ised #enal Code isreclusion perpetua to death, Since the aggra%ating circu$stance of e%ident 0re$editation was alleged and 0ro%en) the i$0osable 0enalt u0on the a00ellants is death) 0ursuant to Article A9) 0aragra0h *) of the Re%ised #enal Code,7<;8 In %iew) howe%er) of the 0assage of R,A, No, +9;A)7<<8 0rohibiting the i$0osition of the death 0enalt ) the 0enalt of death is reduced toreclusion perpetua)7<A8 without eligibilit for 0arole,7<-8 In Cri$inal Case No, ;;B*3R) the 0enalt for the s0ecial co$0leC cri$e of "idna00ing and serious illegal detention with ra0e is death, In %iew of R,A, No, +9;A) the 0enalt of death is reduced to reclusion perpetua)7<B8 without eligibilit for 0arole,7<+8 Accordingl ) the i$0osable 0enalt for a00ellant &ando is reclusion perpetua. As to a00ellant Al) the 0rescribed 0enalt for serious illegal detention under Article (A- of the Re%ised #enal Code is reclusion perpetua to death, There being no aggra%ating or $itigating circu$stance in the co$$ission of the offense) the 0ro0er 0enalt to be i$0osed is reclusion perpetua) 0ursuant to Article A97A>8 of the Re%ised #enal Code, T@- #a9a;-3 In Cri$inal Case No, ;;+B3R) the award of ci%il inde$nit is $andator and granted to the heirs of the %icti$ without need of 0roof other than the co$$ission of the cri$e,7A*8 InPeople v. Quiachon)7A(8 e%en if the 0enalt of death is not to be i$0osed because of the 0rohibition in R,A, +9;A) the ci%il inde$nit of #-<)>>>,>> is 0ro0er) because it is not de0endent on the actual i$0osition of the death 0enalt but on the fact that qualif ing circu$stances warranting the i$0osition of the death 0enalt attended the co$$ission of the offense, As eC0lained in People v. !alome)7A98 while R,A, No, +9;A 0rohibits the i$0osition of the death 0enalt ) the fact re$ains that the 0enalt 0ro%ided for b law for a heinous offense is still death) and the offense is still heinous, Accordingl ) the award of ci%il inde$nit in the a$ount of #-<)>>>,>> is 0ro0er, Anent $oral da$ages) the sa$e are $andator in cases of $urder) without need of allegation and 0roof other than the death of the %icti$,7A;8 2owe%er) consistent with recent 1uris0rudence on heinous cri$es where the i$0osable 0enalt is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua 0ursuant to R,A, No, +9;A) the award of $oral da$ages should be increased fro$#<>)>>>,>> to #-<)>>>,>>,7A<8 The award of eCe$0lar da$ages is in order) because of the 0resence of the aggra%ating circu$stances of treacher and e%ident 0re$editation in the co$$ission of the cri$e,7AA8The Court awards the a$ount of #9>)>>>,>>) as eCe$0lar da$ages) in line with current 1uris0rudence on the $atter,7A-8 Actual da$ages is also warranted, !odesta Abad) the s0ouse of %icti$ Sul0acio) incurred eC0enses in the a$ount of #<-)*((,9>) which was dul su00orted b recei0ts,7AB8 In Cri$inal Case No, ;;B*3R) AAA is entitled to ci%il inde$nit in line with 0re%ailing 1uris0rudence that ci%il inde$nification is $andator u0on the finding of ra0e,7A+8 A00l ing 0re%ailing 1uris0rudence) AAA is entitled to #-<)>>>,>> as ci%il inde$nit ,7->8 In addition) AAA is entitled to $oral da$ages 0ursuant to Article ((*+ of the Ci%il Code) 7-*8 without the necessit of additional 0leadings or 0roof other than the fact of ra0e,7-(8!oral da$ages is granted in recognition of the %icti$Hs in1ur necessaril resulting fro$ the odious cri$e of ra0e, 7-98 Such award is se0arate and distinct fro$ the ci%il inde$nit , 7-;82owe%er) the a$ount of #*>>)>>>,>> awarded as $oral da$ages is reduced to #-<)>>>,>>) in line with current 1uris0rudence,7-<8 The award of eCe$0lar da$ages to AAA in the a$ount of #<>)>>> is hereb reduced to #9>)>>>,>> in accordance with recent 1uris0rudence,7-A8 As to a00ellant Al, In the absence of cons0irac ) the liabilit of the accused is indi%idual and not collecti%e, 7--8 Since a00ellant Al is liable onl for the cri$e of serious illegal detention) he is 1ointl and se%erall liable onl to 0a the a$ount of #<>)>>>,>> as ci%il inde$nit , :or serious illegal detention) the award of ci%il inde$nit is in the a$ount of #<>)>>>,>>) in line with 0re%ailing 1uris0rudence,7-B8 Along that line) a00ellant AlHs liabilit for $oral da$ages is li$ited onl to the a$ount of #<>)>>>,>>,7-+8 #ursuant to Article ((*+ of the Ci%il Code) $oral da$ages $a be reco%ered in cases of illegal detention, This is 0redicated on AAAHs ha%ing suffered serious anCiet and fright when she was detained for al$ost one =*? $onth,7B>8 'HEREFORE) the Decision is !FFIR(E# with (O#IFI$!TIONS as follows. of the Court of A00eals in CA3E,R, CR32,C, No, >><<A

26
=a? In Cri$inal Case No, ;;+B3R) a00ellants :ernando Calaguas :ernande' alias O&andoP and Alberto Cabillo Antica$ara alias OAlP are found G ILT/ be ond reasonable doubt of the cri$e of !urder and are sentenced to suffer the 0enalt of Reclusion Perpetua) without eligibilit of 0arole) and to 0a ) 1ointl and se%erall ) the heirs of Sul0acio Abad the a$ounts of#-<)>>>,>> as ci%il inde$nit ) #-<)>>>,>> as $oral da$ages) #9>)>>>,>> as eCe$0lar da$ages) and #<-)*((,9> as actual da$ages, =b? In Cri$inal Case No, ;;B*3R) a00ellant :ernando Calaguas :ernande' alias O&andoP is found G ILT/ be ond reasonable doubt of the s0ecial co$0leC cri$e of "idna00ing and serious illegal detention with ra0e and is sentenced to suffer the 0enalt of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibilit of 0arole) and to 0a the offended 0art AAA) the a$ounts of #-<)>>>,>> as ci%il inde$nit ) #-<)>>>,>> as $oral da$ages and #9>)>>>,>> as eCe$0lar da$ages, A00ellant Alberto Cabillo Antica$ara alias OAlP is found G ILT/ be ond reasonable doubt of the cri$e of "idna00ing and serious illegal detention and is sentenced to suffer the 0enalt of Reclusion Perpetua. 2e is also directed to 0a ) 1ointl and se%erall ) with a00ellant :ernando Calaguas :ernande' alias O&ando)P the %icti$ AAA the a$ounts of #<>)>>>,>> as ci%il inde$nit and #<>)>>>,>> as $oral da$ages, SO OR#ERE#.

:IRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 1520++. Ju:y A, 200A] #O(INGO L!GROS! an1 OSI!S 0!G IN, petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES an1 THE HONOR!0LE $O RT OF !PPE!LS, respondents. #E$ISION /N!RES*S!NTI!GO, J.% This is a 0etition for re%iew of the decision of the Court of A00eals in CA3E,R, No, A-9>B) 7*8 which affir$ed the Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran Cit ) @ranch () den ing 0etitionersL A00lication for #robation) and its Order den ing 0etitionersL !otion for Reconsideration,7(8 The undis0uted facts are as follows, On October (+) *++A) the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran Cit ) @ranch () rendered a decision in Cri$inal Case No, B(;9) finding 0etitioners Do$ingo &agrosa and Osias @aguin guilt of %iolation of Section AB of #,D, -><) as a$ended =The Re%ised :orestr Code?) for ha%ing in their 0ossession forest 0roducts without the requisite 0er$its, The trial court sentenced the$ to suffer the indeter$inate 0enalt of i$0rison$ent fro$ two =(? ears) four =;? $onths and one =*? da of prision correccional) as $ini$u$) to eight =B? ears of prision mayor) as $aCi$u$, #etitionersL !otion for Reconsideration of the decision 7;8 was denied b the trial court on No%e$ber (*) *++A,7<8
798

#etitioners a00ealed their con%iction to the Court of A00eals) where it was doc"eted as CA3E,R, CR No, (>A9(, 7A8 On !arch *;) (>>>) the a00ellate court affir$ed the con%iction of the 0etitioners) with the $odification as to the 0enalt i$0osed) which was reduced to an indeter$inate 0enalt ranging fro$ siC =A? $onths and one =*? da of prision correccional) as $ini$u$) to one =*? ear) eight =B? $onths and twent one =(*? da s of prision correccional) as $aCi$u$,7-8 The decision beca$e final and eCecutor on A0ril *() (>>>, On August (+) (>>*) 0etitioners filed an A00lication for #robation with the trial court) 7B8 which) as $entioned at the outset) was denied, #etitionersL $otion for reconsideration was li"ewise denied b the trial court, 2ence) 0etitioners filed a 0etition for certiorari with the Court of A00eals) which was doc"eted as CA3E,R, S# No, A-9>B, 7+8 On Januar **) (>>() the Court of A00eals rendered the assailed decision affir$ing the questioned resolutions of the trial court, 2ence this 0etition) raising the following argu$ents. *? That Section ; of #residential Decree No, +AB) as a$ended b #D No, *++>) is %er absurd and illogical considering that 0etitioners were not gi%en the o00ortunit to a00l for 0robation when the were con%icted b the Regional Trial Court of @ohol) @ranch () because the 0enalt i$0osed b said court is $ore than siC =A? ears and therefore non30robationable, That the first o00ortunit for herein 0etitioners to a00l for 0robation was when the Court of A00eals $odified the sentence i$0osed b the Regional Trial Court of @ohol) @ranch () fro$ two =(? ears) four =;? $onths and one =*? da of prision correccional) as $ini$u$) to eight =B? ears of prision mayor) as $aCi$u$) to siC =A? $onths and one =*? da to one =*? ear) eight =B? $onths and twent one =(*? da s as $aCi$u$ which is clearl 0robationable, (? That the ruling of this 2onorable Su0re$e Court in the case of Pa'lo (rancisco versus Court of $ppeals, et al. ) E,R, No, *>B-;-) is not a00licable to the instant case because in the said (rancisco case the accused therein can a00l for 0robation because the 0enalt i$0osed b the lower court was alread 0robationable but the accused instead a00ealed

27
the decision but in the case of herein 0etitioners the cannot a00l for 0robation when the were con%icted because the 0enalt i$0osed b the lower court was $ore than siC =A? ears and therefore non30robationable, 9? That the decision of the Court of A00eals herein sought to be re%iewed is clearl contrar to the 0ur0ose of the #robation &aw,7*>8 The law that is at the heart of this contro%ers is #residential Decree No, +AB) also "nown as the #robation &aw) as a$ended b #,D, *++>) the 0ertinent 0ro%ision of which reads. SEC, ;, "rant of Pro'ation. N Sub1ect to the 0ro%isions of this Decree) the trial court $a ) after it shall ha%e con%icted and sentenced a defendant) and u0on a00lication b said defendant within the 0eriod for 0erfecting an a00eal) sus0end the eCecution of the sentence and 0lace the defendant on 0robation for such 0eriod and u0on such ter$s and conditions as it $a dee$ bestD Provided) That no a00lication for 0robation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has 0erfected the a00eal fro$ the 1udg$ent of con%iction, =underscoring ours? #robation $a be granted whether the sentence i$0oses a ter$ of i$0rison$ent or a fine onl , An a00lication for 0robation shall be filed with the trial court, The filing of the a00lication shall be dee$ed a wai%er of the right to a00eal, An order granting or den ing 0robation shall not be a00ealable, Fnder Section + =a? of the #robation &aw) offenders who are sentenced to ser%e a $aCi$u$ ter$ of i$0rison$ent of $ore than siC ears are disqualified fro$ see"ing 0robation, It should be noted that before #,D, +AB was a$ended b #,D, *++>) the accused was allowed to a00l for 0robation e%en after he had alread filed an a00eal) as long as he had not et begun to ser%e his sentence,7**8 #etitioners contend that the should be allowed to a00l for 0robation e%en if the had alread a00ealed the decision of the trial court, The argue that their case should be considered an eCce0tion to the general rule which eCcludes an accused who has a00ealed his con%iction fro$ the benefits of 0robation, In the case at bar) the trial court sentenced 0etitioners to a $aCi$u$ ter$ of eight ears) which was be ond the co%erage of the #robation &aw, The onl beca$e eligible for 0robation after the Court of A00eals $odified the 1udg$ent of the trial court and reduced the $aCi$u$ ter$ of the 0enalt i$0osed on the$ to one ear) eight $onths and twent 3one da s,7*(8 The sub$it that the ruling in the case of (rancisco v. C$7*98 is not a00licable because in that case) the accused a00ealed their con%iction notwithstanding the fact that the $aCi$u$ ter$ of the 0rison sentence i$0osed on the$ b the trial court was less than siC ears,7*;8 In its Co$$ent) the Office of the Solicitor Eeneral reiterates the eC0ress 0ro%ision of #,D, +AB 0rohibiting the grant of 0robation to those who ha%e a00ealed their con%ictions,7*<8 It argues that) e%en if the 0etitioners ha%e a00ealed for the 0ur0ose of reducing an incorrect 0enalt ) this fact does not ser%e to re$o%e the$ fro$ the 0rohibition in Section ; of #,D, +AB for the law $a"es no such distinction,7*A8 There is no question that 0etitioners a00ealed fro$ the decision of the trial court, This fact alone $erits the denial of 0etitionersL A00lication for #robation, 2a%ing a00ealed fro$ the 1udg$ent of the trial court and ha%ing a00lied for 0robation onl after the Court of A00eals had affir$ed their con%iction) 0etitioners were clearl 0recluded fro$ the benefits of 0robation,7*-8 2owe%er) 0etitioners now as" us not to a00l the letter of the law) clai$ing that their situation should be considered an eCce0tion to the rule, Their 0etition is without $erit, #etitioners re0eatedl assert that their a00lication for 0robation was $ade at the Ofirst o00ortunit )P undoubtedl in%o"ing the fourth OwhereasP clause of #,D, *++>) which reads. 62EREAS) 0robation was not intended as an esca0e hatch and should not be used to obstruct and dela the ad$inistration of 1ustice) but should be a%ailed of at the first o00ortunit b offenders who are willing to be refor$ed and rehabilitatedD C C C, To bolster this assertion) 0etitioners clai$ that what 0ro$0ted the$ to a00eal the decision of the trial court was the erroneous 0enalt i$0osed b the trial court,7*B8 #etitioners are not being %er assign$ent of errors. candid, In their a00ellantLs brief filed in CA3E,R, CR No, (>A9() the I T2AT T2E &O6ER COFRT ERRED IN :INDINE @OT2 ACCFSED EFI&T5 O: T2E O::ENSE C2AREED @ECAFSE T2E EVIDENCE AEAINST T2E! &ACQS !ORA& CERTAINT5, II. I: EVER ACCFSED ARE EFI&T5) T2E &O6ER COFRT ERRED IN I!#OSINE T2E #RO#ER #ENA&T5 AS #ROVIDED @5 &A6, raised the following

28
The fact that 0etitioners 0ut the $erits of their con%iction in issue on a00eal belies their clai$ that their a00eal was 0ro$0ted b what was ad$ittedl an incorrect 0enalt , Certainl ) the 0rotestations of 0etitioners connote a 0rofession of guiltlessness) if not co$0lete innocence) and do not si$0l assail the 0ro0riet of the 0enalties i$0osed, :or sure) 0etitioners ne%er $anifested that the were a00ealing onl for the 0ur0ose of correcting a wrong 0enalt N to reduce it to within 0robationable range, 2ence) u0on inter0osing an a00eal) $ore so after asserting their innocence therein) 0etitioners should be 0recluded fro$ see"ing 0robation, @ 0erfecting their a00eal) 0etitioners ipso facto relinquished the alternati%e re$ed of a%ailing of the #robation &aw) the 0ur0ose of which is si$0l to 0re%ent s0eculation or o00ortunis$ on the 0art of an accused who) although alread eligible) does not at once a00l for 0robation) but did so onl after failing in his a00eal,7*+8 Although it has been suggested that an a00eal should not bar the accused fro$ a00l ing for 0robation if the a00eal is solel to reduce the 0enalt to within the 0robationable li$it $a be equitable) 7(>8 we are not et 0re0ared to acce0t this 0ro0osition) s0eciall gi%en the factual circu$stances of this case, 2ad the 0etitionersL a00eal fro$ the decision of the trial court raised the i$0ro0riet of the 0enalt i$0osed u0on the$ as the sole issue) 0erha0s this Court would ha%e been $ore s $0athetic to their 0light, Fnfortunatel ) their $isre0resentation has led to their own undoing, 'HEREFORE) in %iew of the foregoing) the 0etition is DENIED, The Decision of the Court of A00eals dated Januar **) (>>( in CA3E,R, No, A-9>B) which affir$ed the Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran Cit ) @ranch () den ing 0etitionersL A00lication for #robation) and its Order den ing 0etitionersL !otion for Reconsideration) is A::IR!ED, Costs against the 0etitioners, SO OR#ERE#. #avide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Carpio, and $zcuna, JJ., concur. *itug, J., I reiterate $ se0arate =dissenting? o0inion in :rancisco %s, CA =(;9 SCRA 9B;) 9++?, :IRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 1A820A. Ju:y A, 2002] LILI! J. &I$O/, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. #E$ISION /N!RES*S!NTI!GO, J.% This is a 0etition under Rule ;< on 0ure question of law assailing the :ebruar +) *++B 7*8 and :ebruar (<) *++B7(8 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of @ohol) @ranch 9) in S#, Ci%il Case No, <BB*) dis$issing 0etitionerLs s0ecial ci%il action for certiorari, The 0resent contro%ers ste$$ed fro$ a 1udg$ent of con%iction 0ro$ulgated on August (;) *++< b the !unici0al Trial Court in Cities =!TCC? of Tagbilaran) @ranch () in Cri$inal Case Nos, <(A< and <9>-, The dis0ositi%e 0ortion thereof reads. 62ERE:ORE) Judg$ent is hereb rendered as follows. *, In Cri$inal Case No, <(A<) the Court finds and so holds the herein accused &ilia Vico Ju$agdao EFI&T5 be ond reasonable doubt for %iolation of Cit Ordinance No, 9A<3@ for 0eddling fish outside the Agora #ublic !ar"et) and accordingl sentences her to suffer the 0enalt of a fine of :ift #esos =#<>,>>? with subsidiar i$0rison$ent in case of insol%enc and to 0a the costsD (, In Cri$inal Case No, <9>-) the Court finds and so holds the herein accused &ilia Vico Ju$agdao EFI&T5 be ond reasonable doubt of the cri$e of Resistance and Serious Disobedience To Agents Of A #erson In Authorit ) and accordingl sentences her to suffer the 0enalt of three =9? $onths of arresto $a or and to 0a a fine of two 2undred #esos =#(>>,>>? without subsidiar i$0rison$ent in case of insol%enc and to 0a the costs, SO ORDERED,798 On the sa$e date) August (;) *++<) 0etitioner filed an a00lication for 0robation, 7;8 On Se0te$ber *B) *++<) howe%er) 0etitioner filed a $otion to withdraw her a00lication for 0robation and si$ultaneousl filed a notice of a00eal,7<8 In an O$nibus Order7A8 dated Se0te$ber (() *++<) the !TCC of Tagbilaran granted 0etitionerLs withdrawal of her a00lication for 0robation but denied her notice of a00eal for ha%ing been filed out of ti$e, #etitioner filed a $otion for reconsideration of the denial of her a00eal) howe%er) the sa$e was denied, 2ence) 0etitioner filed a s0ecial ci%il action for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court of @ohol) @ranch 9) contending that the !TCC of Tagbilaran gra%el abused its discretion in den ing her the right to a00eal, Na$ed res0ondents therein were the #residing Judge of !TCC of Tagbilaran) @ranch () and the #eo0le of the #hili00ines) re0resented b the #hili00ine National #olice of Tagbilaran

29
Cit , The 0arties were ordered b the court to sub$it their $e$orandu$ within *> da s) after which) the case was sub$itted for 1udg$ent on the 0leadings,7-8 Reali'ing that the #eo0le should be re0resented b the Cit #rosecutorLs Office) the court issued an Order dated August () *++A) requiring the latter to enter its a00earance, In the sa$e order) 0etitioner was directed to furnish the Cit #rosecutorLs Office with a co0 of her $e$orandu$ and of the assailed 1udg$ent) thus. :ro$ the reading of the 0etition that ga%e rise to this case) and of the $e$orandu$ of the 0etitioner) it is the considered o0inion of this Court) and so holds) that the Cit #rosecutor of Tagbilaran be required to enter his a00earance for the State in the light of the failure of res0ondent Judge E$$a Enrico3Su0re$o to sub$it her re0l to co$$ent to the 0etition, @esides) the Court noticed that the #eo0le of the #hili00ines has been i$0leaded as one of the res0ondents, #RE!ISES CONSIDERED) Att , Dionisio A, Ealido) counsel for the 0etitioner) is hereb directed to furnish the Office of the Cit #rosecutor of Tagbilaran co0ies of the questioned 1udg$ent and their $e$orandu$) and for the Cit #rosecutor to sub$it within ten =*>? da s fro$ recei0t thereof) his $e$orandu$ or an 0leading on the $atter,7B8 On :ebruar +) *++B)7+8 the Regional Trial Court rendered the assailed Order dis$issing 0etitionerLs s0ecial ci%il action for certiorari for failure to co$0l with the aforequoted August () *++A Order, A $otion for reconsideration of the said order of dis$issal was denied on :ebruar (<) *+++,7*>8 2ence) the instant 0etition, The sole issue raised in this 0etition is whether or not the 0etition for certiorari was %alidl dis$issed b the Regional Trial Court on the ground of 0etitionerLs failure to co$0l with its Order dated August () *++A, Section 9) Rule *-) of the Rules of Court) 0ro%ides. Section 9, Dis$issal due to fault of 0laintiff, 3 If) for no 1ustifiable cause) the 0laintiff fails to a00ear on the date of the 0resentation of his e%idence in chief on the co$0laint) or to 0rosecute his action for an unreasonable length of ti$e) or to 2o95:y B76@ 6@-3- Ru:-3 or any or1-r o= 6@- 2our6, the co$0laint $a be dis$issed u0on $otion of the defendant or u0on the courtLs own $otion) without 0re1udice to the right of the defendant to 0rosecute his counterclai$ in the sa$e or in a se0arate action, This dis$issal shall ha%e the effect of an ad1udication on the $erits) unless otherwise declared b the court, =E$0hasis su00lied? In the case at bar) the trial court categoricall directed 0etitioner) in its August () *++A Order) to furnish the Cit #rosecutorLs Office with a co0 of her $e$orandu$ and of the assailed 1udg$ent, #etitionerLs counsel did not co$0l ) 0ro$0ting the court to dis$iss the 0etition for certiorari on :ebruar +) *++B, The fact that the Cit #rosecutorLs Office has not et entered its a00earance is no 1ustification to 0etitionerLs ada$ant and continued insistence not to co$0l with a lawful order of the court, E%er court has the 0ower to enforce and co$0el obedience to its orders) 1udg$ents) and 0rocesses in all 0roceedings 0ending before it, 7**8 The Regional Trial CourtLs dis$issal of 0etitionerLs s0ecial ci%il action) therefore) was but a %alid eCercise of said 0ower, !oreo%er) e%en assu$ing that the Regional Trial Court did not order the said dis$issal) 0etitionerLs s0ecial ci%il action) questioning the denial of her notice of a00eal) would still fail, Note that 0etitioner filed an a00lication for 0robation, Section -) Rule *(>) of the Rules on Cri$inal #rocedure is eC0licit that a 1udg$ent in a cri$inal case beco$es final when the accused has a00lied for 0robation, This is totall in accord with Section ; of #residential Decree No, +AB =#robation &aw of *+-A) as a$ended?) which in 0art 0ro%ides that the filing of an a00lication for 0robation is dee$ed a wai%er of the right to a00eal, 7*(8 Thus) there was no $ore o00ortunit for 0etitioner to eCercise her right to a00eal) the 1udg$ent ha%ing beco$e final b the filing of an a00lication for 0robation, 'HEREFORE, in %iew of all the foregoing) the 0etition is #ENIE#. The assailed :ebruar +) *++B and :ebruar (<) *+++ Orders of the Regional Trial Court of @ohol) @ranch 9) in S#, Ci%il Case No, <BB* are !FFIR(E#. SO OR#ERE#. #avide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), *itug, Dapunan, and $ustria,Martinez, JJ., concur,

Re0ublic of the #hili00ines S PRE(E $O RT !anila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L*6A+00 (ar2@ 18, 198A E# !R#O TOLENTINO y S!(ONTE, 0etitioner) %s, HON. !(!NTE ". !L$ON$EL, Ju1;-, $7r2u76 $r797na: $our6, S7<6@ Ju1727a: #736r726, (an7:a, res0ondent,

30
(a/ardo, 4agunzad E !antiago of the Court. -he !olicitor "eneral for respondent.

ES$OLIN, J.: Challenged in this 0etition for certiorari is the order of res0ondent Judge A$ante K, Alconcel of the Circuit Cri$inal Court of !anila) in CCC VI3B;7B*8) den ing 0etitionerHs a00lication for 0robation under #,D, +AB, #etitioner was charged before the Circuit Cri$inal Court of !anila with %iolation of Section ;) Article II of Re0, Act No, A;(<) otherwise "nown as the Dangerous Drugs Act of *+-(, F0on arraign$ent on Se0te$ber ;) *+B*) 0etitioner entered a 0lea of not guilt , On October B) *+B*) after the 0rosecution had 0resented 0art of its e%idence) 0etitioner $anifested his desire to change his 0lea of not guilt to that of guilt to the lesser offense of 0ossession of Indian 2e$0 7$ari1uana8) under Section B of Article II of Re0, Act No, A;(<, As no ob1ection was inter0osed b the fiscal) the court allowed 0etitioner to withdraw his for$er 0lea of guilt and to enter a 0lea of guilt to said lessor offense, #etitioner was thereu0on sentenced to i$0rison$ent of siC 7A8 $onths and one 7*8 da to two 7(8 ears and four 7;8 $onths) to 0a a fine of #*)>>>,>>) and to 0a the costs) with subsidiar i$0rison$ent in case of insol%enc , On October *9) *+B*) 0etitioner a00lied for 0robation, Res0ondent 1udge forthwith directed the 0robation officer of the Cit of !anila to conduct a 0ost sentence in%estigation on said a00lication and to file said re0ort thereon within A> da s, After conducting such in%estigation) the 0robation officer sub$itted its re0ort) reco$$ending that 0etitioner be 0laced on a two3 ear 0robation u0on the clai$ that the latter was alread on his wa to refor$ation and that a 0rison cell would turn hi$ into a hardened cri$inal, Such reco$$endation notwithstanding) the res0ondent 1udge issued the challenged order of !arch +) *+B() den ing 0etitionerHs a00lication on the ground that it will de0reciate the seriousness of the offense co$$itted, 1 On !arch (9) *+B() 0etitioner $o%ed for reconsideration of the !arch + order) 2 but the sa$e was denied, The 0etitionerHs /EC3#arte !otion for 2earing on the case for #robation and for Defer$ent of ECecution of Judg$ent/ A was li"ewise denied, 2ence) the instant recourse, #etitionerHs the$e is that res0ondent 1udge acted with gra%e abuse of discretion in holding that /0robation will de0reciate the seriousness of the offense co$$itted,/ 6e find these contentions de%oid of $erit, Section < of #,D, +AB 0ro%ides) to wit. SEC, <, Post !entence @nvestigation,G No 0erson shall be 0laced on 0robation eCce0t u0on 0rior in%estigation b the 0robation officer and a deter$ination b the court that the ends of 1ustice and the best interest of the 0ublic as well as that of the defendant will be ser%ed thereb , It is e%ident fro$ the foregoing that the 0otentialit of the offender to refor$ is not the sole) $uch less the 0ri$ordial factor) that should be considered in the grant or denial of an a00lication for 0robation, Equal regard to the de$ands of 1ustice and 0ublic interest $ust be obser%ed, Thus) Section B of #,D, +AB la s down the criteria for the 0lacing of an offender on 0robation) as follows. Sec, B, Criteria for Placing an ffender on Pro'ation,GIn deter$ining whether an offender $a be 0laced on 0robation) the court shall consider all infor$ation) relati%e to the character) antecedents) en%iron$ent) $ental and 0h sical condition of the offender and a%ailable institutional and co$$unit resources, #robation shall be denied if the court finds that. a? ,,, b? ,,, c? 0robation will de0reciate the seriousness of the offense co$$itted,

31
/The conclusion of res0ondent 1udge that /0robation will de0reciate the seriousness of the offense co$$itted/ is based 0rinci0all on the ad$ission b the 0etitioner hi$self) as reflected in the re0ort of the 0robation officer) that he 70etitioner8 was actuall caught in the act of selling $ari1uana cigarettes, #etitioner did not den or dis0ute the %eracit of the fact that he was caught in flagrante delicto of selling $ari1uana cigarettes, 2e $erel atte$0ted to 1ustif his cri$inal act b eC0laining in his $otion for reconsideration that /he did it onl to $a"e so$e $one for the fa$il during Christ$as, + Such ad$ission renders a hearing on the a00lication for 0robation an unnecessar sur0lusage and an Idle cere$on , #robation is a $ere 0ri%ilege and its grant rests solel u0on the discretion of the court, 5 As a0tl noted in B.!. vs. #ur+en) 6 this discretion is to be eCercised 0ri$aril for the benefit of organi'ed societ and onl incidentall for the benefit of the accused, #roliferation of 0rohibited drugs in the countr has re$ained a serious threat to the well3being of the 0eo0le, It has necessitated an all3 out intensified ca$0aign on the 0art of the law3enforcers against users as well as 0ushers thereof, If onl to e$0hasi'e the gra%it of the drug $enace) the @atasan #a$bansa has seen fit to increase the 0enalt for %iolation of Section B) Article II of Re0, Act A;(<, Thus) while under Re0, Act A;(<) as a$ended b #,D, ;;) 0ossession or use of $ari1uana was 0unishable b i$0rison$ent of A $onths and * da to ( ears and ; $onths and a fine ranging fro$ #A>>,>> to #A)>>>,>>3the 0enalt i$0osed u0on 0etitioner herein3 0ossession and use thereof is now 0unishable b i$0rison$ent ranging fro$ A ears and * da to *( ears and fine ranging fro$ #A)>>>,>> to #*()>>>,>> under @,#, @lg, *-+, , The obser%ation of the Solicitor Eeneral on this increase of 0enalt is a0ro0os. The i$0lication is clear, The 0enalties were increased to ta"e it out of the range of 0robationable offenses, Thus) the State has s0o"en and considers that this is one case where 0robation will de0reciate the offense co$$itted) and will not ser%e the ends of 1ustice and the best interest of the co$$unit ) 0articularl ) the innocent and gullible oung, 8 IN VIE6 O: T2E :OREEOINE) the 0etition is hereb dis$issed, Res0ondent 1udge is hereb directed to effect eCecution of 1udg$ent in CCC No, VI3B; 7B*8 without further dela , SO ORDERED, Ma+asiar (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., "uerrero and #e Castro, JJ., concur. $7uino, J., is on leave. $'ad !antos, J., @ reserve my vote.

Re0ublic of the #hili00ines S PRE(E $O RT !anila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L*6,A01 January 29, 1990 (!N EL &. 0!L!, 0etitioner) >3. THE HON. J #GE !NTONIO (. (!RTINE), THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, an1 P! L !/!NG*!NG Pro.a67on O==72-r, (an7:a Pro.a67on O==72- No. +, r-35on1-n63. Coronet Law Office for petitioner.

S!R(IENTO, J.:

32
T@- 5-6767on-r .y 6@73 P-6767on =or Certiorari an1 Pro@7.767on B76@ Pr-:797nary InCun267on an1Dor T-95orary R-36ra7n7n; Or1-r 3--83 6@- r->-r3a: o= 6@- or1-r 1a6-1 !5r7: 2, 198+ o= 6@- 6@-n $our6 o= F7r36 In36an2- E$FIF, noB R-;7ona: Tr7a: $our6 ERT$F, o= (an7:a, 0ran2@ GG. 1 T@- 1-2r-6a: 5or67on o= 6@- a33a7:-1 or1-r r-a13% 'HEREFORE, =or 6@- r-a3on3 a.o>-*36a6-1, 6@- 9o67on 6o 1739733 an1Dor 36r78- ou6 9o67on 6o r->o85ro.a67on, =7:-1 .y (anu-: 0a:a, 6@ru 2oun3-:, 3@ou:1 .-, a3 76 73 @-r-.y #ENIE#, =or :a28 o= 9-r76. L-6 6@- 9o67on .- 3-6 =or 2on67nua67on o= @-ar7n; on !5r7: 25 H 2,, a6 8%A0 oI2:o28 7n 6@- 9orn7n;. SO OR#ERE#. T@- 5-6767on-r @a1 .--n 7n1726-1 =or r-9o>7n; an1 3u.3676u67n; 6@- 5726ur- o= (ar7a E:o73a $r733 #7aJ-n B@72@ @a1 .--n a66a2@-1 6o @-r n76-1 S6a6-3 o= !9-r72a 5a335or6, B76@ 6@a6 o= F:or-n27a No6ar6-, 7n -==-26 =a:37=y7n; a ;-nu7n- 5u.:72 or o==727a: 1o2u9-n6. On January A, 19,8, 6@- 6r7a: 2our6 a1Cu1;-1 5-6767on-r (anu-: 0a:a 7n $r797na: $a3- No. 2+++A, ;u7:6y o= 6@2r79- o= =a:37=72a67on o= a 5u.:72 1o2u9-n6. T@- 1735o3767>- 5or67on o= 6@- Cu1;9-n6 36a6-3% 'HEREFORE, 7n >7-B o= 6@- =or-;o7n;, 6@- $our6 =7n13 6@- a22u3-1 (anu-: 0a:a y &a:1-::on ;u7:6y .-yon1 r-a3ona.:- 1ou.6 o= 6@- 2r79- o= =a:37=72a67on o= a 5u.:72 or o==727a: 1o2u9-n6 1-=7n-1 an1 5-na:7J-1 un1-r ar672:- 1,2 o= 6@- R->73-1 P-na: $o1-, B76@ou6 any 9767;a67n; or a;;ra>a67n; 27r2u936an2-3. !55:y7n; 6@In1-6-r97na6- S-n6-n2- LaB, @- 73 @-r-.y 3-n6-n2-1 6o an 7n1-6-r97na6- 5-na:6y o= no6 :-33 6@an ONE E1F /E!R !N# ONE E1F #!/ an1 no6 -<2--17n; THREE EAF /E!RS, SIG E6F (ONTHS H T'ENT/*ONE E21F #!/S o= 5r737on 2orr-227ona:, 6o 5ay a =7n- o= P:,800.00 B76@ 3u.3717ary 795r73on9-n6 7n 2a3- o= 7n3o:>-n2y a6 6@ra6- o= P8.00 =or -a2@ 1ay, an1 6o 5ay 6@- 2o36. H- 3@a:: .- 2r-176-1 B76@ 6@- 5-r7o1 o= 5r->-n67>795r73on9-n6 6@a6 @- 9ay @a>- un1-r;on- 7n a22or1an2- B76@ :aB. T@- 5-6767on-r 3-a3ona.:y a55-a:-1, .u6 6@- $our6 o= !55-a:3, on !5r7: 9, 1980, a==7r9-1 in toto 6@- :oB-r 2our6I3 1-2737on. !=6-r 6@- 2a3- @a1 .--n r-9an1-1 6o 6@- 2our6 o= or7;7n =or -<-2u67on o= Cu1;9-n6, 2 6@- 5-6767on-r a55:7-1 =or an1 Ba3 ;ran6-1 5ro.a67on .y 6@- r-35on1-n6 Cu1;- 7n @73 or1-r 1a6-1 !u;u36 11, 1982. T@- 5-6767on-r Ba3 6@-n 5:a2-1 un1-r 5ro.a67on =or a 5-r7o1 o= on- E1F y-ar, 3u.C-26 6o 6@- 6-r93 an1 2on1767on3 -nu9-ra6-1 6@-r-7n. On S-56-9.-r 2A, 1982, 6@- 5ro.a67on-r E5-6767on-rF a38-1 @73 3u5-r>737n; 5ro.a67on o==72-r =or 5-r97337on 6o 6ran3=-r @73 r-371-n2- =ro9 0F Ho9-3 6o P@7:*!9 L7=- Su.17>737on 7n La3 P7Ka3 35-27=72a::y AA J7n;2o S6r--6. T@- 5ro.a67on o==72-r >-r.a::y ;ran6-1 6@- 5ro.a67on-rI3 r-Lu-36 a3 @- =oun1 no6@7n; o.C-267ona.:- 6o 76. 0y 6@- 6-r93 o= 6@- 5-6767on-rI3 5ro.a67on, 76 3@ou:1 @a>- -<57r-1 on !u;u36 10, 198A, A on- y-ar a=6-r 6@- or1-r ;ran67n; 6@3a9- Ba3 733u-1. 0u6, 6@- or1-r o= =7na: 1732@ar;- 2ou:1 no6 .- 733u-1 .-2au3- 6@- r-35on1-n6 5ro.a67on o==72-r @a1 no6 y-6 3u.9766-1 @73 =7na: r-5or6 on 6@- 2on1u26 o= @73 2@ar;-. On #-2-9.-r 8, 198A, 6@- r-35on1-n6 P-o5:- o= 6@- P@7:7557n-3, 6@rou;@ !33736an6 $76y F732a: Jo3- #. $aCu2o9 o= (an7:a, =7:-1 a 9o67on 6o r->o8- 6@- 5ro.a67on o= 6@- 5-6767on-r .-=or- 0ran2@ GG o= 6@- R-;7ona: Tr7a: $our6 ERT$F o= (an7:a, 5r-371-1 o>-r .y 6@- r-35on1-n6 Cu1;-. + T@- 9o67on a::-;-1 6@a6 6@- 5-6767on-r @a1 >7o:a6-1 6@- 6-r93 an1 2on1767on3 o= @73 5ro.a67on. On January +, 198+, 6@- 5-6767on-r =7:-1 @73 o55o3767on 6o 6@- 9o67on on 6@- ;roun1 6@a6 @- Ba3 no :on;-r un1-r 5ro.a67on, 5 @73 5ro.a67on 5-r7o1 @a>7n; 6-r97na6-1 on !u;u36 10, 198A, a3 5r->7ou3:y a1>-r6-1 6o. !3 3u2@, no >a:71 r-a3on -<736-1 6o r->o8- 6@- 3a9-, @- 2on6-n1-1. !3 7= 6o 2on=7r9 6@- (an7:a !33736an6 $76y F732a:I3 9o67on 6o r->o8- 6@- 5-6767on-rI3 5ro.a67on, 6@- r-35on1-n6 5ro.a67on o==72-r =7:-1 on January 6, 198+, a 9o67on 6o 6-r97na6- (anu-: 0a:aI3 5ro.a67on, a6 6@- 3a9- 679- a66a2@7n; @73 5ro;r-33 r-5or6 on 3u5-r>737on 1a6-1 January 5, 198+. 6 T@- 3a9- 9o67on, @oB->-r, .-2a9- 6@- 3u.C-26 o= a M(an7=-36a67on,M 1a6-1 January 10, 198+, B@72@ 36a6-1 6@a6 6@- 5ro.a67on o==72-r Ba3 no6 5ur3u7n; 6@- 9o67on 6o 6-r97na6- 1a6-1 January 6, 198+N 7n36-a1, @Ba3 3u.97667n; a 3u55:-9-n6a: r-5or6 , B@72@ r-2o99-n1-1 6@- r->o2a67on o= 5ro.a67on M7n 6@- :7;@6 o= n-B =a263, 7n=or9a67on, an1 ->71-n2-3.M T@-r-a=6-r, 6@- 5-6767on-r =7:-1 a 9o67on 6o 1739733 an1Dor 36r78- ou6 6@- 9o67on 6o r->o8- 5ro.a67on, Lu-367on7n; 6@Cur7317267on o= 6@- 2our6 o>-r @73 2a3- 7na39u2@ a3 @73 5ro.a67on 5-r7o1 @a1 a:r-a1y -<57r-1. (or-o>-r, @73 2@an;- o= r-371-n2- au6o9a672a::y 6ran3=-rr-1 6@- >-nu- o= 6@- 2a3- =ro9 6@- RT$ o= (an7:a 6o 6@- E<-2u67>-. Ju1;-, o= 6@- RT$ o= (a8a67 B@72@ :a66-r 2our6 7n2:u1- un1-r 763 Cur7317267on 6@- (un7275a:76y o= La3 P7Ka3 6@- 5ro.a67on-rI3 5:a2- o= r-371-n2-, 7n>o87n; S-267on 1A, P.#. No. 968, B@72@ 5ro>71-3

33
S-2. 1A. Control and Supervision of Probationer. ... '@-n->-r a 5ro.a67on-r 73 5-r9766-1 6o r-371- 7n a 5:a2- un1-r 6@- Cur7317267on o= ano6@-r 2our6, 2on6ro: o>-r @79 3@a:: .- 6ran3=-rr-1 6o 6@- E<-2u67>- Ju1;- o= 6@-, $our6 o= F7r36 In36an2- o= 6@a6 5:a2-, an1 7n 3u2@ a 2a3- a 2o5y o= 6@- 5ro.a67on or1-r 6@- 7n>-367;a67on r-5or6 an1 o6@-r 5-r67n-n6 r-2or13 3@a:: .- =urn73@-1 6o 3a71 E<-2u67>- Ju1;-. T@-r-a=6-r. 6@- E<-2u67>- Ju1;- 6o B@o9 Cur7317267on o>-r 6@- 5ro.a67on-r 73 6ran3=-rr-1 3@a:: @a>- 6@- 5oB-r B76@ r-35-26 6o @79 6@a6 Ba3 5r->7ou3:y 5o33-33-1 .y 6@- 2our6 B@72@ ;ran6-1 6@- 5ro.a67on. !3 36a6-1 a6 6@- ou63-6, 6@- r-35on1-n6 Cu1;- 1-n7-1 6@- 9o67on 6o 1739733 =or :a28 o= 9-r76. H-n2-, 6@73 5-6767on. T@- 5r-3-n6 :aB on 5ro.a67on, Pr-371-n67a: #-2r-- EP.#.F 1990, B@72@ a9-n13 3-267on + o= P.#. 968, 2:-ar:y 36a6-3 6@a6 Mno a55:72a67on =or 5ro.a67on 3@a:: .- -n6-r6a7n-1 or ;ran6-1 7= 6@- 1-=-n1an6 @a3 5-r=-26-1 6@- a55-a: =ro9 6@- Cu1;9-n6 o= 2on>7267on.M HoB->-r, 7n 6@- 2a3- a6 .ar, P.#. 1990 73 7na55:72a.:-. P.#. 1990, B@72@ B-n6 7n =or2- on January 15, 1985 2an no6 .- ;7>-n r-6roa267>- -==-26 .-2au3- 76 Bou:1 .- 5r-Cu1727a: 6o 6@- a22u3-1. I6 73 Bor6@y 6o no6-, 6@a6 B@a6 Ba3 a26ua::y r-3o:>-1 an1 1-n7-1 Ba3 6@- 9o67on 6o 1739733 an1Dor 36r78- ou6 6@- 9o67on 6o r->o8- 5ro.a67on B@72@ 1735o3-1 o= on:y 6@- 733u- o= 6@- 5-6767on-rI3 6ran3=-r o= r-371-n2-. T@- 9o67on 171 no6 6ou2@ on 6@733u- o= 6@- 679-:7n-33 6o r->o8- 5ro.a67on. T@- r-35on1-n6 Cu1;- @a3 no6 y-6 @-ar1 an1 r-2-7>-1 ->71-n2-, 9u2@ :-33 a26-1 on 6@- 9a66-r. !22or17n;:y, 6@- So:7276or G-n-ra: 3u.9763 6@a6 6@- 5r-3-n6 5-6767on 73 5r-9a6ur-. T@- $our6 =7n13 no 9-r76 7n 6@- 5-6767on. Pro.a67on 73 r->o2a.:- .-=or- 6@- =7na: 1732@ar;- o= 6@- 5ro.a67on-r .y 6@- 2our6, 2on6rary 6o 6@- 5-6767on-rI3 3u.97337on. S-267on 16 o= P# 968 8 73 2:-ar on 6@73 32or-% S--. 16. Termination of Probation. O !=6-r 6@- 5-r7o1 o= 5ro.a67on an1 u5on 2on371-ra67on o= 6@- r-5or6 an1 r-2o99-n1a67on o= 6@- 5ro.a67on o==72-r, 6@- 2our6 9ay or1-r 6@- =7na: 1732@ar;- o= 6@- 5ro.a67on-r u5on =7n17n; 6@a6 @- @a3 =u:=7::-1 6@- 6-r93 an1 2on1767on3 o= @73 5ro.a67on an1 6@-r-u5on 6@- 2a3- 73 1--9-1 6-r97na6-1. T@u3, 6@- -<57ra67on o= 6@- 5ro.a67on 5-r7o1 a:on- 1o-3 no6 au6o9a672a::y 6-r97na6- 5ro.a67on. NoB@-r- 73 6@- ipso facto 6-r97na67on o= 5ro.a67on =oun1 7n 6@- 5ro>737on3 o= 6@- 5ro.a67on :aB. Pro.a67on 73 no6 2o6-r97nou3 B76@ 763 5-r7o1. T@-r- 9u36 =7r36 .- 733u-1 .y 6@- 2our6 o= an or1-r o= =7na: 1732@ar;- .a3-1 on 6@- r-5or6 an1 r-2o99-n1a67on o= 6@5ro.a67on o==72-r. On:y =ro9 3u2@ 733uan2- 2an 6@- 2a3- o= 6@- 5ro.a67on-r .- 1--9-1 6-r97na6-1. T@- 5-r7o1 o= 5ro.a67on 9ay -76@-r .- 3@or6-n-1 or 9a1- :on;-r, .u6 no6 6o -<2--1 6@- 5-r7o1 3-6 7n 6@- :aB. T@73 73 3o .-2au3- 6@- 5-r7o1 o= 5ro.a67on, :78- 6@- 5-r7o1 o= 7n2ar2-ra67on, 73 1--9-1 6@- a55ro5r7a6- 5-r7o1 =or 6@- r-@a.7:76a67on o= 6@5ro.a67on-r. In 6@- 7n36an6 2a3-, a r->7-B o= 6@- r-2or13 2o95-:3 a r->o2a67on o= 6@- 5ro.a67on B76@ou6 6@- n--1 o= =ur6@-r 5ro2--17n;3 7n 6@- 6r7a: 2our6 B@72@, a=6-r a::, Bou:1 on:y .- an -<-r273- 7n =u67:76y. I= B- r-n1-r Cu3672- noB, B@y 3@ou:1 Ba::oB 6@- 5-6767on-r 6o =ur6@-r 1-:ay 76. Pro.a67on-r (anu-: 0a:a =a7:-1 6o r-un76- B76@ r-35on37.:- 3o27-6y. Pr-273-:y @- Ba3 ;ran6-1 5ro.a67on 7n or1-r 6o ;7>- @79 a 2@an2- 6o r-6urn 6o 6@- 9a7n 36r-a9, 6o ;7>- @79 @o5- O @o5- =or 3-:=*r-35-26 an1 a .-66-r :7=-. n=or6una6-:y, @- @a3 2on67nu-1 6o 3@un 6@- 36ra7;@6 an1 narroB 5a6@. H- 6@u3 Br-28-1 @73 2@an2-. H- @a3 no6 r-=or9-1. ! 9aCor ro:- 73 5:ay-1 .y 6@- 5ro.a67on o==72-r 7n 6@- r-:-a3- o= 6@- 5ro.a67on-r .-2au3- @- E5ro.a67on o==72-rF 73 7n 6@- .-36 5o3767on 6o r-5or6 a:: 7n=or9a67on r-:a67>- 6o 6@- 2on1u26 an1 9-n6a: an1 5@y372a: 2on1767on o= 6@- 5ro.a67on-r 7n @73 -n>7ron9-n6, an1 6@- -<7367n; 7n3676u67ona: an1 2o99un76y r-3our2-3 6@a6 @- 9ay a>a7: @793-:= o= B@-n n-2-33ary. In1--1, 76 73 6@- 5ro.a67on o==72-r B@o 5r79ar7:y un1-r6a8-3 6@- 3u5-r>737on an1 r-=or9 o= 6@- 5ro.a67on-r 6@rou;@ a 5-r3ona:7J-1, 7n17>71ua:7J-1, an1 2o99un76y*.a3-1 r-@a.7:76a67on 5ro;ra9 =or a 35-27=72 5-r7o1 o= 679-. On 6@- .a373 o= @73 =7na: r-5or6, 6@2our6 2an 1-6-r97n- B@-6@-r or no6 6@- 5ro.a67on-r 9ay .- r-:-a3-1 =ro9 5ro.a67on. '- =7n1 76 r-5r-@-n37.:- 6@a6 6@- r-35on1-n6 5ro.a67on o==72-r @a1 n-;:-26-1 6o 3u.976 @73 r-5or6 an1 r-2o99-n1a67on. For, a3 -ar:7-r 1732u33-1, B76@ou6 6@73 r-5or6, 6@- 6r7a: 2our6 2ou:1 no6 733u- 6@- or1-r o= =7na: 1732@ar;- o= 6@- 5ro.a67on-r. !n1 76 73 6@73 or1-r o= =7na: 1732@ar;- B@72@ Bou:1 r-36or- 6@- 5ro.a67on-rI3 3u35-n1-1 27>7: r7;@63. In 6@- a.3-n2- o= 6@- or1-r o= =7na:

34
1732@ar;-, 6@- 5ro.a67on Bou:1 367:: 3u.3736, un:-33 o6@-rB73- r->o8-1 =or 2au3- an1 6@a6 73 5r-273-:y B@a6 B- ar- ;o7n; 6o 1o. '- ar- r->o87n; @73 5ro.a67on =or 2au3-. T@- 5-6767on-r, .y a55:y7n; =or 5ro.a67on an1 ;-667n; 76, 2on3-n6-1 6o .- -9an275a6-1 =ro9 6@- yo8- 7= no6 367;9a o= a 5r73on 3-n6-n2-, 5:-1;7n; 6o =a76@=u::y 2o95:y B76@ 6@- 2on1767on3 o= @73 5ro.a67on, a9on; B@72@ ar-% <<< +. To .- ;a7n=u::y -95:oy-1 an1 .- a 5ro1u267>- 9-9.-r o= 3o27-6yN <<< 6. To 2oo5-ra6- =u::y B76@ @73 5ro;ra9 o= 3u5-r>737on an1 r-@a.7:76a67on 6@a6 B7:: .- 5r-32r7.-1 .y 6@Pro.a67on O==72-r. 9 T@-3- 2on1767on3, a3 6@- r-2or13 3@oB, B-r- no6 2o95:7-1 B76@. T@73 non*2o95:7an2- @a3 1-=-a6-1 6@- >-ry 5ur5o3-3 o= 6@5ro.a67on :aB, 6o B76% EaF 5ro9o6- 6@- 2orr-267on an1 r-@a.7:76a67on o= an o==-n1-r .y 5ro>717n; @79 B76@ 7n17>71ua:7J-1 6r-a69-n6N E.F 5ro>71- an o55or6un76y =or 6@- r-=or9a67on o= a 5-n76-n6 o==-n1-r B@72@ 97;@6 .- :-33 5ro.a.:- 7= @- B-r6o 3-r>- a 5r73on 3-n6-n2-N an1 E2F 5r->-n6 6@- 2o997337on o= o==-n3-3. 10 0y @73 a26ua67on3, 5ro.a67on-r*5-6767on-r (anu-: &. 0a:a @a3 r7172u:-1 6@- 5ro.a67on 5ro;ra9. In36-a1 o= u67:7J7n; @73 6-95orary :7.-r6y 6o r-@a.7:76a6- an1 r-7n6-;ra6- @793-:= a3 a 5ro1u267>-, :aB a.717n;, an1 3o27a::y r-35on37.:- 9-9.-r o= 3o27-6y, @- 2on67nu-1 7n @73 BayBar1 Bay3 O =a:37=y7n; 5u.:72 or o==727a: 1o2u9-n63. S5-27=72a::y, on !5r7: A0, 198+, 6@- R-;7ona: Tr7a: $our6 o= (an7:a, Na67ona: $a576a: Ju1727a: R-;7on, 0ran2@ GGG, 2on>726-1 6@5-6767on-r, a:on; B76@ 6Bo o6@-r 5-r3on3, Lor-nJo Ro:o y PunJa:an an1 E=r-n Fa1-ran;a y F-3a:.on, =or =a:37=72a67on o= 5u.:72 an1Dor o==727a: 1o2u9-n63 E .S. Pa335or63F, un1-r !r672:- 1,2, 7n r-:a67on 6o !r672:- 1,1, o= 6@- R->73-1 P-na: $o1-, 7n =7>3-5ara6- 7n=or9a67on3, 7n $r797na: $a3-3 No3. 29100, 29101, 29102, 2910A, an1 2910,. T@- 6r7a: 2our6 795o3-1 u5on -a2@ o= 6@-9 7n a:: =7>- E5F 2a3-3 a 5r73on 6-r9 o= M6Bo E2F y-ar3 o= prision correccional, a3 97n79u9, 6o =our E+F y-ar3 a:3o o= prison correccional, a3 9a<79u9, 6o 5ay a =7n- o= P2,000, 6@- a22-33ory 5-na:67-3 6@-r-o=, an1 6o 5ay 6@- 2o363.M On a55-a:, 6@$our6 o= !55-a:3 a==7r9-1 6@- Cu1;9-n6 o= 6@- RT$ B76@ 9o17=72a67on .y ;ran67n; r-3676u67on o= 6@- a9oun63 6@-y 2o::-26-1 =ro9 6@- o==-n1-1 5r7>a6- 5ar67-3. T@- Cu1;9-n6 @a3 37n2- .-2o9- =7na:. !3 a 9a66-r o= =a26, =or =a7:ur- o= 6@- 5-6767on-r 6o a55-ar =or -<-2u67on o= Cu1;9-n6 1-3576- no672-, 6@- 6r7a: 2our6 or1-r-1 6@- arr-36 o= (anu-: 0a:a on Ju:y 10, 1989. ! Barran6 o= arr-36 a;a7n36 0a:a Ba3 733u-1 on Ju:y 12, 1989 an1 6@73 Barran6 @a3 no6 y-6 .--n 795:-9-n6-1 .-2au3- 0a:a a.32on1-1. T@-3- =a263 ar- ->71-n6 an1 2on3676u6- >7o:a67on3 o= 6@- 2on1767on3 o= @73 5ro.a67on. T@u3, 6@- r->o2a67on o= @73 5ro.a67on 73 2o95-::7n;. !6 any 679- 1ur7n; 6@- 5ro.a67on, 6@- 2our6 9ay 733u- a Barran6 =or 6@- arr-36 o= a 5ro.a67on-r =or >7o:a67on o= any o= 6@- 2on1767on3 o= 5ro.a67on. T@- 5ro.a67on-r, on2- arr-36-1 an1 1-6a7n-1, 3@a:: 799-17a6-:y ..rou;@6 .-=or- 6@- 2our6 =or a @-ar7n; B@72@ 9ay .- 7n=or9a: an1 3u99ary, o= 6@- >7o:a67on 2@ar;-1. ... I= 6@>7o:a67on 73 -36a.:73@-1, 6@- 2our6 9ay r->o8- or 2on67nu- @73 5ro.a67on an1 9o17=y 6@- 2on1767on3 6@-r-o=. I= r->o8-1, 6@- 2our6 3@a:: or1-r 6@- 5ro.a67on-r 6o 3-r>- 6@- 3-n6-n2- or7;7na::y 795o3-1. !n or1-r r->o87n; 6@- ;ran6 o= 5ro.a67on or 9o17=y7n; 6@- 6-r93 an1 2on1767on3 6@-r-o= 3@a:: no6 .- a55-a:a.:-. 11 EE95@a373 3u55:7-1.F T@- 5ro.a67on @a>7n; .--n r->o8-1, 76 73 795-ra67>- 6@a6 6@- 5ro.a67on-r .- arr-36-1 3o 6@a6 @- 2an 3-r>- 6@- 3-n6-n2or7;7na::y 795o3-1. T@- -<57ra67on o= 6@- 5ro.a67on 5-r7o1 o= on- y-ar 73 o= no 9o9-n6, 6@-r- .-7n; no or1-r o= =7na: 1732@ar;a3 y-6, a3 B- 36r-33-1 -ar:7-r. N-76@-r 2an 6@-r- .- a 1-1u267on o= 6@- on- y-ar 5ro.a67on 5-r7o1 =ro9 6@- 5-na:6y o= on- y-ar an1 on- 1ay 6o 6@r-- y-ar3, 37< 9on6@3, an1 6B-n6y*on- 1ay3 o= 795r73on9-n6 .-2au3- an or1-r 5:a27n; 6@- 1-=-n1an6 on M5ro.a67onM 73 no6 a M3-n6-n2-,M .u6 73 7n -==-26 a suspension o= 6@- 795o3767on o= 6@- 3-n6-n2-. 12 I6 73 no6 a =7na: Cu1;9-n6 .u6 an M7n6-r:o2u6ory Cu1;9-n6M 7n 6@- na6ur- o= a 2on1767ona: or1-r 5:a27n; 6@- 2on>726-1 1-=-n1an6 un1-r 6@- 3u5-r>737on o= 6@2our6 =or @73 r-=or9a67on, 6o .- =o::oB-1 .y a =7na: Cu1;9-n6 o= 1732@ar;-, 7= 6@- 2on1767on3 o= 6@- 5ro.a67on ar- 2o95:7-1 B76@, or .y a =7na: Cu1;9-n6 7= 6@- 2on1767on3 ar- >7o:a6-1.M 1A

35
La36:y, 5ro.a67on 73 a 9-r- 5r7>7:-;-. Pr7>7:-;- 73 a 5-2u:7ar .-n-=76 or 799un76y 2on=-rr-1 .y :aB on a 5-r3on or ;rou5 o= 5-r3on3, no6 -nCoy-1 .y o6@-r3 or .y a::N 35-27a: -nCoy9-n6 o= a ;oo1 or -<-9567on =ro9 an ->7:N 76 73 a 35-27a: 5r-ro;a67>;ran6-1 .y :aB 6o 3o9- 5-r3on3. 1+ !22or17n;:y, 6@- ;ran6 o= 5ro.a67on r-363 3o:-:y u5on 6@- 1732r-67on o= 6@- 2our6. T@73 1732r-67on 73 6o .- -<-r273-1 5r79ar7:y =or 6@- .-n-=76 o= or;an7J-1 3o27-6y, an1 on:y 7n271-n6a::y =or 6@- .-n-=76 o= 6@a22u3-1. 15 I= 6@- 5ro.a67on-r @a3 5ro>-n 6o .- unr-5-n6an6, a3 7n 6@- 2a3- o= 6@- 5-6767on-r, 6@- S6a6- 73 no6 .arr-1 =ro9 r->o87n; 3u2@ a 5r7>7:-;-. O6@-rB73-, 6@- 3-r7ou3n-33 o= 6@- o==-n3- 73 :-33-n-1 7= 5ro.a67on 73 no6 r->o8-1. On 6@- 3-2on1 a337;n-1 -rror, 6@- 5-6767on-r ar;u-3 6@a6 @73 6ran3=-r o= r-371-n2- au6o9a672a::y 6ran3=-rr-1 Cur7317267on o>-r @73 5ro.a67on =ro9 6@- (an7:a R-;7ona: Tr7a: $our6 6o 6@- 3a9- 2our6 7n @73 n-B a11r-33. '- 173a;r--. In 2r797na: 2a3-3, >-nu- 73 an -:-9-n6 o= Cur7317267on. 16 Su2@ .-7n; 6@- 2a3-, 6@- (an7:a RT$ Bou:1 no6 .- 1-5r7>-1 o= 763 ,Cur7317267on o>-r 6@- 5ro.a67on 2a3-. To u5@o:1 6@- 5-6767on-rI3 2on6-n67on Bou:1 9-an a 1-5r-27a67on o= 6@- (an7:a 2our6I3 5oB-r 6o ;ran6 5ro.a67on 7n 6@- =7r36 5:a2-. I6 73 6o .- r-9-9.-r-1 6@a6 B@-n 6@- 5-6767on-r*a22u3-1 a55:7-1 =or 5ro.a67on 7n 6@- 6@-n $FI o= (an7:a, @- Ba3 a r-371-n6 o= La3 P7Ka3 a3 @- 73 u5 6o noB, a:6@ou;@ 7n a 17==-r-n6 3u.17>737on. !3 5o7n6-1 ou6 -ar:7-r, @- 9-r-:y 9o>-1 =ro9 0F Ho9-3 6o P@7:a9 L7=- Su.17>737on AA J7n;2o S6r--6, a:3o 7n La3 P7Ka3. 1, On 6@- o6@-r @an1, 5ur3u7n; 6@- 5-6767on-rI3 ar;u9-n6 on 6@73 32or- 6o 6@- :79763 o= 76 :o;72 Bou:1 9-an 6@a6 @73 5ro.a67on Ba3 nu:: an1 >o71 7n 6@5:a2-, .-2au3- 6@-n 6@- (an7:a $FI Ba3 B76@ou6 Cur7317267on 6o ;ran6 @79 5ro.a67on a3 @- Ba3 a r-371-n6 o= La3 P7Ka3. I6 73 6@-r-=or- 7n2orr-26 6o a33u9- 6@a6 6@- 5-6767on-rI3 2@an;- o= a.o1- 2o95-:3 2@an;- o= >-nu-, an1 n-2-33ar7:y, 2on6ro: o>-r 6@- 5-6767on-r, 6o 6@- E<-2u67>- Ju1;- o= 6@- RT$ o= @73 n-B r-371-n2-. T@u3, 7n 6@- a55or67on9-n6 o= 6@- r-;7ona: 6r7a: 2our63 un1-r 0a6a3 Pa9.an3a 0:;. 129, o6@-rB73- 8noBn a3 6@- Ju1727ary R-or;an7Ja67on !26 o= 1980, La3 P7Ka3 73 ona9on; 6@- 9un7275a:767-3 7n2:u1-1 7n 6@- Na67ona: $a576a: Ju1727a: R-;7on E(-6ro (an7:aF B76@ a 3-a6 a6 (a8a67. 18 N--1:-33 6o 3ay, 6@- R-;7ona: Tr7a: $our6 7n (a8a67, :78- 6@- (an7:a R-;7ona: Tr7a: $our6, =or93 5ar6 o= 6@- R-;7ona: Tr7a: $our6 o= 6@Na67ona: $a576a: R-;7on. 19 !22or17n;:y, 6@- >ar7ou3 .ran2@-3 o= 6@- r-;7ona: 6r7a: 2our63 o= (a8a67 or (an7:a un1-r 6@Na67ona: $a576a: R-;7on, ar- 2oor17na6- an1 2o*-Lua: 2our63, 6@- 6o6a:76y o= B@72@ 73 on:y on- R-;7ona: Tr7a: $our6. Jur7317267on 73 >-36-1 7n 6@- 2our6, no6 7n 6@- Cu1;-3. In o6@-r Bor13, 6@- 2a3- 1o-3 no6 a66a2@ 6o 6@- .ran2@ or Cu1;-. 20 T@-r-=or-, 7n 6@73 2a3-, RT$ 0ran2@ GG o= (an7:a, B@72@ ;ran6-1 6@- 5ro.a67on, @a3 no6 :o36 2on6ro: an1 3u5-r>737on o>-r 6@- 5ro.a67on o= 6@5-6767on-r. T@- 5-6767on-r a:3o 2:a793 6@a6 @- @a1 >-r.a::y o.6a7n-1 5-r97337on 6o 6ran3=-r r-371-n2- =ro9 @73 5ro.a67on o==72-r. T@73 Bou:1 no6 3u==72- 6@- :aB 73 >-ry -<5:7276 7n 763 r-Lu7r-9-n6 o= a 5r7or 2our6 a55ro>a: 7n Br767n;. S-267on 10 o= P# 968 2a6-;or72a::y 1-2r--3 6@a6 6@- 5ro.a67on-r 9u36 <<< ECF r-371- a6 5r-973-3 a55ro>-1 .y 76 E2our6F an1 no6 6o 2@an;- @73 r-371-n2- B76@ou6 763 5r7or written a55ro>a:N <<< Fur6@-r, 3u2@ Br766-n a55ro>a: 73 r-Lu7r-1 .y 6@- 21 5ro.a67on or1-r o= !u;u36 11, 1982 a3 on- o= 6@- 2on1767on3 o= 5ro.a67on, 6o B76% EAF To r-371- 7n 0F Ho9-3, La3 P7Ka3 an1 no6 6o 2@an;- 3a71 a11r-33 nor :-a>- 6@- 6-rr76or7a: Cur7317267on o= (-6ro (an7:a =or 9or- 6@an 6B-n6y*=our E2+F @our3 B76@ou6 =7r36 3-2ur7n; prior written a55ro>a: o= @73 Pro.a67on O==72-r. In 6@- :7;@6 o= a:: 6@- =or-;o7n; an1 7n 6@- 7n6-r-36 o= 6@- -<5-1767ou3 a197n736ra67on o= Cu3672-, B- r->o8- 6@- 5ro.a67on o= 6@5-6767on-r =or >7o:a67on3 o= 6@- 2on1767on3 o= @73 5ro.a67on, 7n36-a1 o= r-9an17n; 6@- 2a3- 6o 6@- 6r7a: 2our6 an1 @a>7n; 6@5ar67-3 36ar6 a:: o>-r a;a7n 7n n--1:-33 5ro6ra26-1 5ro2--17n;3. 22 'HEREFORE, 6@- P-6767on 73 #IS(ISSE# an1 6@- 5ro.a67on o= 6@- 5-6767on-r 73 @-r-.y RE&O?E#. Fur6@-r, 6@- 6r7a: 2our6 73 OR#ERE# 6o 733u- a Barran6 =or 6@- arr-36 o= 6@- 5-6767on-r an1 =or @79 6o 3-r>- 6@- sentence originall imposed B76@ou6 any 1-1u267on. $o363 a;a7n36 6@- 5-6767on-r. SO OR#ERE#. !elencio-"errera #C$airoperson%, Paras, Padilla and &egalado, JJ., concur.

36

[G.R. No. 1A+298. !u;u36 26, 1999] R!(ON $. T!N, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. #E$ISION P!R#O, J.% The case before the Court is an a00eal via certiorari fro$ a decision of the Court of A00ealsJ affir$ing that of the Regional Trial Court of !anila) @ranch *+)JJ con%icting 0etitioner of the cri$e of fencing, Co$0lainant Rosita &i$ is the 0ro0rietor of @ueno !etal Industries) located at 9>* Jose Abad Santos St,) Tondo) !anila) engaged in the business of $anufacturing 0ro0ellers or s0are 0arts for boats, !anuelito !ende' was one of the e$0lo ees wor"ing for her, So$eti$e in :ebruar *++*) !anuelito !ende' left the e$0lo of the co$0an , Co$0lainant &i$ noticed that so$e of the welding rods) 0ro0ellers and boat s0are 0arts) such as bron'e and stainless 0ro0ellers and brass screws were $issing, She conducted an in%entor and disco%ered that 0ro0ellers and stoc"s %alued at #;B)>>>,>>) $ore or less) were $issing, Co$0lainant Rosita &i$ infor$ed Victor S ) uncle of !anuelito !ende') of the loss, Subsequentl ) !anuelito !ende' was arrested in the Visa as and he ad$itted that he and his co$0anion Eaudencio Da o0 stole fro$ the co$0lainantLs warehouse so$e boat s0are 0arts such as bron'e and stainless 0ro0ellers and brass screws, !anuelito !ende' as"ed for co$0lainantLs forgi%eness, 2e 0ointed to 0etitioner Ra$on C, Tan as the one who bought the stolen ite$s and who 0aid the a$ount of #*9)>>>,>>) in cash to !ende' and Da o0) and the s0lit the a$ount with one another, Co$0lainant did not file a case against !anuelito !ende' and Eaudencio Da o0, On relation of co$0lainant &i$) an Assistant Cit #rosecutor of !anila filed with the Regional Trial Court) !anila) @ranch *+) an infor$ation against 0etitioner charging hi$ with %iolation of #residential Decree No, *A*( =Anti3:encing &aw? co$$itted as follows. OThat on or about the last wee" of :ebruar *++*) in the Cit of !anila) #hili00ines) the said accused) did then and there wilfull ) unlawfull and feloniousl "nowingl recei%e) "ee0) acquire and 0ossess se%eral s0are 0arts and ite$s for fishing boats all %alued at #;B)*9>,>> belonging to Rosita &i$) which he "new or should ha%e "nown to ha%e been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of theft, Contrar to law,P F0on arraign$ent on No%e$ber (9) *++() 0etitioner Ra$on C, Tan 0leaded not guilt to the cri$e charged and wai%ed 0re3trial, To 0ro%e the accusation) the 0rosecution 0resented the testi$onies of co$0lainant Rosita &i$) Victor S and the confessed thief) !anuelito !ende', On the other hand) the defense 0resented Rosita &i$ and !anuelito !ende' as hostile witnesses and 0etitioner hi$self, The testi$onies of the witnesses were su$$ari'ed b the trial court in its decision) as follows. OROSITA &I! stated that she is the owner of @ueno !etal Industries) engaged in the business of $anufacturing 0ro0ellers) bushings) welding rods) a$ong others =EChibits A) A3*) and @?, That so$eti$e in :ebruar *++*) after one of her e$0lo ees left the co$0an ) she disco%ered that so$e of the $anufactured s0are 0arts were $issing) so that on :ebruar *+) *++*) an in%entor was conducted and it was found that so$e welding rods and 0ro0ellers) a$ong others) worth #;B)>>>,>> were $issing, Thereafter) she went to Victor S ) the 0erson who reco$$ended !r, !ende' to her, Subsequentl ) !r, !ende' was arrested in the Visa as) and u0on arri%al in !anila) ad$itted to his ha%ing stolen the $issing s0are 0arts sold then to Ra$on Tan, She then tal"ed to !r, Tan) who denied ha%ing bought the sa$e, 6hen 0resented on rebuttal) she stated that so$e of their stoc"s were bought under the na$e of Asia #acific) the guarantor of their Industrial 6elding Cor0oration) and stated further that whether the stoc"s are bought under the na$e of the said cor0oration or under the na$e of 6illia$ Tan) her husband) all of these ite$s were actuall deli%ered to the store at 9>*(39>*; Jose Abad Santos Street and all 0aid b her husband, That for about one =*? ear) there eCisted a business relationshi0 between her husband and !r, Tan, !r, Tan used to bu fro$ the$ stoc"s of 0ro0ellers while the li"ewise bought fro$ the for$er brass woods) and that there is no reason whatsoe%er wh she has to fra$e u0 !r, Tan, !ANFE&ITO !ENDE4 stated that he wor"ed as hel0er at @ueno !etal Industries fro$ No%e$ber *++> u0 to :ebruar *++*, That so$eti$e in the third wee" of :ebruar *++*) together with Eaudencio Da o0) his co3e$0lo ee) the too" fro$ the warehouse of Rosita &i$ so$e boat s0are 0arts) such as bron'e and stainless 0ro0ellers) brass screws) etc, The deli%ered said stolen ite$s to Ra$on Tan) who 0aid for the$ in cash in the a$ount of #*9)>>>,>>, After ta"ing his share =one3half =*S(? of the a$ount?) he went

37
ho$e directl to the 0ro%ince, 6hen he recei%ed a letter fro$ his uncle) Victor S ) he decided to return to !anila, 2e was then acco$0anied b his uncle to see !rs, &i$) fro$ who$ he begged for forgi%eness on A0ril B) *++*, On A0ril *() *++*) he eCecuted an affida%it 0re0ared b a certain #erlas) a CIS 0ersonnel) subscribed to before a Notar #ublic =EChibits C and C3*?, VICTOR5 7sic8 S5 stated that he "nows both !anuelito !ende' and !rs, Rosita &i$) the for$er being the ne0hew of his wife while the latter is his auntie, That so$eti$e in :ebruar *++*) his auntie called u0 and infor$ed hi$ about the s0are 0arts stolen fro$ the warehouse b !anuelito !ende', So that he sent his son to Cebu and requested his "u$0adre) a 0olice officer of Sta, Catalina) Negros Occidental) to arrest and bring !ende' bac" to !anila, 6hen !r, !ende' was brought to !anila) together with Su0t, #erlas of the 6#DC) the fetched !r, !ende' fro$ the 0ier after which the 0roceeded to the house of his auntie, !r, !ende' ad$itted to hi$ ha%ing stolen the $issing ite$s and sold to !r, Ra$on Tan in Sta, Cru') !anila, Again) he brought !r, !ende' to Sta, Cru' where he 0ointed to !r, Tan as the bu er) but when confronted) !r, Tan denied the sa$e, ROSITA &I!) when called to testif as a hostile witness) narrated that she owns @ueno !etal Industries located at 9>* Jose Abad Santos Street) Tondo) !anila, That two =(? da s after !anuelito !ende' and Eaudencio Da o0 left) her husband) 6illia$ Tan) conducted an in%entor and disco%ered that so$e of the s0are 0arts worth #;B)>>>,>> were $issing, So$e of the $issing ite$s were under the na$e of Asia #acific and 6illia$ Tan, !ANFE&ITO !ENDE4) li"ewise) when called to testif as a hostile witness) stated that he recei%ed a sub0oena in the Visa as fro$ the wife of Victor S ) acco$0anied b a 0olice$an of @uliloan) Cebu on A0ril B) *++*, That he consented to co$e to !anila to as" forgi%eness fro$ Rosita &i$, That in connection with this case) he eCecuted an affida%it on A0ril *() *++*) 0re0ared b a certain Att , #erlas) a CIS 0ersonnel) and the contents thereof were eC0lained to hi$ b Rosita &i$ before he signed the sa$e before Att , Jose Ta o) a Notar #ublic) at !agnolia 2ouse) Carriedo) !anila =EChibits C and C3*?, That usuall ) it was the secretar of !r, Tan who acce0ted the ite$s deli%ered to Ra$on 2ardware, :urther) he stated that the stolen ite$s fro$ the warehouse were 0laced in a sac" and he tal"ed to !r, Tan first o%er the 0hone before he deli%ered the s0are 0arts, It was !r, Tan hi$self who acce0ted the stolen ite$s in the $orning at about -.>> to B.>> oLcloc" and 0aid #*9)>>>,>> for the$, RA!ON TAN) the accused) in eCcul0ation) stated that he is a business$an engaged in selling hardware =$arine s0are 0arts? at +;; Es0eleta Street) Sta, Cru') !anila, 2e denied ha%ing bought the stolen s0are 0arts worth #;B)>>>,>> for he ne%er tal"ed nor $et !anuelito !ende') the confessed thief, That further the two =(? recei0ts 0resented b !rs, &i$ are not under her na$e and the other two =(? are under the na$e of 6illia$ Tan) the husband) all in all a$ounting to #*B)>>>,>>, @esides) the incident was not re0orted to the 0olice =EChibits * to *3g?, 2e li"ewise denied ha%ing tal"ed to !anuelito !ende' o%er the 0hone on the da of the deli%er of the stolen ite$s and could not ha%e acce0ted the said ite$s 0ersonall for e%er ti$e =sic? goods are deli%ered to his store) the sa$e are being acce0ted b his staff, It is not 0ossible for hi$ to be at his office at about -.>> to B.>> oLcloc" in the $orning) because he usuall re0orted to his office at +.>> oLcloc", In connection with this case) he eCecuted a counter3affida%it =EChibits ( and (3a?,7*8 On August <) *++A) the trial court rendered decision) the dis0ositi%e 0ortion of which reads. O62ERE:ORE) 0re$ises considered) the accused RA!ON C, TAN is hereb found guilt be ond reasonable doubt of %iolating the Anti3:encing &aw of *+-+) otherwise "nown as #residential Decree No, *A*() and sentences hi$ to suffer the 0enalt of i$0rison$ent of SIU =A? 5EARS and ONE =*? DA5 to TEN =*>? 5EARS of 0rision $a or and to inde$nif Rosita &i$ the %alue of the stolen $erchandise 0urchased b hi$ in the su$ of #*B)>>>,>>, OCosts against the accused, OSO ORDERED, O!anila) #hili00ines) August <) *++A, O=sSt? 4ENAIDA R, DAEFNA OJudgeP #etitioner a00ealed to the Court of A00eals, After due 0roceedings) on Januar (+) *++B) the Court of A00eals rendered decision finding no error in the 1udg$ent a00ealed fro$) and affir$ing the sa$e in toto,

38
In due ti$e) 0etitioner filed with the Court of A00eals a $otion for reconsiderationD howe%er) on June *A) *++B) the Court of A00eals denied the $otion, 2ence) this 0etition, The issue raised is whether or not the 0rosecution has successfull established the ele$ents of fencing as against 0etitioner,7(8 6e resol%e the issue in fa%or of 0etitioner, O:encing) as defined in Section ( of #,D, No, *A*( is Vthe act of an 0erson who) with intent to gain for hi$self or for another) shall bu ) recei%e) 0ossess) "ee0) acquire) conceal) sell or dis0ose of) or shall bu and sell) or in an $anner deal in an article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue which he "nows) or should be "nown to hi$) to ha%e been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theft,LP798 ORobber is the ta"ing of 0ersonal 0ro0ert belonging to another) with intent to gain) b $eans of %iolence against or inti$idation of an 0erson) or using force u0on things,P7;8 The cri$e of theft is co$$itted if the ta"ing is without %iolence against or inti$idation of 0ersons nor force u0on things,7<8 OThe law on fencing does not require the accused to ha%e 0artici0ated in the cri$inal design to co$$it) or to ha%e been in an wise in%ol%ed in the co$$ission of) the cri$e of robber or theft,P7A8 @efore the enact$ent of #, D, No, *A*( in *+-+) the fence could onl be 0rosecuted as an accessor after the fact of robber or theft) as the ter$ is defined in Article *+ of the Re%ised #enal Code) but the 0enalt was light as it was two =(? degrees lower than that 0rescribed for the 0rinci0al,7-8 #, D, No, *A*( was enacted to Oi$0ose hea% 0enalties on 0ersons who 0rofit b the effects of the cri$es of robber and theft,P E%identl ) the accessor in the cri$es of robber and theft could be 0rosecuted as such under the Re%ised #enal Code or under #,D, No, *A*(, 2owe%er) in the latter case) the accused ceases to be a $ere accessor but beco$es a 0rinci0al in the cri$e of fencing, Otherwise stated) the cri$es of robber and theft) on the one hand) and fencing) on the other) are se0arate and distinct offenses, 7B8 The State $a thus choose to 0rosecute hi$ either under the Re%ised #enal Code or #, D, No, *A*() although the 0reference for the latter would see$ ine%itable considering that fencing is malum prohi'itum) and #, D, No, *A*( creates a 0resu$0tion of fencing 7+8 and 0rescribes a higher 0enalt based on the %alue of the 0ro0ert ,7*>8 In Di'on3#a$intuan %s, #eo0le of the #hili00ines) we set out the essential ele$ents of the cri$e of fencing as follows. O*, A cri$e of robber or theft has been co$$ittedD O(, The accused) who is not a 0rinci0al or acco$0lice in the co$$ission of the cri$e of robber or theft) bu s) recei%es) 0ossesses) "ee0s) acquires) conceals) sells or dis0oses) or bu s and sells) or in an $anner deals in an article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue) which has been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the said cri$eD O9, The accused "nows or should ha%e "nown that the said article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue has been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theftD and O;, There is on the 0art of the accused) intent to gain for hi$self or for another,P7**8 Consequentl ) Othe 0rosecution $ust 0ro%e the guilt of the accused b establishing the eCistence of all the ele$ents of the cri$e charged,P 7*(8 Short of e%idence establishing be ond reasonable doubt the eCistence of the essential ele$ents of fencing) there can be no con%iction for such offense,7*98 OIt is an ancient 0rinci0le of our 0enal s ste$ that no one shall be found guilt of cri$e eCce0t u0on 0roof be ond reasonable doubt =#ere' %s, Sandiganba an) *B> SCRA +?,P7*;8 In this case) what was the e%idence of the co$$ission of theft inde0endentl of fencingI Co$0lainant Rosita &i$ testified that she lost certain ite$s and !anuelito !ende' confessed that he stole those ite$s and sold the$ to the accused, 2owe%er) Rosita &i$ ne%er re0orted the theft or e%en loss to the 0olice, She ad$itted that after !anuelito !ende') her for$er e$0lo ee) confessed to the unlawful ta"ing of the ite$s) she forga%e hi$) and did not 0rosecute hi$, Theft is a 0ublic cri$e, It can be 0rosecuted de oficio) or e%en without a 0ri%ate co$0lainant) but it cannot be without a %icti$, As co$0lainant Rosita &i$ re0orted no loss) we cannot hold for certain that there was co$$itted a cri$e of theft, Thus) the first ele$ent of the cri$e of fencing is absent) that is) a cri$e of robber or theft has been co$$itted, There was no sufficient 0roof of the unlawful ta"ing of anotherLs 0ro0ert , True) witness !ende' ad$itted in an eCtra31udicial confession that he sold the boat 0arts he had 0ilfered fro$ co$0lainant to 0etitioner, 2owe%er) an ad$ission or confession ac"nowledging guilt of an offense $a be gi%en in e%idence onl against the 0erson ad$itting or confessing, 7*<8 E%en on this) if gi%en eCtra31udiciall ) the confessant $ust ha%e the assistance of counselD otherwise) the ad$ission would be inad$issible in e%idence against the 0erson so ad$itting,7*A8 2ere) the eCtra31udicial confession of witness !ende' was not gi%en with the assistance of counsel)

39
hence) inad$issible against the witness, Neither $a such eCtra31udicial confession be considered e%idence against accused, 7*-8 There $ust be corroboration b e%idence of corpus delicti to sustain a finding of guilt, 7*B8 Corpus delicti $eans the Obod or substance of the cri$e) and) in its 0ri$ar sense) refers to the fact that the cri$e has been actuall co$$itted,P 7*+8 The Oessential ele$ents of theft are =*? the ta"ing of 0ersonal 0ro0ert D =(? the 0ro0ert belongs to anotherD =9? the ta"ing awa was done with intent of gainD =;? the ta"ing awa was done without the consent of the ownerD and =<? the ta"ing awa is acco$0lished without %iolence or inti$idation against 0ersons or force u0on things =F, S, %s, De Vera) ;9 #hil, *>>>?,P 7(>8 In theft) corpus delicti has two ele$ents) na$el . =*? that the 0ro0ert was lost b the owner) and =(? that it was lost b felonious ta"ing, 7(*8 In this case) the theft was not 0ro%ed because co$0lainant Rosita &i$ did not co$0lain to the 0ublic authorities of the felonious ta"ing of her 0ro0ert , She sought out her for$er e$0lo ee !anuelito !ende') who confessed that he stole certain articles fro$ the warehouse of the co$0lainant and sold the$ to 0etitioner, Such confession is insufficient to con%ict) without e%idence of corpus delicti.7((8 6hat is $ore) there was no showing at all that the accused "new or should ha%e "nown that the %er stolen articles were the ones sold to hi$, OOne is dee$ed to "now a 0articular fact if he has the cogni'ance) consciousness or awareness thereof) or is aware of the eCistence of so$ething) or has the acquaintance with facts) or if he has so$ething within the $indLs gras0 with certitude and clarit , 6hen "nowledge of the eCistence of a 0articular fact is an ele$ent of an offense) such "nowledge is established if a 0erson is aware of a high 0robabilit of its eCistence unless he actuall belie%es that it does not eCist, On the other hand) the words Oshould "nowP denote the fact that a 0erson of reasonable 0rudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in 0erfor$ance of his dut to another or would go%ern his conduct u0on assu$0tion that such fact eCists, Qnowledge refers to a $ental state of awareness about a fact, Since the court cannot 0enetrate the $ind of an accused and state with certaint what is contained therein) it $ust deter$ine such "nowledge with care fro$ the o%ert acts of that 0erson, !n1 ;7>-n 6Bo -Lua::y 5:au37.:- 36a6-3 o= 2o;n767on or 9-n6a: aBar-n-33, 6@- 2our6 3@ou:1 2@oo3- 6@- on- B@72@ 3u36a7n3 6@- 2on3676u67ona: 5r-3u9567on o= 7nno2-n2-.P 7(98 6ithout 0etitioner "nowing that he acquired stolen articles) he can not be guilt of OfencingP,7(;8 Consequentl ) the 0rosecution has failed to establish the essential ele$ents of fencing) and thus 0etitioner is entitled to an acquittal, 'HEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of A00eals in CA3E,R, CR, No, (>><+ and hereb ACKFITS 0etitioner of the offense charged in Cri$inal Case No, +(3*>B((( of the Regional Trial Court) !anila, Costs de oficio, SO OR#ERE#. #avide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Dapunan, and %nares,!antiago, JJ., concur,

FIRST #I&ISION G.R. NO. 190+,5 % !5r7: 10, 201A J!I(E ONG y ONG, Petitioner) v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent, #E$ISION SERENO, C.J.% @efore the Court is an a00eal fro$ the Decision* dated *B August (>>+ of the Court of A00eals =CA?) which affir$ed the Decision( dated >A Januar (>>A of the Regional Trial Court =RTC?) @ranch 9-) !anila, The RTC had con%icted accused Jai$e Ong Ong =Ong? of the cri$e of %iolation of #residential Decree No, =#,O,? *A*() otherwise "nown as, the Anti3:encing &aw, Ong was charged in an Infor$ation9 dated (< !a *++< as follows.chanrobles%irtualawlibrar That on or about :ebruar *-) *++<) in the Cit of !anila) #hili00ines, the said accused) with intent of gain for hi$self or for another, did then and there willfull ) unlawfull and feloniousl recei%e and acquire fro$ un"nown 0erson in%ol%ing thirteen =*9? truc" tires worth #A<) +-<,>>) belonging to :RANCISCO A4AJAR 5 &EE) and thereafter selling One =*? truc" tire "nowing the sa$e to ha%e been deri%ed fro$ the cri$e of robber , CONTRAR5 TO &A6, F0on arraign$ent) Ong entered a 0lea of /not guilt ,/ Trial on the $erits ensued) and the RTC found hi$ guilt be ond reasonable doubt of %iolation of #,D, *A*(, The dis0ositi%e 0ortion of its Decision reads.chanrobles%irtualawlibrar

40
62ERE:ORE) 0re$ises considered) this Court finds that the 0rosecution has established the guilt of the accused JAI!E ONE ONE be ond reasonable doubt for %iolation of #residential Decree No, *A*( also "nown as Anti3:encing &aw and is hereb sentenced to suffer the 0enalt of i$0rison$ent of *> ears and * da to *A ears with accessor 0enalt of te$0orar disqualification, SO ORDERED,;chanrobles%irtualawlibrar Dissatisfied with the 1udg$ent) Ong a00ealed to the CA, After a re%iew of the records) the RTCHs finding of guilt was affir$ed b the a00ellate court in a Decision dated *B August (>>+, Ong then filed the instant a00eal before this Court, T@- Fa263 The %ersion of the 0rosecution) which was su00orted b the CA) is as follows.chanrobles%irtualawlibrar #ri%ate co$0lainant was the owner of fort 3four =;;? :irestone truc" tires) described as T;+; **>> b (> b *;, 2e acquired the sa$e for the total a$ount of #((9);>*,B* fro$ #hiltread Tire and Rubber Cor0oration) a do$estic cor0oration engaged in the $anufacturing and $ar"eting of :irestone tires, #ri%ate co$0lainantHs acquisition was e%idenced b Sales In%oice No, ;<A< dated No%e$ber *>) *++; and an In%entor &ist ac"nowledging recei0t of the tires s0ecificall described b their serial nu$bers, #ri%ate co$0lainant $ar"ed the tires using a 0iece of chal" before storing the$ inside the warehouse in -(> San Jose St,) corner Sta, Catalina St,) @aranga San Antonio Valle *) Sucat) #araRaque) owned b his relati%e Teod Euano, Jose Cabal) EuanoHs careta"er of the warehouse) was in charge of the tires, After a00ellant sold siC =A? tires so$eti$e in Januar *++<) thirt 3eight =9B? tires re$ained inside the warehouse, On :ebruar *-) *++<) 0ri%ate co$0lainant learned fro$ careta"er Jose Cabal that all thirt 3eight =9B? truc" tires were stolen fro$ the warehouse) the gate of which was forcibl o0ened, #ri%ate co$0lainant) together with careta"er Cabal) re0orted the robber to the Southern #olice District at :ort @onifacio, #ending the 0olice in%estigation) 0ri%ate co$0lainant can%assed fro$ nu$erous business establish$ents in an atte$0t to locate the stolen tires, On :ebruar (;) *++<) 0ri%ate co$0lainant chanced u0on JongHs !ar"eting) a store selling tires in #aco) !anila) owned and o0erated b a00ellant, #ri%ate co$0lainant inquired if a00ellant was selling an !odel T;+; **>> b (> b *; 0l :irestone tires) to which the latter re0lied in the affir$ati%e, A00ellant brought out a tire fitting the descri0tion) which 0ri%ate co$0lainant recogni'ed as one of the tires stolen fro$ his warehouse) based on the chal" $ar"ing and the serial nu$ber thereon, #ri%ate co$0lainant as"ed a00ellant if he had an $ore of such tires in stoc") which was again answered in the affir$ati%e, #ri%ate co$0lainant then left the store and re0orted the $atter to Chief Ins0ector !ariano :egarido of the Southern #olice District, On :ebruar (-) *++<) the Southern #olice District for$ed a tea$ to conduct a bu 3bust o0eration on a00ellantHs store in #aco) !anila, The tea$ was co$0osed of siC =A? $e$bers) led b S#O9 Oscar Euerrero and su0er%ised b Senior Ins0ector Noel Tan, #ri%ate co$0lainantHs co$0anion Tito Atien'a was a00ointed as the 0oseur3bu er, On that sa$e da of :ebruar (-) *++<) the bu 3bust tea$) in coordination with the 6estern #olice District) 0roceeded to a00ellantHs store in #aco) !anila, The tea$ arri%ed thereat at around 9.>> in the afternoon, #oseur3bu er Tito Atien'a 0roceeded to the store while the rest of the tea$ 0osted the$sel%es across the street, Atien'a as"ed a00ellant if he had an T;+; **>> b (> b *; :irestone truc" tires a%ailable, The latter i$$ediatel 0roduced one tire fro$ his dis0la ) which Atien'a bought for #<)>>>,>>, Atien'a as"ed a00ellant if he had an $ore in stoc", A00ellant then instructed his hel0ers to bring out twel%e =*(? $ore tires fro$ his warehouse) which was located beside his store, After the twel%e =*(? truc" tires were brought in) 0ri%ate co$0lainant entered the store) ins0ected the$ and found that the were the sa$e tires which were stolen fro$ hi$) based on their serial nu$bers, #ri%ate co$0lainant then ga%e the 0rearranged signal to the bu 3bust tea$ confir$ing that the tires in a00ellantHs sho0 were the sa$e tires stolen fro$ the warehouse, After seeing 0ri%ate co$0lainant gi%e the 0re3arranged signal) the bu 3bust tea$ went inside a00ellantHs store, 2owe%er) a00ellant insisted that his arrest and the confiscation of the stolen truc" tires be witnessed b re0resentati%es fro$ the baranga and his own law er, Resultantl ) it was alread 0ast *>.>> in the e%ening when a00ellant) together with the tires) was brought to the 0olice station for in%estigation and in%entor , O%erall) the bu 3bust tea$ was able to confiscate thirteen =*9? tires) including the one initiall bought b 0oseur3bu er Tito Atien'a, The tires were confir$ed b 0ri%ate co$0lainant as stolen fro$ his warehouse, <chanrobles%irtualawlibrar :or his 0art) accused Ong solel testified in his defense) alleging that he had been engaged in the business of bu ing and selling tires for twent 3four =(;? ears and den ing that he had an "nowledge that he was selling stolen tires in Jong !ar"eting, 2e further a%erred that on *B :ebruar *++<) a certain Ra$on Eo =Eo? offered to sell thirteen =*9? :irestone truc" tires allegedl fro$ Dagat3dagatan)

41
Caloocan Cit ) for #9)<>> each, Ong bought all the tires for #;<)<>>) for which he was issued a Sales In%oice dated *B :ebruar *++< and with the letterhead Eold &in" 2ardware W Eeneral !erchandise =Eold &in"?,Achanrobles%irtualawlibrar Ong dis0la ed one =*? of the tires in his store and "e0t all the twel%e =*(? others in his bodega, The 0oseur3bu er bought the dis0la ed tire in his store and ca$e bac" to as" for $ore tires, Ten $inutes later) 0olice$en went inside the store) confiscated the tires) arrested Ong and told hi$ that those ite$s were stolen tires,-chanrobles%irtualawlibrar The RTC found that the 0rosecution had sufficientl established that all thirteen =*9? tires found in the 0ossession of Ong constituted a 0ri$a facie e%idence of fencing, 2a%ing failed to o%erco$e the 0resu$0tion b $ere denials) he was found guilt be ond reasonable doubt of %iolation of #,D, *A*(,Bchanrobles%irtualawlibrar On a00eal) the CA affir$ed the RTCHs findings with $odification b reducing the $ini$u$ 0enalt fro$ ten =*>? ears and one =*? da to siC =A? ears of 0rision correcional,+chanrobles%irtualawlibrar O R R LING The #etition has no $erit, :encing is defined in Section (=a? of #,D, *A*( as the /act of an 0erson who) with intent to gain for hi$self or for another) shall bu ) recei%e) 0ossess) "ee0) acquire) conceal) sell or dis0ose of) or shall bu and sell) or in an $anner deal in an article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue which he "nows) or should be "nown to hi$) to ha%e been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theft,/ The essential ele$ents of the cri$e of fencing are as follows. =*? a cri$e of robber or theft has been co$$ittedD =(? the accused) who is not a 0rinci0al or on acco$0lice in the co$$ission of the cri$e of robber or theft) bu s) recei%es) 0ossesses) "ee0s) acquires) conceals) sells or dis0oses) or bu s and sells) or in an $anner deals in an article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue) which has been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theftD =9? the accused "new or should ha%e "nown that the said article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue has been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theftD and =;? there is) on the 0art of one accused) intent to gain for oneself or for another,*>chanrobles%irtualawlibrar 6e agree with the RTC and the CA that the 0rosecution has $et the requisite quantu$ of e%idence in 0ro%ing that all the ele$ents of fencing are 0resent in this case, :irst) the owner of the tires) 0ri%ate co$0lainant :rancisco A'a1ar =A'a1ar?) whose testi$on was corroborated b Jose Cabal 3 the careta"er of the warehouse where the thirt 3eight =9B? tires were stolen testified that the cri$e of robber had been co$$itted on *:ebruar *++<, A'a1ar was able to 0ro%e ownershi0 of the tires through Sales In%oice No, ;<A<** dated *> No%e$ber *++; and an In%entor &ist,*( 6itnesses for the 0rosecution li"ewise testified that robber was re0orted as e%idenced b their Sinu$0aang Sala sa *9 ta"en at the Southern #olice District at :ort @onifacio,*;The re0ort led to the conduct of a bu 3bust o0eration at Jong !ar"erting) #aco) !anila on (- :ebruar *++<, Second) although there was no e%idence to lin" Ong as the 0er0etrator of the robber ) he ne%er denied the fact that thirteen =*9? tires of A'a1ar were caught in his 0ossession, The facts do not establish that Ong was neither a 0rinci0al nor an acco$0lice in the cri$e of robber ) but thirteen =*9? out of thirt 3eight =9B? $issing tires were found in his 0ossession, This Court finds that the serial nu$bers of stolen tires corres0onds to those found in OngHs 0ossession,*< Ong li"ewise ad$itted that he bought the said tires fro$ Eo of Eold &in" in the total a$ount of I;<)<>> where he was issued Sales In%oice No, +B>,*Achanrobles%irtualawlibrar Third) the accused "new or should ha%e "nown that the said article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue has been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theft, The words /should "now/ denote the fact that a 0erson of reasonable 0rudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in 0erfor$ance of his dut to another or would go%ern his conduct u0on assu$0tion that such fact eCists,*- Ong) who was in the business of bu and sell of tires for the 0ast twent 3four =(;? ears)*Bought to ha%e "nown the ordinar course of business in 0urchasing fro$ an un"nown seller, Ad$ittedl ) Eo a00roached Ong and offered to sell the thirteen =*9? tires and he did not e%en as" for 0roof of ownershi0 of the tires,*+ The entire transaction) fro$ the 0ro0osal to bu until the deli%er of tires ha00ened in 1ust one da ,(> 2is eC0erience fro$ the business should ha%e gi%en hi$ doubt as to the legiti$ate ownershi0 of the tires considering that it was his first ti$e to transact with Eo and the $anner it was sold is as if Eo was 1ust 0eddling the thirteen =*9? tires in the streets, In Dela Torre %, CO!E&EC)(* this Court had enunciated that.chanrobles%irtualawlibrar Circu$stances nor$all eCist to forewarn) for instance) a reasonabl %igilant bu er that the ob1ect of the sale $a ha%e been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of robber or theft, Such circu$stances include the ti$e and 0lace of the sale) both of which $a not be in accord with the usual 0ractices of co$$erce, The nature and condition of the goods sold) and the fact that the seller is not regularl engaged

42
in the business of selling goods $a li"ewise suggest the illegalit of their source) and therefore should caution the bu er, This 1ustifies the 0resu$0tion found in Section < of #,D, No, *A*( that /$ere 0ossession of an goods) , , ,) ob1ect or an thing of %alue which has been the sub1ect of robber or thie%er shall be 0ri$a facie e%idence of fencing/ a 0resu$0tion that is) according to the Court) /reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise fro$ the established fact of , , , 0ossession of the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theft,/ CCC,((chanrobles%irtualawlibrar !oreo%er) Ong "new the require$ent of the law in selling second hand tires, Section A of #,D, *A*( requires stores) establish$ents or entities dealing in the bu ing and selling of an good) article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing else of %alue obtained fro$ an unlicensed dealer or su00lier thereof to secure the necessar clearance or 0er$it fro$ the station co$$ander of the Integrated National #olice in the town or cit where that store) establish$ent or entit is located before offering the ite$ for sale to the 0ublic, In fact) Ong has 0racticed the 0rocedure of obtaining clearances fro$ the 0olice station for so$e used tires he wanted to resell but) in this 0articular transaction) he was re$iss in his dut as a diligent business$an who should ha%e eCercised 0rudence, In his defense) Ong argued that he relied on the recei0t issued to hi$ b Eo, &ogicall ) and for all 0ractical 0ur0oses) the issuance of a sales in%oice or recei0t is 0roof of a legiti$ate transaction and $a be raised as a defense in the charge of fencingD howe%er) that defense is dis0utable,(9 In this case) the %alidit of the issuance of the recei0t was dis0uted) and the 0rosecution was able to 0ro%e that Eold &in" and its address were fictitious,(; Ong failed to o%erco$e the e%idence 0resented b the 0rosecution and to 0ro%e the legiti$ac of the transaction, Thus) he was unable to rebut the 0ri$a facie 0resu$0tion under Section < of #,D, *A*(, :inall ) there was e%ident intent to gain for hi$self) considering that during the bu 3bust o0eration) Ong was actuall caught selling the stolen tires in his store) Jong !ar"eting, :encing is $alu$ 0rohibitu$) and #,D, *A*( creates a 0ri$a fqcie 0resu$0tion of fencing fro$ e%idence of 0ossession b the accused of an good) article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue) which has been the sub1ect of robber or theftD and 0rescribes a higher 0enalt based on the %alue of the(< 0ro0ert , The RTC and the CA correctl co$0uted the i$0osable 0enalt based on #<)>-< for each tire reco%ered) or in the total a$ount of #A<)+-<, Records show that A'a1ar had 0urchased fort 3four =;;? tires fro$ #hiltread in the total a$ount of #((9);> *,B*,(A Section 9 =0? of Rule *9* of the Re%ised Rules of Court 0ro%ides a dis0utable 0resu$0tion that 0ri%ate transactions ha%e been fair and regular, Thus) the 0resu$0tion of regularit in the ordinar course of business is not o%erturned in the absence of the e%idence challenging the regularit of the transaction between A'a1ar )and #hil tread, In tine) after a careful 0erusal of the records and the e%idence adduced b the 0arties) we do not find sufficient basis to re%erse the ruling of the CA affir$ing the trial courtHs con%iction of Ong for %iolation of #,D, *A*( and $odif ing the $ini$u$ 0enalt i$0osed b reducing it to siC = A? ears of 0rision correccional, 62ERE:ORE) 0re$ises considered) the #etition is DENIED for lac" of $erit, Accordingl ) the assailed Decision of the Court of A00eals in CA3E,R, CR No, 9>(*9 is hereb A::IR!ED, SO OR#ERE#,

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 1+658+. Ju:y 12, 200+] ERNESTO FR!N$IS$O y SPENO$ILL!, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. #E$ISION $!LLEJO, SR., J.% This is an a00eal via a 0etition for re%iew on certiorari of the Decision 7*8 of the Court of A00eals in CA3E,R, CR No, *+**> affir$ing the Decision7(8 of the Regional Trial Court of !alolos) @ulacan) @ranch (() finding 0etitioner Ernesto :rancisco guilt of %iolating #residential Decree No, *A*() otherwise "nown as the Anti3:encing &aw) sentencing hi$ to suffer the 0enalt of ten =*>? ears and one =*? da of prision mayor $aCi$u$) as $ini$u$) to twent =(>? ears of reclusion temporal $aCi$u$) as $aCi$u$) with the accessor 0enalties corres0onding to the latter) and to 0a the corres0onding %alue of the sub1ect 0ieces of 1ewelr ,

43
T@- In17269-n6 The 0etitioner was charged of %iolating #,D, No, *A*( under the Infor$ation filed on June (9) *++9) the accusator 0ortion of which reads. That in or about the $onth of No%e$ber *++*) in the $unici0alit of !e caua an) #ro%ince of @ulacan) #hili00ines) and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the said accused Ernesto :rancisco S0enocilla) with intent to gain for hi$self) did then and there wil7l8full ) unlawfull and feloniousl bu ) recei%e) 0ossess and acquire fro$ one #acita &inghon &i'a) not the owner) se%eral 0ieces of 1ewelr ) to wit. One =*? 0air of earrings =2eart Sha0e? 333 # ;>>)>>>,>> One =*? 6hite Eold @racelet 3333 *<>)>>>,>> One =*? Dia$ond Ring 3333 *>>)>>>,>> One =*? Ring with Dia$ond 3333 <)>>>,>> with the total %alue of #A<<)>>>,>>) belonging to Jo%ita Rodrigue' deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theft, Contrar to law,798 The 0etitioner was arraigned) with the assistance of counsel) and entered a 0lea of not guilt , Trial forthwith ensued, Cru') which he "nows) or should be "nown to hi$) to ha%e been

T@- $a3- =or 6@- Pro3-2u67on Jo%ita Rodrigue' was a resident of @aranga !anggahan) Rodrigue') Ri'al, 7;8 She was engaged in business as a general contractor under the business na$e J,C, Rodrigue' Contractors, !acario &inghon was one of her wor"ers, She and her husband) the for$er !unici0al !a or of Rodrigue') Ri'al) acquired se%eral 0ieces of 1ewelr which were 0laced inside a loc"ed cabinet in a loc"ed roo$ in their $ain house, Jo%ita hid the "e to the cabinet inside the roo$, The cou0le and their son resided inside a co$0ound, The hired #acita &inghon) !acarioLs sister) as one of their household hel0ers us so$eti$e in :ebruar *+B+, 7<8 #acita swe0t and cleaned the roo$ 0eriodicall , So$eti$e in !a *++*) she left the e$0lo of the Rodrigue' fa$il , So$eti$e in the third wee" of October *++*) #acita contacted her brother !acario) who resided in Sitio @aloongan) @aranga #alto") !e caua an) @ulacan)7A8 and as"ed hi$ to sell so$e 0ieces of 1ewelr , She told !acario that a friend of hers owned the 1ewelr , 7-8 !acario agreed, 2e then went to the sho0 of 0etitioner Ernesto OErningP :rancisco located at #acheco Street) Cal%ario) !e caua an) @ulacan)7B8 which had a 0oster outside that said) O6e bu gold,P !acario entered the sho0) while #acita sta ed outside, !acario offered to sell to Ernesto two rings and one bracelet, Ernesto agreed to bu the 1ewelr for #(<)>>>) and 0aid the a$ount to !acario, 2e also ga%e !acario #9>> as a ti0,7+8 So$eti$e in No%e$ber *++*) 7*>8 #acita as"ed !acario anew to sell a 0air of earrings, 2e agreed, 2e and a friend of his went to the sho0 of Ernesto and offered to sell to Ernesto the 0air of earrings for #*B)>>>, The latter agreed and 0aid !acario the a$ount, Ernesto ga%e a #(>> ti0 to !acario, After these transactions) !acario saw the 0etitioner in his sho0 for about fi%e to siC $ore ti$es and recei%ed so$e a$ounts,7**8 So$eti$e in No%e$ber *++*) Jo%ita was as"ed to be a 0rinci0al s0onsor at a wedding, She was shoc"ed when she o0ened the loc"ed cabinet containing her 1ewelr ) and found that the boC was e$0t , She noticed that the loc" to the cabinet was not bro"en, A$ong the 0ieces of 1ewelr $issing were one 0air of dia$ond heart3sha0ed earrings worth #;>>)>>>D one heart3sha0ed dia$ond ring worth #*>>)>>>D one white gold bracelet with dia$ond stones worth #*<>)>>>D and one ring with a s$all dia$ond stone worth #<)>>>, She sus0ected that it was #acita who stole her 1ewelr , She was) howe%er) occu0ied with her business %entures that she had little ti$e to gather e%idence and charge #acita, On August *+) *++() Jo%ita filed a co$0laint for theft against #acita and her $other Adoracion &inghon with the Counter3 Intelligence Erou0 of the #hili00ine National #olice in Ca$0 Cra$e) Kue'on Cit , She stated that she owned se%eral 1ewels) viz. one =*? heart3sha0ed 0air of earrings with dia$ond worth #;>>)>>>D one =*? heart3sha0ed ring with dia$ond worth #*>>)>>>D one =*? white gold bracelet with dia$ond stones worth #*<>)>>>D and) one =*? ring with a s$all dia$ond stone worth #<)>>>, She also a%erred that #acita had stolen the 0ieces of 1ewelr ) and that she and her $other Adoracion dis0osed of the sa$e, A tea$ of 0olice in%estigators) including #O* Santiago Roldan) Jr, of the Counter3Intelligence Erou0) in%ited #acita and Adoracion to Ca$0 Cra$e) Kue'on Cit ) for in%estigation in connection with Jo%itaLs co$0laint, #acita arri%ed in Ca$0 Cra$e without counsel and ga%e a sworn state$ent 0ointing to the 0etitioner as the 0erson to who$ she sold Jo%itaLs 1ewelr , On August (9) *++() #acita ga%e a sworn state$ent to #O* Roldan) Jr,) ad$itting that she sold one 0air of heart3sha0ed earrings with dia$ond) one white gold bracelet) one heart3sha0ed dia$ond ring) and one ring Owith big and s$all stonesP to O!ang ErningP of !e caua an) @ulacan) for the total 0rice of #<>)>>> to co%er the cost of her fatherLs o0eration and for food, 6hen as"ed about the full na$e of the 0erson to who$ the 1ewelr was sold) #acita re0lied that she "new hi$ onl as O!ang Erning,P

44
#acita acco$0anied a grou0 of fi%e 0olice officers) which included S#O* Dre$io #eralta and #O* Roldan) Jr, to the sho0 in !e caua an) @ulacan, #acita 0ointed to the 0etitioner as the O!ang ErningP who had 0urchased the 1ewelr fro$ her, The 0olice$en alighted fro$ their %ehicle and in%ited the 0etitioner for questioning in Ca$0 Cra$e, F0on his insistence) the 0etitioner was brought to the 0olice station of !e caua an) @ulacan, 6hen the were at the 0olice station) the 0etitioner) in the 0resence of S#O; Valde') offered an a$ount of #<)>>> to the 0olice$en as a bribe) for the$ not to i$0licate hi$ in the case, #O* Roldan) Jr, re1ected the offer, 7*(8 The again in%ited the 0etitioner to go with the$ to Ca$0 Cra$e) but the 0etitioner refused and de$anded that the 0olice$en first secure a warrant for his arrest should the insist on ta"ing hi$ with the$,7*98 Ne%ertheless) #acita was charged with qualified theft in the Regional Trial Court of San !ateo) Ri'al) @ranch -A, 7*;8 The case was doc"eted as Cri$inal Case No, (>><, Adoracion was also charged with %iolating #,D, No, *A*( =Anti3:encing &aw?) doc"eted as Cri$inal Case No, *++(, The cases were consolidated and 1ointl tried, !eanwhile) Jo%ita succeeded in con%incing !acario to testif against the 0etitioner) assuring hi$ that he would not be 0rosecuted for %iolation of #,D, No, *A*(, !acario agreed to testif against the 0etitioner, #O* Roldan) Jr, and S#O* #eralta eCecuted a 1oint affida%it on their in%estigation, On Se0te$ber *) *++() Jo%ita eCecuted a sworn state$ent in the office of the 0olice station of !e caua an) @ulacan) charging the 0etitioner of bu ing stolen 1ewelr worth #A<<)>>>,7*<8 A cri$inal co$0laint against the 0etitioner for %iolation of #,D, No, *A*( was filed in the !unici0al Trial Court of !e caua an) @ulacan) doc"eted as Cri$inal Case No, +(3*9B;*, During the 0reli$inar in%estigation) #acita and !acario testified that the sold a set of earrings) bracelet and two rings to the 0etitioner for #<>)>>> at his sho0 in !e caua an) @ulacan, According to #acita) she found the 1ewelr belonging to Jo%ita while she was cleaning the roo$ in the house) and that she brought the 1ewelr ho$e, 7*A8 The court found 0robable cause against the 0etitioner) and issued a warrant for his arrest, On June (9) *++9) an Infor$ation was filed b the #ro%incial #rosecutor with the RTC charging the 0etitioner with %iolating #,D, No, *A*(, In the $eanti$e) on August (>) *++9) 1udg$ent was rendered b the RTC of San !ateo) Ri'al) @ranch -A) in Cri$inal Cases Nos, *++( and (>><) finding #acita guilt of theft and Adoracion guilt of fencing under #,D, No, *A*() be ond reasonable doubt, The decretal 0ortion of the decision reads. 62ERE:ORE) 0re$ises considered) 1udg$ent is hereb rendered in these cases) as follows. *, In Cri$, Case No, (>><) finding accused #acita &inghon &i'a EFI&T5 be ond reasonable doubt of the cri$e of theft) as defined and 0enali'ed under Art, 9>B in relation to Art, 9>+ of the Re%ised #enal Code) and sentencing her to suffer the indeter$inate sentence of Nine =+? ears and :our =;? $onths of prision mayor as $ini$u$ to Eighteen =*B? ears) Two =(? $onths and Twent =(>? da s of reclusion temporal as $aCi$u$) to return to co$0lainant Jo%ita Rodrigue' the unreco%ered stolen 0ieces of 1ewelr sub1ect of this case and if restitution is not 0ossible) to inde$nif the said co$0lainant in the a$ount of #*)9>>)>>>,>>D and to 0a the costs, (, In Cri$, Case No, *++() finding accused Adoracion &inghon &i'a EFI&T5 be ond reasonable doubt of the offense of %iolation of #D *A*() otherwise "nown as the Anti3:encing &aw) and sentencing her to suffer i$0rison$ent of Twel%e =*(? ears of prision mayorD to inde$nif co$0lainant Jo%ita Rodrigue' in the a$ount of #;<)>>>,>>D and to 0a the costs, SO ORDERED,7*-8

T@- $a3- =or 6@- P-6767on-r The 0etitioner testified that he was a resident of Cal%ario) !e caua an) @ulacan, 2e had a sho0 located at #acheco Street) Cal%ario) !e caua an) @ulacan) where he bought and sold 1ewelr , 2e had been in this business since *+B>, 7*B8 2e did not transact with #acita regarding Jo%itaLs $issing 1ewels, 7*+8 In fact) he did not e%en "now Jo%ita and $et her onl during the 0reli$inar in%estigation of the case before the !TC of !e caua an) @ulacan, 2e) li"ewise) denied "nowing #acita &inghon) and clai$ed that he first saw her when she acco$0anied so$e 0olice$en in ci%ilian clothes to his sho0) where he was thereafter in%ited to Ca$0 Cra$e for in%estigation,7(>8 2e saw #acita again onl during the 0reli$inar in%estigation of the case, 7(*8 The 0etitioner also a%erred that he had no transaction with !acario of whate%er nature,7((8 The 0etitioner further testified that when the 0olice$en in ci%ilian clothes a00roached hi$ in his sho0) the as"ed who O!ang ErningP was) as the sign in his sho0 carried such na$e, 6hen he res0onded to the question) the 0olice$en identified the$sel%es as $e$bers of the 0olice force, The 0etitioner then ga%e the$ his full na$e,7(98 6hen the 0olice$en in%ited hi$ for questioning) he refused at first, E%entuall ) he agreed to be interrogated at the $unici0al hall) where the 0olice$en insisted on bringing hi$ to Ca$0 Cra$e, 2e told the$ that he would go with the$ onl if the had a warrant of arrest, 7(;8 2e denied e%er offering an bribe to the 0olice$en,7(<8 On No%e$ber (+) *++<) the court rendered 1udg$ent finding the 0etitioner guilt be ond reasonable doubt of %iolating #,D, No, *A*(, The decretal 0ortion of the decision reads.

45
62ERE:ORE) in %iew of the foregoing) 1udg$ent is hereb rendered as follows. *, :inding the accused EFI&T5 be ond reasonable doubt of the %iolation of #res, Decree No, *A*( =Anti3:encing &aw? and is hereb sentenced to suffer the 0enalt of *> ears and * da of prision mayor $aCi$u$) as $ini$u$) to (> ears of reclusion temporal $aCi$u$) as $aCi$u$) with the accessor 0enalties corres0onding to the latter, (, Ordering the accused to 0a to 0ri%ate co$0lainant Jo%ita Rodrigue' the corres0onding %alue of the sub1ect ite$s of 1ewelries =sic?. one =*? 0air of earrings) heart sha0ed one =*? white gold bracelet one =*? dia$ond ring one =*? ring with dia$ond TOTA& VA&FE #;>>)>>>,>> *<>)>>>,>> *>>)>>>,>> <)>>>,>> #A<<)>>>,>>

with AX interest on all a$ounts due fro$ the filing of the infor$ation on June (9) *++9 until said a$ounts ha%e been full 0aid, SO ORDERED,7(A8 The 0etitioner a00ealed the decision to the Court of A00eals contending that. I T2E &O6ER COFRT ERRED IN NOT :INDINE T2AT T2E TESTI!ON5 O: #ROSECFTION 6ITNESSES ARE A&& 2EARSA5 EVIDENCE, II T2E &O6ER COFRT ERRED IN NOT :INDINE T2AT T2E #ROSECFTION EVIDENCE 6AS NOT SF::ICIENT TO CONVICT T2E ACCFSED3A##E&&ANT @E5OND REASONA@&E DOF@T, III T2E &O6ER COFRT ERRED IN @E&IEVINE ON T2E CONTRADICTINE TESTI!ON5 =sic? O: #ROSECFTION 6ITNESSES, I& T2E &O6ER COFRT ERRED IN @E&IEVINE T2E TESTI!ON5 O: A #ROSECFTION 6ITNESS AS TO T2E A&&EEED ACCFSED3 A##E&&ANTLS O::ER O: @RI@E 6IT2OFT S2O6 O: !ONE5, & T2E &O6ER COFRT ERRED IN NOT ACKFITTINE T2E ACCFSED3A##E&&ANT, 7(-8 On Dece$ber (+) (>>>) the CA rendered 1udg$ent affir$ing the decision of the RTC,7(B8

T@- Pr-3-n6 P-6767on In the 0resent recourse) 0etitioner Ernesto :rancisco asserts that. The Court of A00eals erred in sustaining the trial courtLs decision finding 0etitioner guilt be ond reasonable doubt of %iolation of the =sic? #residential Decree No, *A*() otherwise "nown as the Anti3:encing &aw, The Court of A00eals erred in rel ing on the conflicting testi$onies of 0rosecution witnesses) all of which consisted of hearsa e%idence,7(+8 The 0etitioner asserts that the 0rosecution failed to 0ro%e his guilt for the cri$e charged be ond reasonable doubt, 2e a%ers that the 0rosecution failed to 0ro%e that #acita stole the 1ewelr sub1ect of the charge) and that !acario sold the said 0ieces of 1ewelr to hi$, 2e) li"ewise) 0osits that the 0rosecution failed to 0resent #acita as its witness to 0ro%e that she stole the 0ieces of 1ewelr and sold the sa$e to hi$) and to adduce in e%idence the 1ewelr allegedl sold to hi$, 2e contends that the testi$onies of !acario and #O* Roldan) Jr,) on his in%estigation of Jo%itaLs co$0laint for theft) are hearsa e%idence, The a00ellant argues that assu$ing that !acario sold the sub1ect 1ewelr to hi$) !acario had no 0ersonal "nowledge that the sa$e belonged to Jo%ita, The 0etitioner a%ers

46
that the testi$on of !acario) the 0rinci0al witness of the 0rosecution) is inconsistent on substantial $attersD hence) should not be gi%en credence and 0robati%e weight, On the other hand) the Office of the Solicitor Eeneral =OSE? $aintains that the 0rosecution was able to 0ro%e all the ele$ents of the cri$e charged, It asserts that the first ele$ent was 0ro%ed through #acitaLs con%iction for theft in Cri$inal Case No, (>><D the second ele$ent was shown to eCist with $oral certaint via the testi$on of !acario identif ing the 0etitioner as the one who bought the sub1ect 0ieces of 1ewelr ) corroborated b the testi$on of #O* Roldan) Jr,D and) the third ele$ent was 0ro%en b e%idence showing that the 0etitioner had been in the business of bu ing and selling 1ewelr for a long 0eriod of ti$e) and that he had the eC0ertise to "now the correct $ar"et 0rice of the 1ewelr he 0urchased fro$ !acario and #acita, The OSE asserts that the 0etitioner $ust ha%e been 0ut on his guard when the sub1ect 0ieces of 1ewelr worth #A<<)>>> were sold to hi$ for onl #<>)>>>,79>8 It contends that the inconsistencies in the testi$onies of the 0rosecution witnesses referred to b the 0etitioner were $inor) and could not be $ade as a basis to disregard the trial courtLs findings of facts) which are entitled to great res0ect and credit, 79*8

T@- Ru:7n; o= 6@- $our6 The 0etition is $eritorious, The essential ele$ents of the cri$e of fencing are as follows. =*? a cri$e of robber or theft has been co$$ittedD =(? the accused) who is not a 0rinci0al or acco$0lice in the co$$ission of the cri$e of robber or theft) bu s) recei%es) 0ossesses) "ee0s) acquires) conceals) sells or dis0oses) or bu s and sells) or in an $anner deals in an article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue) which has been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theftD =9? the accused "new or should ha%e shown that the said article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue has been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theftD and) =;? there is) on the 0art of the accused) intent to gain for hi$self or for another, 79(8 :encing is malum prohi'itum) and #,D, No, *A*( creates a prima facie 0resu$0tion of fencing fro$ e%idence of 0ossession b the accused of an good) article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue which has been the sub1ect of robber or theft) and 0rescribes a higher 0enalt based on the %alue of the 0ro0ert , 7998 The stolen 0ro0ert sub1ect of the charge is not indis0ensable to 0ro%e fencing, It is $erel corroborati%e of the testi$onies and other e%idence adduced b the 0rosecution to 0ro%e the cri$e of fencing, 6e agree with the trial and a00ellate courts that the 0rosecution $ustered the requisite quantu$ of e%idence) on the basis of the testi$on of Jo%ita) that #acita stole the sub1ect 1ewelr fro$ the loc"ed cabinet in the $ain house of her then e$0lo er, Jo%ita testified on her ownershi0 of the 1ewelr and the loss thereof) and narrated that #acita had access to the cabinet containing the 0ieces of 1ewelr , 6e) howe%er) agree with the 0etitioner that the decision of the RTC of Ri'al) @ranch -A) in Cri$inal Case No, (>>< con%icting #acita of theft does not constitute 0roof against hi$ in this case) that #acita had) indeed) stolen the 1ewelr , -here is no sho.ing that the said decision in Criminal Case 0o. 8FF9 .as already final and e)ecutory .hen the trial court rendered its decision in the instant case, On the second ele$ent of the cri$e) the trial and a00ellate courts held that the 0rosecution 0ro%ed the sa$e be ond reasonable doubt based on the testi$on of Jo%ita during the trial in Cri$inal Cases Nos, *++( and (>><D that #acita had confessed to Jo%ita that she sold so$e of the 1ewelr to the 0etitionerD the 1oint affida%it of #O* Roldan) Jr, and S#O* #eralta on their in%estigation of the co$0laint of Jo%itaD the testi$on of #O* Roldan) Jr, relating to said in%estigationD the RTC decision in Cri$inal Cases Nos, *++( and (>><D the testi$onies of #acita and her brother !acario during the 0reli$inar in%estigation of Cri$inal Case No, +(3*9B;* before the !TC of !e caua an as shown b the transcri0ts of the stenogra0hic notes ta"en during the 0roceedingsD the su00le$ental sworn state$ent of #acita on August (9) *++( in Ca$0 Cra$e) Kue'on Cit ) and) the testi$on of !acario before the trial court, 2owe%er) we find and so hold that N :irst, Jo%itaLs testi$on in Cri$inal Cases Nos, *++( and (>><) that #acita had confessed to her that she had sold four 0ieces of 1ewelr to the 0etitioner) is inad$issible in e%idence against the latter to 0ro%e the truth of the said ad$ission, It bears stressing that the 0etitioner was not a 0art in the said cri$inal cases, -he .ell,entrenched rule is that only parties to a case are 'ound 'y a /udgment of the trial court, !trangers to a case are not 'ound 'y the /udgment of said case ,79;8 Jo%ita did not reiterate her testi$on in the said cri$inal cases during the trial in the court a 7uo, The 0rosecution did not 0resent #acita as witness therein to testif on the ad$ission she 0ur0ortedl $ade to Jo%itaD hence) the 0etitioner was not able to cross3eCa$ine #acita, The rule is that the acts or declarations of a 0erson are not ad$issible in e%idence against a third 0art ,79<8 Second, The testi$on of #acita during the 0reli$inar in%estigation in Cri$inal Case No, +(3*9B;*) as well as her su00le$ental affida%it) is) li"ewise) inad$issible against the 0etitioner since #acita did not testif in the court a 7uo, The 0etitioner was) thus) de0ri%ed of his constitutional right to confront and cross3eCa$ine a witness against hi$, Third, The testi$on of #O* Roldan) Jr,) that on August (9) *++() #acita 0ointed to the 0etitioner) while the latter was ha%ing a drin"ing s0ree) as the 0erson who bought the sub1ect 1ewelr fro$ her) is indeed ad$issible in e%idence against the 0etitioner, It is) li"ewise) corroborati%e of the testi$on of !acario, 2owe%er) such testi$on is ad$issible onl to 0ro%e such fact 3 that #acita 0ointed to the 0etitioner as the 0erson to who$ she sold the sub1ect 1ewelr D it is inad$issible to 0ro%e the truth of #acitaLs declaration to the 0olice$en) that the 0etitioner was the one who 0urchased the 1ewelr fro$ her, It $ust be stressed that the 0olice$en had no 0ersonal

47
"nowledge of the said sale) and) $ore i$0ortantl ) #acita did not testif in the court a 7uo, Indeed) the 0etitioner was de0ri%ed of his right to cross3eCa$ine #acita on the truth of what she told the 0olice$en, :ourth, On the other hand) the testi$on of !acario during the 0reli$inar in%estigation of Cri$inal Case No, +(3*9B;* is ad$issible in e%idence against the 0etitioner since he testified for the 0rosecution and was cross3eCa$ined on his testi$on during the 0reli$inar in%estigation, In fine) the onl e%idence of the 0rosecution to 0ro%e that the 0etitioner 0urchased the 1ewelr fro$ !acario and #acita are the following. the testi$on and affida%it of #O* Roldan) Jr,D and) the testi$on of !acario during the 0reli$inar in%estigation and trial in the court a 7uo, Although the well3entrenched rule is that the testi$on of a single witness is sufficient on which to anchor a 1udg$ent of con%iction) it is required that such testi$on $ust be credible and reliable, 79A8 In this case) we find the testi$on of !acario to be dubiousD hence) barren of 0robati%e weight, !acario ad$itted when he testified in the court a 7uo that his testi$on during the 0reli$inar in%estigation in Cri$inal Case No, +(3*9B;* and his testi$on in the court a 7uo were inconsistent, 2e e%en ad$itted that so$e 0ortions of his testi$on on direct eCa$ination in the court a 7uo were inconsistent with his testi$on on cross3eCa$ination and on re3direct eCa$ination, These ad$issions are buttressed b the records of the case) which show that such inconsistencies 0ertained to $aterial 0oints and not $erel to $inor $atters, Thus) during the 0reli$inar in%estigation in Cri$inal Case No, +(3*9B;*) !acario ad$itted that on October *>) *++*) he and his sister #acita sold two rings and one bracelet to the 0etitioner for #(<)>>>) while in No%e$ber *++*) he and #acita sold a 0air of earrings to the 0etitioner for #(<)>>>, On direct eCa$ination in the court a 7uo) !acario testified that he and #acita sold the earrings to the 0etitioner in !a *++() not in No%e$ber *++*) and onl for #*B)>>>, On cross3eCa$ination) !acario testified that he and his sister #acita went to the 0etitionerLs sho0 in !e caua an) @ulacan and sold the sub1ect 1ewelr on both occasions, On further cross3eCa$ination) !acario changed his testi$on anew) and declared that he sold the 1ewelr to the 0etitioner for #*B)>>> and not #(<)>>>D onl to change his testi$on again) and declare that he sold the 1ewelr for #(<)>>>, 2owe%er) !acario testified during the 0reli$inar in%estigation in Cri$inal Case No, +(3*9B;* that when he transacted with the 0etitioner for the second ti$e) he was with a friend) and not with his sister #acita, On redirect eCa$ination) !acario declared that in October *++*) he and #acita sold four =;? 0ieces of 1ewelr ) na$el ) two rings) one bracelet and a 0air of earrings) contrar to his testi$on on direct eCa$ination, 2e also testified that he and his sister sold the earrings in No%e$ber *++*, @ecause of the contradicting accounts $ade b !acario) the court $ade the following obser%ations. Court q According to ou) ou were OnalilitoP but ou ga%e the correct answer) ou are not OnalilitoP here but ou ga%e the wrong answer, &a+it ganoon, sa'i mo nalilito +a roon (sic) pero ang sagot mo pala tama. #ito hindi +a naman nalilito, 'a+it mali. &a+it +a nalilito eh tama iyong P89,FFF.FF. Gindi +a nalilito, mali ang sa'i mo, @ecause I a$ scare7d8 here thatLs wh I ga%e the wrong answer, 5ou better thin" about it, I was confused) Sir,79-8

a q a

The testi$onies of !acario are e%en contrar to the a%er$ents of the Infor$ation) that the 0etitioner recei%ed the said 1ewelr fro$ #acita, Assu$ing) for the nonce) that the 0etitioner 0urchased the said 1ewelr fro$ !acario) there is no e%idence on record that the 0etitioner "new that the were stolen, Significantl ) e%en !acario did not "now that the 1ewelr was stolen, 2e testified that his sister #acita told hi$ before he sold the 1ewelr to the 0etitioner that the belonged to a friend of hers, Att , &erio K A K A At that ti$e ou and our sister sold those 1ewels to O!ang ErningP did M do ou "now alread 7that8 it was !rs, Rodrigue' who is the owner of those 1ewelsI No) Sir) I do not "now, And who do ou "now was the owner of that 1ewels and that ti$e ou and our sister sold those 1ewels to O!ang ErningPI According to $ sister) it is =sic? owned b a friend of hers,

Court K A K 2ow did ou co$e to "now of this O!ang ErningIP Onl at that ti$e when we brought the 1ewels, @ut 0re%ious to that) do ou "now hi$I

48
A No,79B8

!acario learned) after the case against #acita had alread been filed in the trial court) that the 1ewelr was) after all) owned b Jo%ita, 2owe%er) he failed to infor$ the 0etitioner that the said 1ewelr was stolen, :ollowing is the testi$on of !acario. Att , &erio K 6hen ou learned that those 1ewels were owned b !rs, Rodrigue') did ou) if at all) infor$ed =sic? O!ang ErningP about itI

Court K A K A No basis) when did ou co$e to "now that the 1ewels belong to !rs, Rodrigue'I In *++() when $ sister alread had a case, 6hat did ou do when ou co$e =sic? to "now about thatI I was not able to do an thing but 1ust to hel0 $ sister with her case and also to hel0 the case of !rs, Rodrigue',

Att , &erio K A After that) after "nowing that these 1ewels are =sic? owned b !rs, Rodrigue') was there an occasion where ou =sic? able to infor$ O!ang ErningP that those 1ewels were owned b !rs, Rodrigue'I No $ore) I ha%e no $ore ti$e,79+8

The 0rosecution cannot e%en %alidl argue that the 0etitioner should ha%e "nown which 0ieces of 1ewelr were stolen) considering that !acario was selling the sa$e for #<>)>>> when the said 0ieces stolen fro$ Jo%ita were alleged to be worth #A<<)>>>, This is so because the 0rosecution failed to adduce sufficient co$0etent e%idence to 0ro%e the %alue of the said stolen articles, The 0rosecution relied solel on the bare and uncorroborated testi$on of Jo%ita) that the were worth #A<<)>>>. Att , &erio K A Now) will ou tell this Court so$e of those 1ewels which ou ownI I own se%eral 1ewels and the one =sic? in question are. *30air of earrings) dia$ond heart3sha0ed #;>>)>>>,>>D *3ring) heart3sha0ed dia$ond worth #*>>)>>>,>>D *3bracelet) white gold full of stones) dia$ond worth #*<>)>>>,>>D *3 dia$ond ring with s$all stones worth #<)>>>,>>, So) all in all) the 1ewelr is =sic? worth #AA<)>>>,>>,7;>8

6hen as"ed b the trial court to declare the 0resent $ar"et %alue of the stolen 1ewelr ) Jo%ita $erel declared. Att , &erio K A Now again) when did ou acquire those 1ewels if ou can still re$e$berI I re$e$ber se%eral ears ago when $ husband is =sic? ali%e,

Court K A K A #lease tell the court) 7is8 the $ar"et %alue of the 1ewels the sa$e toda I No) that is =sic? the $ar"et %alue se%eral ears ago, So) can ou eC0lain 7if8 the $ar"et %alue) $ore or less) 7is8 the sa$e toda I No, The 0rice) if we will a00raise now) is $uch bigger,7;*8

6hen required b the 0etitioner) through counsel) to bring to the court an recei0ts reflecting the 0rice of the 0ieces of 1ewelr to show that she 0urchased the sa$e) Jo%ita answered that she had no such recei0ts, Thus. Court K A 5ou bought it fro$ 7a8 0ri%ate 0ersonI 5es) 5our 2onor,

Att , @ernal K 6hat then is our 0roof that ou bought these 1ewelries =sic? fro$ a 0ri%ate 0ersonI

Att , &erio That was alread answered) 5our 2onor, She said) no recei0t,7;(8

49
In People v. Paraiso,7;98 we cited our ruling in People v. Marcos7;;8 that an ordinar witness cannot establish the %alue of 1ewelr ) nor $a the courts ta"e 1udicial notice of the %alue of the sa$e. M7A8nd as we ha%e ruled in the case of People vs. $ntonio Marcos, an ordinar witness cannot establish the %alue of 1ewelr and the trial court can onl ta"e 1udicial notice of the %alue of goods which are $atters of 0ublic "nowledge or are ca0able of unquestionable de$onstration, The %alue of 1ewelr is not a $atter of 0ublic "nowledge nor is it ca0able of unquestionable de$onstration and in the absence of recei0ts or an other co$0etent e%idence besides the self3ser%ing %aluation $ade b the 0rosecution) we cannot award the re0aration for the stolen 1ewelr ,7;<8 It bears stressing that) in the absence of direct e%idence that the accused had "nowledge that the 1ewelr was stolen) the 0rosecution is burdened to 0ro%e facts and circu$stances fro$ which it can be concluded that the accused should ha%e "nown that the 0ro0ert sold to hi$ were stolen, This require$ent ser%es two basic 0ur0oses. =a? to 0ro%e one of the ele$ents of the cri$e of fencingD and) =b? to enable the trial court to deter$ine the i$0osable 0enalt for the cri$e) since the 0enalt de0ends on the %alue of the 0ro0ert D otherwise) the court will fiC the %alue of the 0ro0ert at #<,>>) confor$abl to our ruling in People v. #ator.7;A8 In the absence of a conclusi%e or definite 0roof relati%e to their %alue) this Court fiCed the %alue of the bag and its contents at #*>>,>> based on the attendant circu$stances of the case, !ore 0ertinentl ) in the case of People vs. Reyes, this Court held that if there is no a%ailable e%idence to 0ro%e the %alue of the stolen 0ro0ert or that the 0rosecution failed to 0ro%e it) the corres0onding 0enalt to be i$0osed on the accused3a00ellant should be the $ini$u$ 0enalt corres0onding to theft in%ol%ing the %alue of #<,>>,7;-8 IN &IE' OF !LL THE FOREGOING ) the 0etition is ERANTED, The Decision of the Court of A00eals in CA3E,R, CR No, *+**> affir$ing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of !alolos) @ulacan) @ranch (() is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, The 0etitioner is ACKFITTED of the cri$e of %iolating #,D, No, *A*( for the 0rosecutionLs failure to 0ro%e his guilt be ond reasonable doubt, SO OR#ERE#. Puno, (Chairman), Quisum'ing, $ustria,Martinez, and -inga, JJ., concur.

Re0ublic of the #hili00ines S PRE(E $O RT !anila T2IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. ,,A68 O26o.-r 5, 199A THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 0etitioner) %s, HON. JOSE $. #E G )(!N, PRESI#ING J #GE OF REGION!L TRI!L $O RT OF " E)ON $IT/, 0R!N$H 9A, !N# SPO SES #!NILO !. !L$!NT!R! !N# IS!0ELIT! ESG ERR!*!L$!NT!R!, res0ondents, -he !olicitor "eneral for petitioner.

&IT G, J.: Is the cri$e of /fencing/ a continuing offense that could allow the filing of an infor$ation therefor in the 0lace where the robber or theft is co$$itted and not necessaril where the 0ro0ert ) unlawfull ta"en is found to ha%e later been acquiredI The abo%e quer is the sole issue in this #etition for certiorari and mandamus filed b the #eo0le of the #hili00ines) 0ra ing for the re%ersal) annul$ent and setting aside of the Order of (B :ebruar *+BA 1 of the res0ondent Judge) who has ruled in the negati%e) as well as his Order) dated (* !arch *+BA) 2 den ing the $otion for reconsideration, The 0etitioner 0ra s that the res0ondent Judge be directed to assu$e 1urisdiction o%er) and to 0roceed with the trial of) the cri$inal case, On >+ Se0te$ber *+B<) robber was co$$itted in Kue'on Cit in the house of Jose &, Obillos) Sr,) where %arious 0ieces of 0recious 1ewelr alleged to be worth $illions of 0esos were ta"en, An infor$ation) dated 9> Se0te$ber *+B<) was instituted against the 0er0etrators in the Regional Trial Court of Kue'on Cit ) @ranch *>*) doc"eted thereat asCri$inal Case No, E,R, No, ;(>-B, A

50
Subsequentl ) an infor$ation) dated (( October *+B<) for %iolation of #residential Decree No, *A*() otherwise "nown as the /Anti3 :encing &aw)/ was also filed with the Regional Trial Court of Kue'on Cit ) @ranch +9) doc"eted as Cri$inal Case No, ;(;99) against herein res0ondent s0ouses Danilo A, Alcantara and Isabelita Esguerra3Alcantara) fro$ whose 0ossession the 1ewelries stolen were reco%ered in Anti0olo) Ri'al, + The trial court) acting on the $otion to quash filed b the accused 7now 0ri%ate res0ondents8) issued the now questioned order of (B :ebruar *+BA) vizH @efore the Court is a !otion to Kuash) filed b the accused thru counsel) 0ra ing that the infor$ation filed against both accused be quashed) on the ground that the Court has no 1urisdiction to tr the offense charged, A$ong others) the $otion alleges) that as 0er 0olice in%estigation) the cri$e too" 0lace in Anti0olo) Ri'al, :or this reason) Violation of #residential Decree No, *A*( is an inde0endent cri$e) se0arate and distinct fro$ that of Robber , The accused clai$s) li"ewise) that 1urisdiction to tr the sa$e is with the Court within which territorial 1urisdiction) the alleged fencing too" 0lace, The #rosecution filed an o00osition thereto) alleging a$ong others) that there is nothing in the la. .hich prohi'its the filing of a case of fencing in the court under whose 1urisdiction the 0rinci0al offense of robber was co$$itted, The 0rosecution clai$s further) that the consideration in the enact$ent of #D *A*( was to i$0ose a hea%ier 0enalt on 0ersons who 0rofit b the effects of the cri$es robber or theft, On this 0oint) we should not lose sight of the fact that in all cri$inal 0rosecutions) the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the !unici0alit or #ro%ince wherein the offense was co$$itted) or an one of the essential ingredients thereof too" 0lace, 5 Since the alleged act of fencing too" 0lace in Anti0olo) Ri'al) outside the territorial 1urisdiction of this Court) and considering that all cri$inal 0rosecutions $ust be instituted and tried in the !unici0alit or #ro%ince where the offense too" 0lace) this Court) necessaril ) does not ha%e 1urisdiction o%er the instant case, 6herefore) the abo%e3entitled case is hereb KFAS2ED) without 0re1udice to the filing of the corres0onding action against the accused in the Court ha%ing 0ro0er 1urisdiction, The 0ri%ate 0rosecutorHs $otion for reconsideration was denied in the courtHs order of (* !arch *+BA, 2ence) the instant 0etition, The Solicitor Eeneral argues that since an essential ele$ent of the cri$e of fencing is the co$$ission of robber ) in this case co$$itted in Kue'on Cit ) the infor$ation therefor filed in said Cit accords with the 0ro%isions of Rule **> of the *+B< Rules on Cri$inal #rocedure) and the refusal of the Court a 7uo to assu$e and eCercise 1urisdiction thereo%er constitutes a serious error of law and a gra%e abuse of discretion, 2e theori'es that fencing is a /continuing offense,/ 2e eC0lains that the Anti3:encing &aw has been enacted for the 0ur0ose of i$0osing a hea%ier 0enalt on 0ersons who 0rofit fro$ the effects of the cri$e of robber or theft) no longer $erel as accessories under Article *+) 0aragra0h *) of the Re%ised #enal Code) but as equall guilt with the 0er0etrators of the robber or theft itself, In People vs, 4edesma) 6 we said. , , , A /continuous cri$e/ is a single cri$e consisting of a series ofacts arising fro$ a single cri$inal resolution or intent not susce0tible of di%ision, According to Cuello Calon) when the actor) there being unit of 0ur0ose and of right %iolated) co$$its di%erse acts each of which) although of a delictual character $erel constitutes a 0artial eCecution of a single 0articular delict) such concurrence of delictual acts is called a /delito continuado,/ :or it to eCist there should be 0luralit of acts 0erfor$ed se0aratel during a 0eriod of ti$eD unit of 0enal 0ro%ision infringed u0on or %iolatedD unit of cri$inal intent or 0ur0ose) which $eans that two or $ore %iolations of the sa$e 0enal 0ro%ision are united in one and the sa$e intent leading to the 0er0etration of the sa$e cri$inal 0ur0ose or ai$, Robber is the ta"ing of 0ersonal 0ro0ert belonging to another) with intent to gain) b $eans of %iolence against or inti$idation of an 0erson) or using force u0on an thing, , /:encing/) u0on the other hand) is the act of an 0erson who) with intent to gain for hi$self or for another) shall bu ) recei%e) 0ossess) "ee0) acquire) conceal) sell or dis0ose of) or shall bu and sell) or in an other $anner deal in an article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue which he "nows) or should be "nown to hi$) to ha%e been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theft, 8

51
The cri$es of robber and fencing are clearl then two distinct offenses, The law on fencing does not require the accused to ha%e 0artici0ated in the cri$inal design to co$$it) or to ha%e been in an wise in%ol%ed in the co$$ission of) the cri$e of robber or theft, Neither is the cri$e of robber or theft $ade to de0end on an act of fencing in order that it can be consu$$ated, True) the ob1ect 0ro0ert in fencing $ust ha%e been 0re%iousl ta"en b $eans of either robber or theft but the 0lace where the robber or theft occurs is inconsequential, It $a not be suggested) for instance) that) in the cri$e of biga$ which 0resu00oses a 0rior subsisting $arriage of an accused) the case should thereb be triable li"ewise at the 0lace where the 0rior $arriage has been contracted, 9 6e are not unaware of a nu$ber of instances 10 when the Court would allow a change of %enue in cri$inal cases /whene%er the interest of 1ustice and truth so de$and) and there are serious and weight reasons to belie%e that a trial b the court that originall had 1urisdiction o%er the case would not result in a fair and i$0artial trial and lead to a $iscarriage of 1ustice,/ 11 2ere) howe%er) we do not see the attendance of such co$0elling circu$stances) nor are we 0re0ared to state that the lower court gra%el abused its discretion in its questioned orders, 62ERE:ORE) the instant 0etition for certiorari and mandamus is DIS!ISSED) and the orders a00ealed fro$ are hereb A::IR!ED, SO ORDERED, (eliciano, &idin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.

#EL! TORRE &. $O(ELE$ EG.R. No. 121592N Ju:y 5, 1996F F!$TS% #etitioner Rolando dela Torre was disqualified fro$ running as $a or of Ca%inti &aguna on the ground that he was con%icted of %iolation the Anti3:encing &aw, 2e argues that he should not be disqualified because he is ser%ing 0robation of his sentence and hence) the eCecution of his 1udg$ent was sus0ended together with all its legal consequences, ISS E% 6ON Dela Torre is disqualified to run for 0ublic office, HEL#% Sec,;> of &EC 0ro%ides. Disqualifications, The following 0ersons are disqualified fro$ running for an electi%e local 0osition. =a? Those sentenced b final 1udg$ent for an offense in%ol%ing $oral tur0itude or for an offense 0unishable b one =*? ear or $ore of i$0rison$ent within two =(? ears after ser%ing sentenceD !oral turo0itude is considered as an act of baseness) %ileness) or de0ra%it in the 0ri%ate duties which a $an owes his fellow $en) or to societ in general) contrar to the acce0ted and custo$ar rule of right and dut between $an and wo$an or conduct contrar to 1ustice) honest ) $odest ) or good $orals, In this case of fencing) actual "nowledge b the /fence/ of the fact that 0ro0ert recei%ed is stolen dis0la s the sa$e degree of $alicious de0ri%ation of oneHs rightful 0ro0ert as that which ani$ated the robber or theft which) b their %er nature) are cri$es of $oral tur0itude, 2ence Dela Torre is disqualified fro$ see"ing 0ublic office, 6ith regard to his argu$ent that he is under 0robation) the court ruled that the legal effect of 0robation is onl to sus0end the eCecution of the sentence, Dela TorreHs con%iction subsists and re$ains totall unaffected notwithstanding the grant of 0robation, In fact) a 1udg$ent of con%iction in a cri$inal case i0so facto attains finalit when the accused a00lies for 0robation) although it is not eCecutor 0ending resolution of the a00lication for 0robation,

Re0ublic of the #hili00ines S PRE(E $O RT !anila EN @ANC

52
G.R. No. 108,+, !5r7: 6, 1995 P!0LO $. FR!N$IS$O) 0etitioner) %s, $O RT OF !PPE!LS !N# THE HONOR!0LE (!GI(O $. $ONTRER!S, res0ondents,

0ELLOSILLO, J.: #robation is a s0ecial 0ri%ilege granted b the state to a 0enitent qualified offender, It essentiall re1ects a00eals and encourages an otherwise eligible con%ict to i$$ediatel ad$it his liabilit and sa%e the state of ti$e) effort and eC0enses to 1ettison an a00eal, The law eC0ressl requires that an accused $ust not ha%e a00ealed his con%iction before he can a%ail of 0robation, This outlaws the ele$ent of s0eculation on the 0art of the accused G to wager on the result of his a00eal G that when his con%iction is finall affir$ed on a00eal) the $o$ent of truth well3nigh at hand) and the ser%ice of his sentence ine%itable) he now a00lies for 0robation as an /esca0e hatch/ thus rendering nugator the a00ellate courtHs affir$ance of his con%iction, Consequentl ) 0robation should be a%ailed of at the first o00ortunit b con%icts who are willing to be refor$ed and rehabilitated) who $anifest s0ontaneit ) contrition and re$orse, As conce0tuali'ed) is 0etitioner entitled to 0robation within the 0ur%iew of #,D, +AB) as a$ended b #,D, *(<- and #,D, *++>I #etitionerHs woes started when as #resident and Eeneral !anager of AS#AC Trans, Co$0an he failed to control his outburst and blurted G 5ou e$0lo ees in this office are all tanga) son of a bitches =sic?) bullshit, Puro +ayo .alang uta+ , , , , Mga ana+ ng puta , , , , Mag+ano 'a +ayo , , , Eod da$n ou all, Thus for hu$iliating his e$0lo ees he was accused of $ulti0le gra%e oral defa$ation in fi%e =<? se0arate Infor$ations instituted b fi%e =<? of his e$0lo ees) each Infor$ation charging hi$ with gra%el $aligning the$ on four different da s) i,e,) fro$ + to *( A0ril *+B>, On ( Januar *++>) after nearl ten =*>? ears) the !etro0olitan Trial Court of !a"ati) @r, A*) found 0etitioner guilt of gra%e oral defa$ation in four =;? of the fi%e =<? cases filed against hi$) i,e,) Cri$, Cases Nos, *><(>A) *><(>-) *><(>+ and *><(*>) sentenced hi$ to a 0rison ter$ of one =*? ear and one =l? da to one =*? ear and eight =B? $onths of prision correccional /in each crime committed on each date of each case, as alle7ed in the information(s))/ ordered hi$ to inde$nif each of the offended 0arties) Victoria Eatchalian) Rowena Rui') &inda !arie A ala #igar and !arie Solis) #*>)>>>,>> as eCe$0lar da$ages) and #<)>>>,>> for attorne Hs fees) 0lus costs of suit, 1 2e was howe%er acquitted in Cri$, Case No, *><(>B for 0ersistent failure of the offended 0art ) Edgar Colindres) to a00ear and testif , Not satisfied with the Decision of the !eTC) and insisting on his innocence) 0etitioner ele%ated his case to the Regional Trial Court, On < August *++* the Regional Trial Court of !a"ati) @r, <+) affir$ed his con%iction but a00reciated in his fa%or a $itigating circu$stance analogous to 0assion or obfuscation, Thus G , , , =he? was angr and shouting when he uttered the defa$ator words co$0lained of , , , , he $ust ha%e been angr and worried /about so$e $issing docu$ents , , , as well as the letter of the De0art$ent of Touris$ ad%ising AS#AC about its delinquent taC of #*,( $illion , , , , / the said defa$ator words $ust ha%e been uttered in the heat of anger which is a $itigating circu$stance analogous to 0assion or obfuscation, 2 Accordingl ) 0etitioner was sentenced /in each case to a STRAIE2T 0enalt of EIE2T =B? !ONT2S i$0rison$ent , , , , / A After he failed to inter0ose an a00eal therefro$ the decision,of the RTC beca$e final, The case was then set for eCecution of 1udg$ent b the !eTC which) as a consequence) issued a warrant of arrest, @utYbefore he could be arrested 0etitioner filed an a00lication for 0robation which the !eTC denied /in the light of the ruling of the Su0re$e Court in 4lamado v. Court of $ppeals) E,R, No) B;B<>) (+ June *+B+) *-; SCRA <AA , , , ,/ + :orthwith he went to the Court of A00eals on certiorari which on ( Jul *++( dis$issed his 0etition on the following grounds G Initiall ) the Court notes that the 0etitioner has failed to co$0l with the 0ro%isions of Su0re$e Court Circular No, (B3 +* of Se0te$ber ;) *++*, Violation of the circular is sufficient cause for dis$issal of the 0etition,

53
Secondl ) the 0etitioner does not allege an where in the 0etition that he had as"ed the res0ondent court to reconsider its abo%e orderD in fact) he had failed to gi%e the court an,o00ortunit to correct itself if it had) in fact) co$$itted an error on the $atter, 2e is) howe%er) required to $o%e for reconsideration of the questioned order 'efore filing a 0etition for certiorari =!y @t v. -iangco, I !CR$ IJ<?, This failure is fatal to his cause, It is a ground for dis$issal of his 0etition =!antos v. *da. de Cerdenola) < SCRA B(9D $c7uiao v. 6stenso) *; SCRA *BD #el Pilar -ransit, @nc. v. Pu'lic !ervice Commission) 9*3SCRA 9-(?, Thirdl ) it is ob%ious that res0ondent court did not co$$it an ca0ricious) arbitrar ) des0otic or whi$sical eCercise of 0ower in den ing the 0etitionerHs a00lication for 0robation , , , , :ourthl ) the 0etition for 0robation was filed b the 0etitioner out of ti$e , , , , :ifthl ) the Court notes that Section ; of #D +AB allows the trial court to grant 0robation after con%iction) u0on an a00lication b the defendant within the 0eriod of a00eal) u0on ter$s and conditions and 0eriod a00ro0riate to each case) but eC0ressl rules out 0robation where an a00eal has been ta"en , , , , 5 The $otion for reconsideration was li"ewise denied, In the 0resent recourse) 0etitioner squir$s out of each ground and see"s this CourtHs co$0assion in dis0ensing with the $inor technicalities which $a $ilitate against his 0etition as he now argues before us that he has not et lost his right to a%ail of 0robation notwithstanding his a00eal fro$ the !eTC to the RTC since /7t8he reason for his a00eal was 0recisel to enable hi$ to a%ail hi$self of the benefits of the #robation &aw because the original Decision of the =!etro0olitan? Trial Court was such that he would not then be entitled to 0robation,/ 6 2e contends that /he a00ealed fro$ the 1udg$ent of the trial court 0recisel for the 0ur0ose of reducing the 0enalties i$0osed u0on hi$ b the said court to enable hi$ to qualif for 0robation,/ , The central issue therefore is whether 0etitioneris still qualified to a%ail of 0robation e%en after a00ealing his con%iction to the RTC which affir$ed the !eTC eCce0t with regard to the duration of the 0enalties i$0osed, #etitioner is no longer eligible for 0robation, (irst, #robation is a $ere 0ri%ilege) not a right, 8 Its benefits cannot eCtend to those not eC0ressl included, #robation is not a right of an accused) but rather an act of grace and cle$enc or i$$unit conferred b the state which $a be granted b the court to a see$ingl deser%ing defendant who thereb esca0es the eCtre$e rigors of the 0enalt i$0osed b law for the offense of which he stands con%icted, 9 It is a s0ecial 0rerogati%e granted b law to a 0erson or grou0 of 0ersons not en1o ed b others or b all, Accordingl ) the grant of 0robation rests solel u0on the discretion of the court which is to be eCercised 0ri$aril for the benefit of organi'ed societ ) and onl incidentall for the benefit of the accused, 10 The #robation &aw should not therefore be 0er$itted to di%est the state or its go%ern$ent of an of the latterHs 0rerogati%es) rights or re$edies) unless the intention of the legislature to this end is clearl eC0ressed) and no 0erson should benefit fro$ the ter$s of the law who is not clearl within the$, Neither Sec, ; of the #robation &aw) as a$ended) which clearl $andates that /no a00lication for 0robation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has 0erfected the a00eal fro$ the 1udg$ent of con%iction)/ nor 4lamado v. Court of $ppeals 11 which inter0rets the quoted 0ro%ision) offers an a$biguit or qualification, As such) the a00lication of the law should not be sub1ected to an to suit the case of 0etitioner, 6hile the 0ro0osition that an a00eal should not bar the accused fro$ a00l ing for 0robation if the a00ealis solel to reduce the 0enalt to within the 0robationable li$it $a be equitable) we are not et 0re0ared to acce0t this inter0retation under eCisting law and 1uris0rudence, Accordingl ) we quote !r, Justice :eliciano s0ea"ing for the Court en 'anc in 4lamado v. Court of $ppealsG , , , we note at the outset that #robation &aw is not a 0enal statute, 6e) howe%er) understand 0etitionerHs argu$ent to be reall that an statutor language that a00ears to fa%or the accused in acri$inal case should be gi%en,a /liberal inter0retation,/ Courts , , , ha%e no authorit to in%o"e /liberal inter0retation/ or /the s0irit of the law/ where the words of the statute the$sel%es) andYas illu$inated b the histor of that statute) lea%e no roo$ for doubt or inter0retation, 6e do not belie%e that /the s0irit ofYthe law/ $a legiti$atel be in%o"ed to set at naught words which ha%e a clear and definite $eaning i$0arted to the$ b our 0rocedural law, The /true legislati%e intent/ $ust ob%iousl be gi%en effect b 1udges and all others who are charged with the a00lication and i$0le$entation of a statute, It is absolutel essential to bear in $ind) howe%er) that the s0irit of the law and the intent that is to be gi%en effect are deri%ed fro$ the words actuall used b the law3$a"er) and not fro$ so$e eCternal) $ stical or $eta1uridical source inde0endent of and transcending the words of the legislature, The Court is not here to be understood as gi%ing a /strict inter0retation/ rather than a /liberal/ one to Section ; of the #robation &aw of *+-A as a$ended b #,D, No, *++>, /Strict/ and /liberal/ are ad1ecti%es which too frequentl i$0ede a disci0lined and 0rinci0led search for the $eaning which the law3$a"ing authorit 0ro1ected when it

54
0ro$ulgated the language which we $ust a00l , That $eaning is clearl %isible in the teCt of Section ;) as 0lain and un$ista"able as the nose on a $anHs face, The Courtis si$0l Yreading Section ; as it is in fact written, There is no need for the in%ol%ed 0rocess of construction that 0etitioner in%ites us to engage in) a 0rocess $ade necessar onl because 0etitioner re1ects the conclusion or $eaning which shines through the words of the statute, The first dut of the 1udge is to ta"e and a00l a statute as he finds it) not as he would li"eYit to be, Otherwise) as this Court in %angco v. Court of (irst @nstance warned) confusion and uncertaint will surel follow) $a"ing) we $ight add) stabilit and continuit in the law $uch $ore difficult to achie%e. , , , 7w8here language is 0lain) subtle refine$ents which tinge words as to gi%e the$ the color of a 0articular 1udicial theor are not onl unnecessar but decidedl har$ful, That which has caused so $uch confusion in the law) which has $ade it so difficult for the 0ublic to understand and "now what the law is with res0ect to a gi%en $atter) is in considerable $easure the unwarranted interference b 1udicial tribunals with the English language as found in statutes and contracts) cutting the words here and inserting the$ there) $a"ing the$ fit 0ersonal ideas of what the legislature ought to ha%e done or what 0arties should ha%e agreed u0on) gi%ing the$ $eanings which the do not ordinaril ha%e cutting) tri$$ing) fitting) changing and coloring until law ers the$sel%es are unable to ad%ise their clients as to the $eaning of a gi%en statute or contract until it has been sub$itted to so$e court for its inter0retation and construction, The 0oint in this warning $a be eC0ected to beco$e shar0er as our 0eo0leHs gras0 of English is steadil attenuated,
12

Therefore) that an a00eal should notYbar the accused fro$ a00l ing for 0robation if the a00eal is ta"en solel to reduce the 0enalt is si$0l contrar to the clear and eC0ress $andate of Sec) ; of the #robation &aw) as a$ended) which o0ens with a negati%eclause) /no a00lication for 0robation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has 0erfected the a00eal fro$ the 1udg$ent of con%iction,/ In &ersa'al v. !alvador) 1A we said G @ its %er language) the Rule is $andator , Fnder the rule of statutor construction, negati%e words and 0hrases are to be regarded as $andator while those in the affir$ati%e are $erel director , , , , the use of the ter$ /shall/ further e$0hasi'es its $andator character and $eans that it is i$0erati%e) o0erating to i$0ose a dut which $a be enforced, And where the law does not distinguish the courts should not distinguishD where the law does not $a"e eCce0tion the court should not eCce0t, !econd, At the outset) the 0enalties i$0osed b the !eTC were alread 0robationable, 2ence) there was no need to a00eal if onl to reduce the 0enalties to within the 0robationable 0eriod, !ulti0le 0rison ter$s i$0osed against an accused found guilt of se%eral offenses in one decision are not) and should not be) added u0, And) the su$ of the $ulti0le 0rison ter$s i$0osed against an a00licant should not be deter$inati%e of his eligibilit for) na his disqualification fro$) 0robation, The $ulti0le 0rison ter$s are distinct fro$ each other) and if none of the ter$s eCceeds the li$it set out in the #robation &aw)i,e,) not $ore than siC =A? ears) then he is entitled to 0robation) unless he is otherwise s0ecificall disqualified, The nu$ber of offenses is i$$aterial as long as all the 0enalties i$0osed) ta"en se0aratel ) are within the 0robationable 0eriod, :or) Sec, +) 0ar, =a?) #,D, +AB) as a$ended) uses the word ma)imum not total when it sa s that /7t8he benefits of this Decree shall not be eCtended to those , , , , sentenced to ser%e a ma)imum ter$ of i$0rison$ent of $ore than siC ears,/ E%identl ) the law does not intend to su$ u0 the 0enalties i$0osed but to ta"e each 0enalt se0aratel and distinctl with the others, Consequentl ) e%en if 0etitioner was su00osed to ha%e ser%ed his 0rison ter$ of one =*? ear and one =*? da to one =*? ear and eight =B? $onths of prision correccional si)teen (1<) times as he was sentenced to ser%e the 0rison ter$ for /each cri$e co$$itted on each date of each case) as alleged in the infor$ation=s?)/ and in each of the four =;? infor$ations) he was charged with,ha%ing defa$ed the four =;? 0ri%ate co$0lainants on four =;? different) se0arate da s) he was stillYeligible for 0robation) as each 0rison ter$ i$0osed on 0etitioner was 0robationable, :iCing the cut3off 0oint at a $aCi$u$ ter$ of siC =A? ears i$0rison$ent for 0robation is based on the assu$0tion that those sentenced to higher 0enalties 0ose too great a ris" to societ ) not 1ust because of their de$onstrated ca0abilit for serious wrong doing but because of the gra%it and serious consequences of the offense the $ight further co$$it, 1+ The #robation &aw) as a$ended) disqualifies onl those who ha%e been con%icted of gra%e felonies as defined in Art, + in relation to Art, (< of The Re%ised #enal Code) 15 and not necessaril those who ha%e been con%icted of $ulti0le offenses in a single 0roceeding who are dee$ed to be less 0er%erse, 2ence) the basis of the disqualification is 0rinci0all the gra%it of the offense co$$itted and the conco$itant degree of 0enalt i$0osed, Those sentenced to a $aCi$u$ ter$ not eCceeding siC =A? ears are not generall considered callous) hard core cri$inals) and thus $a a%ail of 0robation, To de$onstrate the 0oint) let usta"e for instance one who is con%icted in a single decision of) sa ) thirteen =*9? counts of gra%e oral defa$ation =for ha%ing defa$ed thirteen 7*98 indi%iduals in one outburst? and sentenced to a total 0rison ter$ of thirteen =*9? ears) and another who has been found guilt of $utilation and sentenced to siC =A? ears and one =l? da of prision mayor $ini$u$ as $ini$u$

55
to twel%e =l(? ears and one =*? da of reclusion temporal $ini$u$ as $aCi$uin, Ob%iousl ) the latter offender is $ore 0er%erse and is disqualified fro$ a%ailing of 0robation, #etitioner thus 0roceeds on an erroneous assu$0tion that under the !eTC Decision he could not ha%e a%ailed of the benefits of 0robation, Since he could ha%e) although he did not) his a00eal now 0recludes hi$ fro$ a00l ing for 0robation, And) e%en if we go along with the 0re$ise of 0etitioner) howe%er erroneous it $a be) that the 0enalties i$0osed against hi$ should be su$$ed u0) still he would not ha%e qualified under the Decision rendered b the RTC since if the /STRAIE2T 0enalt of EIE2T =B? !ONT2S i$0rison$ent/ i$0osed b the RTC is $ulti0lied si)teen (1<) times) the total i$0osable 0enalt would be ten =*>? ears and eight =B? $onths) which is still wa be ond the li$it of not $ore than siC =A? ears 0ro%ided for in the #robation &aw) as a$ended, To illustrate. B $onths $ulti0lied b *A cases Z *(B $onthsD *(B $onths di%ided b *( $onths =in a ear? Z *> ears and B $onths) hence) following his argu$ent) 0etitioner cannot still be eligible for 0robation as the total of his 0enalties eCceeds siC =A? ears, The assertion that the Decision of the RTC should be $ulti0lied onl four =;? ti$es since there are onl four =;? Infor$ations thereb allowing 0etitioner to qualif for 0robation) instead of siCteen =*A? ti$es) is quite difficult to understand, The 0enalties i$0osed b the !eTC cannot be an clearer G /one =*? ear and one =*? da to one =*? ear and eight =B? $onths of prision correccional, in each crime committed on each date of each case, as alleged in the information(s), /2ence) 0etitioner should suffer the i$0osed 0enalties siCteen =*A? ti$es, On the other hand) the RTC affir$ed) the 1udg$ent of con%iction and $erel reduced the duration of each 0enalt i$0osed b the !eTC /in each case to a STRAIE2T 0enalt of EIE2T =B? !ONT2S i$0rison$ent/ on account of a $itigating circu$stance for each case) count or incident of gra%e oral defa$ationYThere is no %alid reason therefore wh the 0enalties i$0osed b the RTC should be $ulti0lied onl four =;? ti$es) and not siCteen =*A? ti$es) considering that the RTC $erel affirmed the !eTC as regards the cul0abilit of 0etitioner in each of the siCteen =*A? cases and reducing only the duration of the penalties i$0osed therein, Thus G #re$ises considered) the 1udg$ent of con%iction rendered b the trial court is A::IR!ED with $odification) as follows. 62ERE:ORE) the Court hereb finds the accused #ablo C, :rancisco EFI&T5 be ond reasonable doubt in each of the abo%e entitled cases and a00reciating in his fa%or the $itigating circu$stance which is analogous to 0assion or obfuscation) the Court hereb sentences the said accused in each case to a straight 0enalt of EIE2T =B? !ONT2S i$0rison$ent) with the accessor 0enalties 0rescribed b lawD and to 0a the costs, 16 Nowhere in the RTC Decision is it stated or e%en hinted at that the accused was acquitted or absol%ed in an of the four =;? counts under each of the four =;? Infor$atfons) or that an 0art of the1udg$ent of con%iction was re%ersed) or that an of the cases) counts or incidents was dis$issed, Otherwise) we will ha%e to account for the twel%e =*(? other 0enalties i$0osed b the !eTC, Can weI 6hat is clear is that the 1udg$ent of con%iction rendered b the was affir$ed with the sole $odification on the duration of the 0enalties, In fine) considering that the $ulti0le 0rison ter$s should not be su$$ed u0 but ta"en se0aratel as the totalit of all the 0enalties is not the test) 0etitioner should ha%e i$$ediatel filed an a00lication for 0robation as he was alread qualified after being con%icted b the !eTC) if indeed thereafter he felt hu$bled) was read to unconditionall acce0t the %erdict of the court and ad$it his liabilit , Consequentl ) in a00ealing the Decision of the !eTC to the RTC) 0etitioner lost his right to 0robation, :or) 0lainl ) the law considers a00eal and 0robation $utuall eCclusi%e re$edies, 1, -hird, #etitioner a00ealed to the RTC not to reduce or e%en correct the 0enalties i$0osed b the !eTC) but to assert his innocence, Nothing $ore, The cold fact is that 0etitioner a00ealed his con%iction to the RTC not for the sole 0ur0ose of reducing his 0enalties to $a"e hi$ eligible for 0robation G since he was alread qualified under the !eTC Decision G but rather to insist on his innocence, The a00eal record is wanting of an other 0ur0ose, Thus) in his !e$orandu$ before the RTC) he raised onl three =9? state$ents of error 0ur0ortedl co$$itted b the !eTC all ai$ed at his acquittal. =a? in finding that the guilt of the accused has been established because of his 0ositi%e identification b the witness for the 0rosecutionD =b? in gi%ing full faith and credence to the bare state$ents of the 0ri%ate co$0lainants des0ite the absence of corroborating testi$oniesD and) =c?in not acquitting hi$ in all the cases)/ 18 Consequentl ) 0etitioner insisted that the trial court co$$itted an error in rel ing on his 0ositi%e identification considering that 0ri%ate co$0lainants could not ha%e $issed identif ing hi$ who was their #resident and Eeneral !anager with who$ the wor"ed for a good nu$ber of ears, #etitioner further argued that although the alleged defa$ator words were uttered in the 0resence of other 0ersons) $ostl 0ri%ate co$0lainants) co3e$0lo ees and clients) not one of the$ was 0resented as a witness, 2ence) according to 0etitioner) the trial court could not ha%e con%icted hi$ on the basis of the uncorroborati%e testi$on of 0ri%ate co$0lainants, 19 Certainl ) the 0rotestations of 0etitioner connote 0rofession of guiltlessness) if not co$0lete innocence) and do not si$0l 0ut in issue the 0ro0riet of the 0enalties i$0osed, (or sure, the accused never manifested that he .as appealing only for the purpose of correcting a .rong penalty > to reduce it to .ithin the pro'ationa'le range, 2ence) u0on inter0osing an a00eal) $ore so after asserting his innocence therein) 0etitioner should be 0recluded fro$ see"ing 0robation, @ 0erfecting his a00eal) 0etitioner ipso facto relinquished his alternati%e re$ed of a%ailing of the #robation &aw the 0ur0ose of which is si$0l to 0re%ent s0eculation or o00ortunis$ on the 0art of an accused who although alread eligible does not at once a00l for 0robation) but doing so onl after failing in his a00eal,

56
The fact that 0etitioner did not ele%ate the affir$ance of his con%iction b the RTC to the Court of A00eals does not necessaril $ean that his a00eal to the RTC was solel to reduce his 0enalties, Con%ersel ) he was afraid that the Court of A00eals would increase his 0enalties) which could be worse for hi$, @esides) the RTC Decision had alread beco$e final and eCecutor because of the negligence) according to hi$) of his for$er counsel who failed to see" 0ossible re$edies within the 0eriod allowed b law, #erha0s it should be $entioned that at the outset 0etitioner) in accordance with Sec 9) 0ar, =e?) Rule **- of the Rules of Court) 20 should ha%e $o%ed to quash as each of the four =;? Infor$ations filed against hi$ charged four =;? se0arate cri$es of gra%e oral defa$ation) co$$itted on four =;? se0arate da s, 2is failure to do so howe%er $a now be dee$ed a wai%er under Sec, B of the sa$e Rule 21 and he can be %alidl con%icted) as in the instant case) of as $an cri$es charged in the Infor$ation, (ourth, The a00lication for 0robation was filed wa be ond the 0eriod allowed b law, This is %ital wa be ond the 0eriod allowed b law and crucial, :ro$ the records it is clear that the a00lication for 0robation was filed /onl after a warrant for the arrest of 0etitioner had been issued , , , =and? al$ost two $onths after =his? recei0t of the Decision/ 22 of the RTC, This is a significant fact which $ilitates against the instant 0etition, 6e quote with affir$ance the well3written) albeit assailed) ponencia of now #residing Justice of the Court of A00eals Nathanael #, De #ano) Jr,) on the s0ecific issue G , , , the 0etition for 0robation was filed b the 0etitioner out of ti$e, The law in 0oint) Section ; of #,D, +AB) as a$ended) 0ro%ides thus. Sec, ;, Erant of #robation, G Sub1ect to the 0ro%isions of this Decree) the trial court $a ) after it shall ha%e con%icted and sentenced a defendant) and u0on a00lication b said defendant within the 0eriod for 0erfecting an a00eal, , , , 0lace the defendant on 0robation , , , , Eoing to the eCtre$e) and assu$ing that an a00lication for 0robation fro$ one who had a00ealed the trial courtHs 1udg$ent is allowed b law) the 0etitionerHs 0lea for 0robation was filed out of ti$e, In the 0etition is a clear state$ent that the 0etitioner was u0 for e)ecution of /udgment before he filed his a00lication for 0robation, #,D, No, +AB sa s that the a00lication for 0robation $ust be filed /within the 0eriod for 0erfecting an a00ealD/ but in this case) such 0eriod for a00eal had 0assed) $eaning to sa that the Regional Trial CourtHs decision had attained finalit ) and no a00eal therefro$ was 0ossible under the law, E%en granting that an a00eal fro$ the appellate courtHs 1udg$ent is conte$0lated b #,D, +AB) in addition to the 1udg$ent rendered b the trial court) that a00ellate 1udg$ent had beco$e final and was) in fact) u0 for actual eCecution before the a00lication for 0robation was atte$0ted b the 0etitioner, The 0etitioner did not file his a00lication for 0robation before the finalit of the said 1udg$entD therefore) the 0etitionerHs atte$0t at 0robation was filed too late, Our $inds cannot si$0l rest eas on, the 0ro0osition that an a00lication for 0robation $a et be granted e%en if it was filed onl after 1udg$ent has beco$e final) the con%iction alread set for eCecution and a warrant of arrest issued for ser%ice of sentence, The argu$ent that 0etitioner had to await the re$and of the case to the !eTC) which necessaril $ust be after the decision of the RTC had beco$e final) for hi$ to file the a00lication for 0robation with the trial court) is to stretch the law be ond co$0rehension, The law) si$0l ) does not allow 0robation after an a00eal has been 0erfected, Accordingl ) considering that 0re%ailing 1uris0rudence treats a00eal and 0robation as $utuall eCclusi%e re$edies) and 0etitioner a00ealed fro$ his con%iction b the !eTC although the i$0osed 0enalties were alread 0robationable) and in his a00eal) he asserted onl his innocence and did not e%en raise the issue of the 0ro0riet of the 0enalties i$0osed on hi$) and finall ) he filed an a00lication for 0robation outside the 0eriod for 0erfecting an a00eal granting he was otherwise eligible for 0robation) the instant 0etition for re%iew should be as it is hereb DENIED, SO ORDERED, 0arvasa, C.J., (eliciano, Padilla, &idin and Regalado, JJ., concur.

FIRST #I&ISION G.R. NO. 190+,5 % !5r7: 10, 201A J!I(E ONG y ONG, Petitioner) v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent, #E$ISION

57
SERENO, C.J.% @efore the Court is an a00eal fro$ the Decision* dated *B August (>>+ of the Court of A00eals =CA?) which affir$ed the Decision( dated >A Januar (>>A of the Regional Trial Court =RTC?) @ranch 9-) !anila, The RTC had con%icted accused Jai$e Ong Ong =Ong? of the cri$e of %iolation of #residential Decree No, =#,O,? *A*() otherwise "nown as, the Anti3:encing &aw, Ong was charged in an Infor$ation9 dated (< !a *++< as follows.chanrobles%irtualawlibrar That on or about :ebruar *-) *++<) in the Cit of !anila) #hili00ines, the said accused) with intent of gain for hi$self or for another, did then and there willfull ) unlawfull and feloniousl recei%e and acquire fro$ un"nown 0erson in%ol%ing thirteen =*9? truc" tires worth #A<) +-<,>>) belonging to :RANCISCO A4AJAR 5 &EE) and thereafter selling One =*? truc" tire "nowing the sa$e to ha%e been deri%ed fro$ the cri$e of robber , CONTRAR5 TO &A6, F0on arraign$ent) Ong entered a 0lea of /not guilt ,/ Trial on the $erits ensued) and the RTC found hi$ guilt be ond reasonable doubt of %iolation of #,D, *A*(, The dis0ositi%e 0ortion of its Decision reads.chanrobles%irtualawlibrar 62ERE:ORE) 0re$ises considered) this Court finds that the 0rosecution has established the guilt of the accused JAI!E ONE ONE be ond reasonable doubt for %iolation of #residential Decree No, *A*( also "nown as Anti3:encing &aw and is hereb sentenced to suffer the 0enalt of i$0rison$ent of *> ears and * da to *A ears with accessor 0enalt of te$0orar disqualification, SO ORDERED,;chanrobles%irtualawlibrar Dissatisfied with the 1udg$ent) Ong a00ealed to the CA, After a re%iew of the records) the RTCHs finding of guilt was affir$ed b the a00ellate court in a Decision dated *B August (>>+, Ong then filed the instant a00eal before this Court, T@- Fa263 The %ersion of the 0rosecution) which was su00orted b the CA) is as follows.chanrobles%irtualawlibrar #ri%ate co$0lainant was the owner of fort 3four =;;? :irestone truc" tires) described as T;+; **>> b (> b *;, 2e acquired the sa$e for the total a$ount of #((9);>*,B* fro$ #hiltread Tire and Rubber Cor0oration) a do$estic cor0oration engaged in the $anufacturing and $ar"eting of :irestone tires, #ri%ate co$0lainantHs acquisition was e%idenced b Sales In%oice No, ;<A< dated No%e$ber *>) *++; and an In%entor &ist ac"nowledging recei0t of the tires s0ecificall described b their serial nu$bers, #ri%ate co$0lainant $ar"ed the tires using a 0iece of chal" before storing the$ inside the warehouse in -(> San Jose St,) corner Sta, Catalina St,) @aranga San Antonio Valle *) Sucat) #araRaque) owned b his relati%e Teod Euano, Jose Cabal) EuanoHs careta"er of the warehouse) was in charge of the tires, After a00ellant sold siC =A? tires so$eti$e in Januar *++<) thirt 3eight =9B? tires re$ained inside the warehouse, On :ebruar *-) *++<) 0ri%ate co$0lainant learned fro$ careta"er Jose Cabal that all thirt 3eight =9B? truc" tires were stolen fro$ the warehouse) the gate of which was forcibl o0ened, #ri%ate co$0lainant) together with careta"er Cabal) re0orted the robber to the Southern #olice District at :ort @onifacio, #ending the 0olice in%estigation) 0ri%ate co$0lainant can%assed fro$ nu$erous business establish$ents in an atte$0t to locate the stolen tires, On :ebruar (;) *++<) 0ri%ate co$0lainant chanced u0on JongHs !ar"eting) a store selling tires in #aco) !anila) owned and o0erated b a00ellant, #ri%ate co$0lainant inquired if a00ellant was selling an !odel T;+; **>> b (> b *; 0l :irestone tires) to which the latter re0lied in the affir$ati%e, A00ellant brought out a tire fitting the descri0tion) which 0ri%ate co$0lainant recogni'ed as one of the tires stolen fro$ his warehouse) based on the chal" $ar"ing and the serial nu$ber thereon, #ri%ate co$0lainant as"ed a00ellant if he had an $ore of such tires in stoc") which was again answered in the affir$ati%e, #ri%ate co$0lainant then left the store and re0orted the $atter to Chief Ins0ector !ariano :egarido of the Southern #olice District, On :ebruar (-) *++<) the Southern #olice District for$ed a tea$ to conduct a bu 3bust o0eration on a00ellantHs store in #aco) !anila, The tea$ was co$0osed of siC =A? $e$bers) led b S#O9 Oscar Euerrero and su0er%ised b Senior Ins0ector Noel Tan, #ri%ate co$0lainantHs co$0anion Tito Atien'a was a00ointed as the 0oseur3bu er, On that sa$e da of :ebruar (-) *++<) the bu 3bust tea$) in coordination with the 6estern #olice District) 0roceeded to a00ellantHs store in #aco) !anila, The tea$ arri%ed thereat at around 9.>> in the afternoon, #oseur3bu er Tito Atien'a 0roceeded to the store while

58
the rest of the tea$ 0osted the$sel%es across the street, Atien'a as"ed a00ellant if he had an T;+; **>> b (> b *; :irestone truc" tires a%ailable, The latter i$$ediatel 0roduced one tire fro$ his dis0la ) which Atien'a bought for #<)>>>,>>, Atien'a as"ed a00ellant if he had an $ore in stoc", A00ellant then instructed his hel0ers to bring out twel%e =*(? $ore tires fro$ his warehouse) which was located beside his store, After the twel%e =*(? truc" tires were brought in) 0ri%ate co$0lainant entered the store) ins0ected the$ and found that the were the sa$e tires which were stolen fro$ hi$) based on their serial nu$bers, #ri%ate co$0lainant then ga%e the 0rearranged signal to the bu 3bust tea$ confir$ing that the tires in a00ellantHs sho0 were the sa$e tires stolen fro$ the warehouse, After seeing 0ri%ate co$0lainant gi%e the 0re3arranged signal) the bu 3bust tea$ went inside a00ellantHs store, 2owe%er) a00ellant insisted that his arrest and the confiscation of the stolen truc" tires be witnessed b re0resentati%es fro$ the baranga and his own law er, Resultantl ) it was alread 0ast *>.>> in the e%ening when a00ellant) together with the tires) was brought to the 0olice station for in%estigation and in%entor , O%erall) the bu 3bust tea$ was able to confiscate thirteen =*9? tires) including the one initiall bought b 0oseur3bu er Tito Atien'a, The tires were confir$ed b 0ri%ate co$0lainant as stolen fro$ his warehouse, <chanrobles%irtualawlibrar :or his 0art) accused Ong solel testified in his defense) alleging that he had been engaged in the business of bu ing and selling tires for twent 3four =(;? ears and den ing that he had an "nowledge that he was selling stolen tires in Jong !ar"eting, 2e further a%erred that on *B :ebruar *++<) a certain Ra$on Eo =Eo? offered to sell thirteen =*9? :irestone truc" tires allegedl fro$ Dagat3dagatan) Caloocan Cit ) for #9)<>> each, Ong bought all the tires for #;<)<>>) for which he was issued a Sales In%oice dated *B :ebruar *++< and with the letterhead Eold &in" 2ardware W Eeneral !erchandise =Eold &in"?,Achanrobles%irtualawlibrar Ong dis0la ed one =*? of the tires in his store and "e0t all the twel%e =*(? others in his bodega, The 0oseur3bu er bought the dis0la ed tire in his store and ca$e bac" to as" for $ore tires, Ten $inutes later) 0olice$en went inside the store) confiscated the tires) arrested Ong and told hi$ that those ite$s were stolen tires,-chanrobles%irtualawlibrar The RTC found that the 0rosecution had sufficientl established that all thirteen =*9? tires found in the 0ossession of Ong constituted a 0ri$a facie e%idence of fencing, 2a%ing failed to o%erco$e the 0resu$0tion b $ere denials) he was found guilt be ond reasonable doubt of %iolation of #,D, *A*(,Bchanrobles%irtualawlibrar On a00eal) the CA affir$ed the RTCHs findings with $odification b reducing the $ini$u$ 0enalt fro$ ten =*>? ears and one =*? da to siC =A? ears of 0rision correcional,+chanrobles%irtualawlibrar O R R LING The #etition has no $erit, :encing is defined in Section (=a? of #,D, *A*( as the /act of an 0erson who) with intent to gain for hi$self or for another) shall bu ) recei%e) 0ossess) "ee0) acquire) conceal) sell or dis0ose of) or shall bu and sell) or in an $anner deal in an article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue which he "nows) or should be "nown to hi$) to ha%e been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theft,/ The essential ele$ents of the cri$e of fencing are as follows. =*? a cri$e of robber or theft has been co$$ittedD =(? the accused) who is not a 0rinci0al or on acco$0lice in the co$$ission of the cri$e of robber or theft) bu s) recei%es) 0ossesses) "ee0s) acquires) conceals) sells or dis0oses) or bu s and sells) or in an $anner deals in an article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue) which has been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theftD =9? the accused "new or should ha%e "nown that the said article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue has been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theftD and =;? there is) on the 0art of one accused) intent to gain for oneself or for another,*>chanrobles%irtualawlibrar 6e agree with the RTC and the CA that the 0rosecution has $et the requisite quantu$ of e%idence in 0ro%ing that all the ele$ents of fencing are 0resent in this case, :irst) the owner of the tires) 0ri%ate co$0lainant :rancisco A'a1ar =A'a1ar?) whose testi$on was corroborated b Jose Cabal 3 the careta"er of the warehouse where the thirt 3eight =9B? tires were stolen testified that the cri$e of robber had been co$$itted on *:ebruar *++<, A'a1ar was able to 0ro%e ownershi0 of the tires through Sales In%oice No, ;<A<** dated *> No%e$ber *++; and an In%entor &ist,*( 6itnesses for the 0rosecution li"ewise testified that robber was re0orted as e%idenced b their Sinu$0aang Sala sa *9 ta"en at the Southern #olice District at :ort @onifacio,*; The re0ort led to the conduct of a bu 3bust o0eration at Jong !ar"erting) #aco) !anila on (- :ebruar *++<, Second) although there was no e%idence to lin" Ong as the 0er0etrator of the robber ) he ne%er denied the fact that thirteen =*9? tires of A'a1ar were caught in his 0ossession, The facts do not establish that Ong was neither a 0rinci0al nor an acco$0lice in the cri$e of robber ) but thirteen =*9? out of thirt 3eight =9B? $issing tires were found in his 0ossession, This Court finds that the serial nu$bers of

59
stolen tires corres0onds to those found in OngHs 0ossession,*< Ong li"ewise ad$itted that he bought the said tires fro$ Eo of Eold &in" in the total a$ount of I;<)<>> where he was issued Sales In%oice No, +B>,*Achanrobles%irtualawlibrar Third) the accused "new or should ha%e "nown that the said article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue has been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theft, The words /should "now/ denote the fact that a 0erson of reasonable 0rudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in 0erfor$ance of his dut to another or would go%ern his conduct u0on assu$0tion that such fact eCists,*- Ong) who was in the business of bu and sell of tires for the 0ast twent 3four =(;? ears) *B ought to ha%e "nown the ordinar course of business in 0urchasing fro$ an un"nown seller, Ad$ittedl ) Eo a00roached Ong and offered to sell the thirteen =*9? tires and he did not e%en as" for 0roof of ownershi0 of the tires,*+ The entire transaction) fro$ the 0ro0osal to bu until the deli%er of tires ha00ened in 1ust one da ,(> 2is eC0erience fro$ the business should ha%e gi%en hi$ doubt as to the legiti$ate ownershi0 of the tires considering that it was his first ti$e to transact with Eo and the $anner it was sold is as if Eo was 1ust 0eddling the thirteen =*9? tires in the streets, In Dela Torre %, CO!E&EC)(* this Court had enunciated that.chanrobles%irtualawlibrar Circu$stances nor$all eCist to forewarn) for instance) a reasonabl %igilant bu er that the ob1ect of the sale $a ha%e been deri%ed fro$ the 0roceeds of robber or theft, Such circu$stances include the ti$e and 0lace of the sale) both of which $a not be in accord with the usual 0ractices of co$$erce, The nature and condition of the goods sold) and the fact that the seller is not regularl engaged in the business of selling goods $a li"ewise suggest the illegalit of their source) and therefore should caution the bu er, This 1ustifies the 0resu$0tion found in Section < of #,D, No, *A*( that /$ere 0ossession of an goods) , , ,) ob1ect or an thing of %alue which has been the sub1ect of robber or thie%er shall be 0ri$a facie e%idence of fencing/ a 0resu$0tion that is) according to the Court) /reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise fro$ the established fact of , , , 0ossession of the 0roceeds of the cri$e of robber or theft,/ CCC,((chanrobles%irtualawlibrar !oreo%er) Ong "new the require$ent of the law in selling second hand tires, Section A of #,D, *A*( requires stores) establish$ents or entities dealing in the bu ing and selling of an good) article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing else of %alue obtained fro$ an unlicensed dealer or su00lier thereof to secure the necessar clearance or 0er$it fro$ the station co$$ander of the Integrated National #olice in the town or cit where that store) establish$ent or entit is located before offering the ite$ for sale to the 0ublic, In fact) Ong has 0racticed the 0rocedure of obtaining clearances fro$ the 0olice station for so$e used tires he wanted to resell but) in this 0articular transaction) he was re$iss in his dut as a diligent business$an who should ha%e eCercised 0rudence, In his defense) Ong argued that he relied on the recei0t issued to hi$ b Eo, &ogicall ) and for all 0ractical 0ur0oses) the issuance of a sales in%oice or recei0t is 0roof of a legiti$ate transaction and $a be raised as a defense in the charge of fencingD howe%er) that defense is dis0utable,(9 In this case) the %alidit of the issuance of the recei0t was dis0uted) and the 0rosecution was able to 0ro%e that Eold &in" and its address were fictitious,(; Ong failed to o%erco$e the e%idence 0resented b the 0rosecution and to 0ro%e the legiti$ac of the transaction, Thus) he was unable to rebut the 0ri$a facie 0resu$0tion under Section < of #,D, *A*(, :inall ) there was e%ident intent to gain for hi$self) considering that during the bu 3bust o0eration) Ong was actuall caught selling the stolen tires in his store) Jong !ar"eting, :encing is $alu$ 0rohibitu$) and #,D, *A*( creates a 0ri$a fqcie 0resu$0tion of fencing fro$ e%idence of 0ossession b the accused of an good) article) ite$) ob1ect or an thing of %alue) which has been the sub1ect of robber or theftD and 0rescribes a higher 0enalt based on the %alue of the (< 0ro0ert , The RTC and the CA correctl co$0uted the i$0osable 0enalt based on #<)>-< for each tire reco%ered) or in the total a$ount of #A<)+-<, Records show that A'a1ar had 0urchased fort 3four =;;? tires fro$ #hiltread in the total a$ount of #((9);> *,B*,(A Section 9 =0? of Rule *9* of the Re%ised Rules of Court 0ro%ides a dis0utable 0resu$0tion that 0ri%ate transactions ha%e been fair and regular, Thus) the 0resu$0tion of regularit in the ordinar course of business is not o%erturned in the absence of the e%idence challenging the regularit of the transaction between A'a1ar )and #hil tread, In tine) after a careful 0erusal of the records and the e%idence adduced b the 0arties) we do not find sufficient basis to re%erse the ruling of the CA affir$ing the trial courtHs con%iction of Ong for %iolation of #,D, *A*( and $odif ing the $ini$u$ 0enalt i$0osed b reducing it to siC = A? ears of 0rision correccional, 62ERE:ORE) 0re$ises considered) the #etition is DENIED for lac" of $erit, Accordingl ) the assailed Decision of the Court of A00eals in CA3E,R, CR No, 9>(*9 is hereb A::IR!ED, SO OR#ERE#,

60
Re0ublic of the #hili00ines S PRE(E $O RT !anila EN @ANC G.R. No. 9AAA5 S-56-9.-r 1A, 1990 J !N PON$E ENRILE, 0etitioner) %s, HON. O(!R . !(IN, Pr-3717n; Ju1;- o= R-;7ona: Tr7a: $our6 o= (a8a67, 0ran2@ 1A5, HON. IGN!$IO (. $!P LONG, Pr-3717n; Ju1;- o= R-;7ona: Tr7a: $our6 o= (a8a67, 0ran2@ 1A+, Pa7r7n; Ju1;-, SPE$I!L $O(POSITE TE!( o=% S-n7or S6a6Pro3-2u6or ! RELIO TR!(PE, S6a6- Pro3-2u6or FER#IN!N# !0ES!(IS an1 !336. $76y Pro3-2u6or E LOGIO (!N!N" ILN an1 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, res0ondents, Ponce 6nrile, Cayetano, Reyes E Manalastas 4a. ffices for petitioner.

G TIERRE), JR., J.: Together with the filing of an infor$ation charging Senator Juan #once Enrile as ha%ing co$$itted rebellion co$0leCed with $urder 1 with the Regional Trial Court of Kue'on Cit ) go%ern$ent 0rosecutors filed another infor$ation charging hi$ for %iolation of #residential Decree No, *B(+ with the Regional Trial Court of !a"ati, The second infor$ation reads. That on or about the *st da of Dece$ber *+B+) at Das$ariRas Village) !a"ati) !etro !anila and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the abo%e3na$ed accused) ha%ing reasonable ground to belie%e or sus0ect that EC3Col, Eregorio /Eringo/ 2onasan has co$$itted a cri$e) did then and there unlawfull ) feloniousl ) willfull and "nowingl obstruct) i$0ede) frustrate or dela the a00rehension of said EC, &t, Col, Eregorio /Eringo/ 2onasan b harboring or concealing hi$ in his house, On !arch () *++>) the 0etitioner filed an O$nibus !otion =a? to hold in abe ance the issuance of a warrant of arrest 0ending 0ersonal deter$ination b the court of 0robable cause) and =b? to dis$iss the case and eC0unge the infor$ation fro$ the record, On !arch *A) *++>) res0ondent Judge Ignacio Ca0ulong) as 0airing 1udge of res0ondent Judge O$ar A$in) denied Senator EnrileHs O$nibus $otion on the basis of a finding that /there =was? 0robable cause to hold the accused Juan #once Enrile liable for %iolation of #D No, *B(+,/ On !arch (*) *++>) the 0etitioner filed a !otion for Reconsideration and to KuashSDis$iss the Infor$ation on the grounds that. =a? The facts charged do not constitute an offenseD =b? The res0ondent courtHs finding of 0robable cause was de%oid of factual and legal basisD and =c? The 0ending charge of rebellion co$0leCed with $urder and frustrated $urder against Senator Enrile as alleged co3cons0irator of Col, 2onasan) on the basis of their alleged $eeting on Dece$ber *) *+B+ 0reclude the 0rosecution of the Senator for harboring or concealing the Colonel on the sa$e occasion under #D *B(+, On !a *>) *++>) the res0ondent court issued an order den ing the $otion for reconsideration for alleged lac" of $erit and setting Senator EnrileHs arraign$ent to !a 9>) *++>, The 0etitioner co$es to this Court on certiorari i$0uting gra%e abuse of discretion a$ounting to lac" or eCcess of 1urisdiction co$$itted b the res0ondent court in refusing to quashS dis$iss the infor$ation on the following grounds) to wit. I, The facts charged do not constitute an offenseD II, The alleged harboring or concealing b Sen, Enrile of Col, 2onasan in a su00osed $eeting on * Dece$ber *+B+ is absorbed in) or is a co$0onent ele$ent of) the /co$0leCed/ rebellion 0resentl charged against Sen, Enrile as alleged co3cons0irator of Col, 2onasan on the basis of the sa$e $eeting on * Dece$ber *+B+D

61
III, The orderl ad$inistration of Justice requires that there be onl one 0rosecution for all the co$0onent acts of rebellionD IV, There is no 0robable cause to hold Sen, Enrile for trial for alleged %iolation of #residential Decree No, *B(+D V, No 0reli$inar in%estigation was conducted for alleged %iolation of #residential Decree No, *B(+, The 0reli$inar in%estigation) held onl for rebellion) was $arred b 0atent irregularities resulting in denial of due 0rocess, On !a (>) *++> we issued a te$0orar restraining order en1oining the res0ondents fro$ conducting further 0roceedings in Cri$inal Case No, +>3--- until otherwise directed b this Court, The 0i%otal issue in this case is whether or not the 0etitioner could be se0aratel charged for %iolation of #D No, *B(+ notwithstanding the rebellion case earlier filed against hi$, Res0ondent Judge A$in sustained the charge of %iolation of #D No, *B(+ notwithstanding the rebellion case filed against the 0etitioner on the theor that the for$er in%ol%es a s0ecial law while the latter is based on the Re%ised #enal Code or a general law, The resolution of the abo%e issue brings us anew to the case of People v. Gernandez =++ #hil, <*< 7*+<A8? the rulings of which were recentl re0eated in the 0etition for habeas cor0us of Juan Ponce 6nrile v. Judge !alazar, =E,R, Nos, +(*A9 and +(*A;) June <) *++>?, The 6nrile case ga%e this Court the occasion to reiterate the long standing 0roscri0tion against s0litting the co$0onent offenses of rebellion and sub1ecting the$ to se0arate 0rosecutions) a 0rocedure re0robated in the Gernandez case, This Court recentl declared. The re1ection of both o0tions sha0es and deter$ines the 0ri$ar ruling of the Court) which that Gernandez re$ains binding doctrine o0erating to 0rohibit the co$0leCing of rebellion .ith any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that commutes re'ellion, =E$0hasis su00lied? This doctrine is a00licable in the case at bar, If a 0erson can not be charged with the co$0leC cri$e of rebellion for the greater 0enalt to be a00lied) neither can he be charged se0aratel for two =(? different offenses where one is a constituti%e or co$0onent ele$ent or co$$itted in furtherance of rebellion, The 0etitioner is 0resentl charged with ha%ing %iolated #D No, *B(+ 0articularl Section * =c? which states. SECTION *, The 0enalt of 0rison correccional in its $aCi$u$ 0eriod) or a fine ranging fro$ *)>>> to A)>>> 0esos or both) shall be i$0osed u0on an 0erson who "nowingl or wilfull obstructs) i$0edes) frustrates or dela s the a00rehension of sus0ects and the in%estigation and 0rosecution of cri$inal cases b co$$itting an of the following acts. CCC CCC CCC =c? harboring or concealing) or facilitating the esca0e of) an 0erson he "nows) or has reasonable ground to belie%e or sus0ect has co$$itted an offense under eCisting 0enal laws in order to 0re%ent his arrest) 0rosecution and con%iction, CCC CCC CCC The 0rosecution in this !a"ati case alleges that the 0etitioner entertained and acco$$odated Col, 2onasan b gi%ing hi$ food and co$fort on Dece$ber *) *+B+ in his house, Qnowing that Colonel 2onasan is a fugiti%e fro$ 1ustice) Sen, Enrile allegedl did not do an thing to ha%e 2onasan arrested or a00rehended, And because of such failure the 0etitioner 0re%ented Col, 2onasanHs arrest and con%iction in %iolation of Section * =c? of #D No, *B(+, The rebellion charges filed against the 0etitioner in Kue'on Cit were based on the affida%its eCecuted b three =9? e$0lo ees of the Silahis International 2otel who stated that the fugiti%e Col, Eregorio /Eringo/ 2onasan and so$e *>> rebel soldiers attended the $ass and birthda 0art held at the residence of the 0etitioner in the e%ening of Dece$ber *) *+B+, The infor$ation =AnneC /C/) 0, 9? 0articularl reads that on /or about A.9> 0,$,) * Dece$ber) *+B+) Col, Eregorio /Eringo/ 2onasan conferred with accused Senator Juan #once Enrile acco$0anied b about *>> full ar$ed rebel soldiers wearing white ar$ed 0atches/, The 0rosecution thereb concluded that.

62
In such a situation) Sen, EnrileHs tal"ing with rebel leader Col, Eregorio /Eringo/ 2onasan in his house in the 0resence of about *>> unifor$ed soldiers who were full ar$ed) can 'e inferred that they .ere co,conspirators in the failed #ecem'er coup. =AnneC A) Rollo) 0, A<D E$0hasis su00lied? As can be readil seen) the factual allegations su00orting the rebellion charge constitute or include the %er incident which ga%e rise to the charge of the %iolation under #residential Decree No, *B(+, Fnder the De0art$ent of Justice resolution =AnneC A) Rollo) 0, ;+? there is onl one cri$e of rebellion co$0leCed with $urder and $ulti0le frustrated $urder but there could be *>* se0arate and inde0endent 0rosecutions for harboring and concealing/ 2onasan and *>> other ar$ed rebels under #D No, *B(+, The s0litting of co$0onent ele$ents is readil a00arent, The 0etitioner is now facing charges of rebellion in cons0irac with the fugiti%e Col, Eringo 2onasan, Necessaril ) being in cons0irac with 2onasan) 0etitioners alleged act of harboring or concealing was for no other 0ur0ose but in furtherance of the cri$e of rebellion thus constitute a co$0onent thereof, it was $oti%ated b the single intent or resolution to co$$it the cri$e of rebellion, As held in People v. Gernandez, supraH In short) 0olitical cri$es are those directl ai$ed against the 0olitical order) as well as such co$$on cri$es as $a be co$$itted to achie%e a political purpose. -he decisive factor is the intent or motive. =0, <9A? The cri$e of rebellion consists of $an acts, It is described as a %ast $o%e$ent of $en and a co$0leC net of intrigues and 0lots, =#eo0le %, Al$asan 7CA8 O,E, *+9(?, Juris0rudence tells us that acts co$$itted in furtherance of the rebellion though cri$es in the$sel%es are dee$ed absorbed in the one single cri$e of rebellion, =#eo0le %, Eeroni$o) *>> #hil, +> 7*+<A8D #eo0le %, Santos) *>; #hil, <<* 7*+<B8D #eo0le %, Rodrigue') *>- #hil, A<+ 7*+A>8D #eo0le %, &a%a) (B SCRA -( 7*+A+8?, In this case) the act of harboring or concealing Col, 2onasan is clearl a $ere co$0onent or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion, It cannot therefore be $ade the basis of a se0arate charge, The case of People v. Prieto 2 =B> #hil,) *9B 7*+;B8? is instructi%e. In the nature of things) the gi%ing of aid and co$fort can onl be acco$0lished b so$e "ind of action, Its %er nature 0arta"es of a deed or 0h sical acti%it as o00osed to a $ental o0eration, =Cra$er %, F,S,) ante? This deed or 0h sical acti%it $a be) and often is) in itself a cri$inal offense under another 0enal statute or 0ro%ision, E%en so) when the deed is charged as an ele$ent of treason it beco$es Identified with the latter cri$e and can not be the sub1ect of a se0arate 0unish$ent) or used in co$bination with treason to increase the 0enalt as article ;B of the Re%ised #enal Code 0ro%ides, Just as one can not be 0unished for 0ossessing o0iu$ in a 0rosecution for s$o"ing the Identical drug) and a robber cannot be held guilt of coercion or tres0ass to a dwelling in a 0rosecution for robber ) because 0ossession of o0iu$ and force and tres0ass are inherent in s$o"ing and in robber res0ecti%el ) so $a not a defendant be $ade liable for $urder as a se0arate cri$e or in con1unction with another offense where) as in this case) it is a%erred as a constituti%e ingredient of treason, The 0rosecution tries to distinguish b contending that harboring or concealing a fugiti%e is 0unishable under a s0ecial law while the rebellion case is based on the Re%ised #enal CodeD hence) 0rosecution under one law will not bar a 0rosecution under the other, This argu$ent is s0ecious in rebellion cases, In the light of the Gernandez doctrine the 0rosecutionHs theor $ust fail, The rationale re$ains the sa$e, All cri$es) whether 0unishable under a s0ecial law or general law) which are $ere co$0onents or ingredients) or co$$itted in furtherance thereof) beco$e absorbed in the cri$e of rebellion and can not be isolated and charged as se0arate cri$es in the$sel%es, Thus. This does not detract) howe%er) fro$ the rule that the ingredients of a cri$e for$ 0art and 0arcel thereof) and hence) are absorbed b the sa$e and cannot be 0unished either se0aratel therefro$ or b the a00lication of Article ;B of the Re%ised #enal Code, ,,, =#eo0le %, 2ernande') supra) at 0, <(B? The Gernandez and other related cases $ention co$$on cri$es as absorbed in the cri$e of rebellion, These co$$on cri$es refer to all acts of %iolence such as $urder) arson) robber ) "idna00ing etc, as 0ro%ided in the Re%ised #enal Code, The attendant circu$stances in the instant case) howe%er) constrain us to rule that the theor of absor0tion in rebellion cases $ust not confine itself to co$$on cri$es but also to offenses under s0ecial laws which are 0er0etrated in furtherance of the 0olitical offense, The con%ersation and) therefore) alleged cons0iring of Senator #once Enrile with Colonel 2onasan is too inti$atel tied u0 with his allegedl harboring and concealing 2onasan for 0racticall the sa$e act to for$ two se0arate cri$es of rebellion and %iolation of #D No, *B(+, Clearl ) the 0etitionerHs alleged act of harboring or concealing which was based on his acts of cons0iring with 2onasan was co$$itted in connection with or in furtherance of rebellion and $ust now be dee$ed as absorbed b ) $erged in) and Identified with the cri$e of rebellion 0unished in Articles *9; and *9< of the R#C,

63
Thus) national) as well as international) laws and 1uris0rudence o%erwhel$ingl fa%or the 0ro0osition that co$$on cri$es) 0er0etrated in furtherance of a 0olitical offense) are di%ested of their character as /co$$on/ offenses) and assume the political comple)ion of the main crime of .hich they are mere ingredients, and conse7uently, cannot be 0unished se0aratel fro$ the 0rinci0al offense) or co$0leCed with the sa$e) to 1ustif the i$0osition of a gra%er 0enalt , =#eo0le %, 2ernande') supra) 0, <;*? In People v. 6lias Rodriguez) *>- #hil, A<+ 7*+A>8) the accused) after ha%ing 0leaded guilt and con%icted of the cri$e of rebellion) faced an inde0endent 0rosecution for illegal 0ossession of firear$s, The Court ruled. An eCa$ination of the record) howe%er) discloses that the cri$e with which the accused is charged in the 0resent case which is that of illegal 0ossession of firear$ and a$$unition is alread absorbed as a necessar ele$ent or ingredient in the cri$e of rebellion with which the sa$e accused is charged with other 0ersons in a se0arate case and wherein he 0leaded guilt and was con%icted, =at 0age AA(? CCC CCC CCC 7T8he conclusion is inesca0able that the cri$e with which the accused is charged in the 0resent case is alread absorbed in the rebellion case and so to 0ress it further now would be to 0lace hi$ in double 1eo0ard , =at 0age AA9? Noteworth is the recent case of Misolas v. Panga) =E,R, No, B99;*) Januar 9>) *++>? where the Court had the occasion to 0ass u0on a nearl si$ilar issue, In this case) the 0etitioner !isolas) an alleged $e$ber of the New #eo0les Ar$ =N#A?) was charged with illegal 0ossession of firear$s and a$$unitions in furtherance of sub%ersion under Section * of #D *BAA, In his $otion to quash the infor$ation) the 0etitioner based his argu$ents on the Gernandez and "eronimo rulings on the doctrine of absor0tion of co$$on in rebellion, The Court) howe%er) clarified) to wit. ,,, in the 0resent case) 0etitioner is being charged s0ecificall for the qualified offense of illegal 0ossession of firear$s and a$$unition under #D *BAA, 2E IS NOT @EINE C2AREED 6IT2 T2E CO!#&EU CRI!E O: SF@VERSION 6IT2 I&&EEA& #OSSESSION O: :IREAR!S, NEIT2ER IS 2E @EINE SE#ARATE&5 C2AREED :OR SF@VERSION AND :OR I&&EEA& #OSSESSION O: :IREAR!S, Thus) the rulings of the Court in Gernandez, "eronimo and Rodriguez find no a00lication in this case, The Court in the abo%e case u0held the 0rosecution for illegal 0ossession of firear$s under #D *BAA because no se0arate 0rosecution for sub%ersion or rebellion had been filed, A The 0rosecution $ust $a"e u0 its $ind whether to charge Senator #once Enrile with rebellion alone or to dro0 the rebellion case and charge hi$ with $urder and $ulti0le frustrated $urder and also %iolation of #,D, *B(+, It cannot co$0leC the rebellion with $urder and $ulti0le frustrated $urder, Neither can it 0rosecute hi$ for rebellion in Kue'on Cit and %iolation of #D *B(+ in !a"ati, It should be noted that there is in fact a se0arate 0rosecution for rebellion alread filed with the Regional Trial Court of Kue'on Cit , In such a case) the inde0endent 0rosecution under #D *B(+ can not 0ros0er, As we ha%e earlier $entioned) the intent or $oti%e is a decisi%e factor, If Senator #once Enrile is not charged with rebellion and he harbored or concealed Colonel 2onasan si$0l because the latter is a friend and for$er associate) the $oti%e for the act is co$0letel different, @ut if the act is co$$itted with 0olitical or social $oti%es) that is in furtherance of rebellion) then it should be dee$ed to for$ 0art of the cri$e of rebellion instead of being 0unished se0aratel , In %iew of the foregoing) the 0etitioner can not be tried se0aratel under #D *B(+ in addition to his being 0rosecuted in the rebellion case, 6ith this ruling) there is no need for the Court to 0ass u0on the other issues raised b the 0etitioner, 62ERE:ORE) the 0etition is ERANTED, The Infor$ation in Cri$inal Case No, +>3--- is KFAS2ED, The writ of 0reli$inar in1unction) en1oining res0ondent Judges and their successors in Cri$inal Case No, +>3---) Regional Trial Court of !a"ati) fro$ holding the arraign$ent of Sen, Juan #once Enrile and fro$ conducting further 0roceedings therein is $ade 0er$anent, SO ORDERED, 0arvasa, Melencio,Gerrera, Cruz, (eliciano, "ancayco, Padilla, &idin, !armiento, Cortes, "riCo,$7uino and Regalado, JJ., concur. Medialdea, J., too+ no part. (ernan, C.J. and Paras, J., are on leave.

64
ROGER POS!#!S, ROS!RIO TORRES*/ , an1 (!RI$H %s, THE HON. O(0 #S(!N, THE SPE$I!L PROSE$ TOR, an1 ORL!N#O &. #I)ON, res0ondents, G.R. No. 1A1+92 (EN#O)!, J.% F!$TS% Dennis Venturina) a $e$ber of Sig$a Rho at the Fni%ersit of the #hili00ines) was "illed in a ru$ble between his fraternit and another fraternit on Dece$ber B) *++;, #etitioner #osadas) then Chancellor of F,#, Dili$an) as"ed the Director of the N@I for assistance in deter$ining the 0ersons res0onsible for the cri$e, 6ith that) res0ondent Di'on) Chief of the S0ecial O0erations Erou0 of the N@I) and his $en went to F,#, and) on the basis of the su00osed 0ositi%e identification of two alleged e ewitnesses) the atte$0ted to arrest :rancis Carlo Ta0aran and Ra $undo Narag) officersS$e$bers of the Scintilla Juris :raternit ) as sus0ects in the "illing of Venturina, It a00ears that the two sus0ects had co$e that da to the F,#, #olice Station for a 0eace tal" between their fraternit and the Sig$a Rho :raternit , #etitioners #osadas) &a$bino) and Torres35u) also of F,#,) and a certain Att , Villa$or) counsel for the sus0ects) ob1ected on the ground that the N@I did not ha%e warrants of arrest with the$, As a result of their inter%ention) Ta0aran and Narag were not arrested b the N@I agents on that da , 2owe%er) cri$inal charges were filed later against the two student sus0ects, Di'on then filed a co$0laint in the Office of the S0ecial #rosecutor) charging 0etitioners #osadas) Torres35u) &a$bino) Col, Eduardo @entain) Chief of the Securit :orce of the F,#, #olice) and Att , Villa$or with %iolation of P.#. 1829, which $a"es it unlawful for an one to obstruct the a00rehension and 0rosecution of cri$inal offenders, On $otion of 0etitioners) the S0ecial #rosecutorHs Office reco$$ended the dis$issal of the case, @ut such was disa00ro%ed, The Office of the O$buds$an directed the S0ecial #rosecutor to 0roceed with the 0rosecution of 0etitioners in the Sandiganba an, 2ence this 0etition for certiorari and 0rohibition to set aside the resolution of the O$buds$anHs office ordering the 0rosecution of 0etitioners, ISS E% 6hether the atte$0ted arrest of the student sus0ects b the N@I could be %alidl $ade without a warrant, HEL#% NO In %iew of Art, III) Sec, ( of the Constitution) the rule is that no arrest may 'e made e)cept 'y virtue of a .arrant issued 'y a /udge after e)amining the complainant and the .itnesses he may produce and after finding pro'a'le cause to 'elieve that the person to 'e arrested has committed the crime, The eCce0tions when an arrest $a be $ade e%en without a warrant are 0ro%ided in Rule **9) Sec, < of the Rules of Cri$inal #rocedure which reads. (a) =hen, in his presence, the person to 'e arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense5 (') =hen an offense has in fact /ust 'een committed, and he has personal +no.ledge of the facts indicating that the person to 'e arrested has committed it5 (c) =hen the person to 'e arrested is a prisoner .ho has escaped from a penal esta'lishment or place .here he is serving final /udgment or temporarily confined .hile his case is pending, or has escaped .hile 'eing transferred from one confinement to another. There is no Lu-367on 6@a6 6@73 2a3- 1o-3 no6 =a:: un1-r 5ara;ra5@3 EaF an1 E2F. The arresting officers in this case did not witness the cri$e being co$$itted, Neither are the students fugiti%es fro$ 1ustice nor 0risoners who had esca0ed fro$ S-56-9.-r 29, 2000 L!(0INO, 0etitioners)

65
confine$ent, The question is whether 0aragra0h =b? a00lies because it is the contention of the res0ondents that the N@I agents had 0ersonal "nowledge of facts gathered b the$ in the course of their in%estigation indicating that the students sought to be arrested were the 0er0etrators of the cri$e, @ut the Court ruled in negati%e, 'Personal (nowledge/ of facts in arrests without a warrant under Section < =b? of Rule **9 $ust be based u0on / 5ro.a.:2au3-/ which $eans an /actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.' The grounds of sus0icion are reasonable when) in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers) the sus0icion that the 0erson to be arrested is 0robabl guilt of co$$itting the offense is based on actual facts, At the ti$e Dennis Venturina was "illed) these agents were nowhere near the scene of the cri$e, 6hen res0ondent Di'on and his $en atte$0ted to arrest Ta0aran and Narag) the latter were not co$$itting a cri$e nor were the doing an thing that would create the sus0icion that the were doing an thing illegal,

G.R. No. 1++261*62

(ay 9, 2001

PR #ENTE #. SOLLER, (.#., PRE$IOS! (. SOLLER, (.#., RO#OLFO I. S!L$E#O, JOSEFIN! 0. (OR!#!, (!RIO (. (!TINING, an1 RO((EL (. L !R$!, 0etitioners) %s, THE HONOR!0LE S!N#IG!N0!/!N an1 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, res0ondents, GON)!G!*RE/ES, J.% This s0ecial ci%il action for certiorari) 0rohibition and $anda$us raises the issue of the 0ro0riet of the assu$0tion of 1urisdiction b the Sandiganba an* in Cri$inal Cases Nos, (<<(* and (<<(( both entitled /#eo0le of the #hili00ines %s, #rudente D, Soller) #reciosa !, Soller) Rodolfo Salcedo) Josefina !orada) !ario !atining and Ro$$el &uarca/ wherein 0etitioners are charged with Obstruction of A00rehension and #rosecution of Cri$inal Offenders as defined and 0enali'ed under #,D, No, *B(+, The grounds for 0etitionersH !otion to Kuash the Infor$ations against the$ are that onl 0etitioner #rudente D, Soller occu0ied a 0osition classified as Erade (and higher and because the offenses charged were not co$$itted b hi$ in %iolation of his office as !unici0al !a or of @ansud) Oriental !indoro,1K.phi1.nLt It a00ears that in the e%ening of !arch *;) *++-) Jerr !acabael a $unici0al guard) was shot and "illed along the national highwa at @ansud) Oriental !indoro while dri%ing a $otorc cle together with 0etitioner SollerHs son) Vincent !, Soller, 2is bod was brought to a $edical clinic located in the house of 0etitioner Dr, #rudente Soller) the !unici0al !a or) and his wife Dr, #reciosa Soller) who is the !unici0al 2ealth Officer, The incident was re0orted to and in%estigated b 0etitioner S#O; !ario !atining, An auto0s was conducted on the sa$e night on the cada%er of Jerr b 0etitioner Dr, #reciosa Soller with the assistance of 0etitioner Rodolfo Salcedo) Sanitar Ins0ector) and 0etitioner Josefina !orada) Rural 2ealth !idwife, On the basis of the foregoing incident) a co$0laint was later filed against the 0etitioners b the widow of Jerr !acabael with the Office of the O$buds$an charging the$ with cons0irac to $islead the in%estigation of the fatal shootout of Jerr !acabael b =a? altering his wound =b? concealing his brainD =c? falsel stating in 0olice re0ort that he had se%eral gunshot wounds when in truth he had onl oneD and d? falsel stating in an auto0s re0ort that there was no blac"ening around his wound when in truth there was, #etitioners s0ouses Soller denied ha%ing ta$0ered with the cada%er of Jerr !acabael) and clai$ed) a$ong others that Jerr !acabael was brought to their 0ri%ate $edical clinic because it was there where he was rushed b his co$0anions after the shooting) that 0etitioner #rudente Soller) who is also a doctor) was $erel requested b his wife #reciosa Soller) who was the !unici0al 2ealth Officer) to assist in the auto0s considering that the 0rocedure in%ol%ed sawing which required $ale strength) and that !rs, !acabaelHs consent was obtained before the auto0s , The two =(? 0olice officers denied ha%ing 0lanted three =9? shells at the 0lace where the shooting too" 0lace, The Office of the O$buds$an reco$$ended the filing of an Infor$ation for Obstruction of Justice =Violation of #,D, *B(+?) and two =(? Infor$ations( were filed with the Sandiganba an which were doc"eted as Cri$inal Cases Nos, (<<(* and (<<((, The two =(? infor$ations res0ecti%el read as follows. /$r797na: $a3- No. 25521 The undersigned Eraft In%estigation Officer I) Office of the De0ut O$buds$an for &u'on) hereb accuses #RFDENTE SO&&ER) #RECIOSA SO&&ER) !ARIO !ATININE) RO!!E& &FARCA) RODO&:O SA&CEDO) and JOSIE !ORADA) of co$$itting the offense of Obstruction of A00rehension and #rosecution of Cri$inal Offenders as defined and 0enali'ed under Section *) #aragra0h b of #,D, *B(+) co$$itted as follows.

66
That on or about !arch *;) *++-) 0rior or subsequent thereto) at the !unici0alit of @ansud) Oriental !indoro and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the abo%e na$e accused) all 0ublic officers) then being the !unici0al !a or) !unici0al 2ealth Officer) S#O II) #O *) Sanitar Ins0ector and !idwife) res0ecti%el ) all of said $unici0alit ) cons0iring and confederating with one another) did then and there wilfull ) unlawfull ) and cri$inall alter and su00ress the gunshot wound and conceal the brain of JERR5 !ACA@AE& with intent to i$0air its %eracit ) authenticit ) and a%ailabilit as e%idence in the in%estigation of cri$inal case for $urder against the accused Vincent Soller) the son of herein res0ondents, CONTRAR5 TO &A6,/ /$r797na: $a3- No. 25522 The undersigned Eraft In%estigation Officer) I) Office of the De0ut O$buds$an for &u'on) hereb accuses #RFDENTE SO&&ER) #RECIOSA SO&&ER) !ARIO !ATININE) RO!!E& &FARCA) RODO&:O SA&CEDO) and JOSIE !ORADA) of co$$itting the offense of Obstruction of A00rehension and #rosecution of Cri$inal Offenders as defined and 0enali'ed under Section *) #aragra0h b of #,D, *B(+) co$$itted as follows. That on or about !arch *;) *++-) 0rior or subsequent thereto) at the !unici0alit of @ansud) Oriental !indoro and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the abo%e na$e accused) all 0ublic officers) then being the !unici0al !a or) !unici0al health Officer) S#O II) #O *) Sanitar Ins0ector and !idwife) res0ecti%el ) all of said $unici0alit ) cons0iring and confederating with one another) did then and there wilfull ) unlawfull ) and cri$inal gi%e false and fabricated infor$ation in the auto0s re0ort and 0olice re0ort to $islead or 0re%ent the law enforce$ent agenc ) fro$ a00rehending the offender b re0orting that there are se%eral gunshot wounds in the bod of the %icti$) JERR5 !ACA@AE& and that there is no tattooing =blac"ening? around the wound of the said %icti$ when in truth and in fact) there is onl one gunshot wound and there is tattooing =blac"ening? around the wound which would indicate that the %icti$ was shot b Vincent Soller) the son of the herein res0ondents s0ouses #rudente and #reciosa Soller, CONTRAR5 TO &A6,/ #etitioners filed a !otion to Kuash on the 0rinci0al ground that the Sandiganba an had no 1urisdiction o%er the offenses chargedD this $otion was o00osed b res0ondent #eo0le, In its assailed Order dated A0ril *;) (>>>) the Sandiganba an denied 0etitionersH !otion to Kuash on the ground that the accusation in%ol%es the 0erfor$ance of the duties of at least one =*? of the accused 0ublic officials) and if the !a or is indeed 0ro0erl charged together with that official) then the Sandiganba an has 1urisdiction o%er the entire case and o%er all the co3accused, The Order stated that /the accused is the !a or of the $unici0alit where the alleged incident too" 0lace and) therefore) an atte$0t to de%iate or to 0resent false e%idence in connection with a cri$inal offense co$$itted in his $unici0alit for which he is charged would be an offense also in which the accused !a or would be 0robabl held accountable before this Court,/ !otion for Reconsideration of the abo%e order was filed on the 0re$ise that it is not a$ong the functions of the $a or to conduct auto0sies so that an $isdeed) if indeed there was an ) could not be an offense which would 0ut hi$ under the 1urisdiction of the court, !otion for Reconsideration was denied) the Sandiganb an ruling that. /The enu$eration of the functions of the $a or indicate %er clearl that he is the 0ri$ar eCecuti%e and) therefore) necessaril the 0ri$ar 0eace officer of the $unici0alit ) for which reason) an action on his 0art which de%iates fro$ that function is an office3related offense, In this 0articular instance) the accused is charged for ha%ing coo0erated or co30artici0ated with another 0ublic official of lower ran" in the sa$e $unici0alit in the su00osed falsification of the results of an auto0s , Additionall ) e%en if the functions of an auto0s were totall unrelated to an of the ad$inistrati%e or eCecuti%e functions o%er which the $a or $a ha%e su0er%ision and) $ore s0eciall ) control) the fact of the $atter is that the 1urisdiction of the Court co%ers not onl the offenses co$$itted b the officials of Erade &e%el (- or higher as the 0rinci0al accused but e%en where such officials are also accused together with so$e other 0ublic officials who $a be at a le%el below Erade &e%el (- in connection with the 0erfor$ance of their duties, In this instance) accused !a or #rudente D, Soller) Sr, who occu0ies a 0osition at Erade &e%el (-) is co3accused with his wife) the !unici0al 2ealth Officer who occu0ies a 0osition at Erade &e%el (;) so that) necessaril ) the offense attributed to the lower ran"ing officer ele%ates the entire case to this Court 0ri$aril because so$ebod o%er who$ this Court has 1urisdiction) the !a or) is accused together with the lower ran"ing officer,/9 2ence) this 0etition alleging that3 /RES#ONDENT SANDIEAN@A5AN ACTED 6IT2OFT OR IN EUCESS O: JFRISDICTION OR 6IT2 ERAVE A@FSE O: DISCRETION A!OFNTINE TO &ACQ O: JFRISDICTION IN 2O&DINE T2AT IT 2AS JFRISDICTION OVER T2E O::ENSE C2AREED IN SF@JECT CRI!INA& CASES NOS, (<<(* and (<<((,/;

67
Citing Section ; of #,D, *A>A as a$ended) which defines the 1urisdiction of the Sandiganba an) 0etitioners clai$ that for an offense to fall within the 1urisdiction of the Sandiganba an) the offense $ust ha%e been co$$itted b the officials enunciated in 0aragra0h =a? /in relation to their office/) i,e, it should be inti$atel connected with the office of the offender) and should ha%e been 0er0etrated while the offender was in the 0erfor$ance of his official functions, !oreo%er) these requisites $ust all be alleged in the infor$ation, #etitioners assert that in the sub1ect cri$inal cases) the Infor$ations do not contain factual a%er$ents showing that the co$$itted the acts charged in relation to their office) i,e,) the acts charged are inti$atel connected with their res0ecti%e offices and were 0er0etrated b the$ while the were in the 0erfor$ance of their duties and functions, On the other hand) res0ondent #eo0le of the #hili00ines) re0resented b the Office of the O$buds$an) through the Office of the S0ecial #rosecutor) 0osits that e%en if the offense charged was not co$$itted b the accused while in the 0erfor$ance of his official functions) the sa$e could still be considered done in relation to his office if the acts were co$$itted in line of dut , Res0ondentHs 0osition is that an offense $a be considered co$$itted in relation to office if it arose fro$ $isuse or abuse of 0ublic office or fro$ non3 0erfor$ance of an official dut or functionD thus the offense of falsif ing auto0s and 0olice re0orts is office3related considering that a$ong the duties and functions of the $unici0al $a or in the eCercise of general su0er%ision and control o%er all 0rogra$s) 0ro1ects) ser%ices and acti%ities of the $unici0al go%ern$ent) is that he shall ensure that all eCecuti%e officials and e$0lo ees of the $unici0alit faithfull discharge their duties and functions, The fact that the infor$ations do not allege that the acts charged were co$$itted b 0etitioner #rudente Soller while he was in the 0erfor$ance of his official functions or duties is not a fatal defect) as the conclusion of law that his acts are in %iolation of his duties as $unici0al $a or could necessaril be deduced fro$ the infor$ations, #etitioners) in their Re0l ) reiterate that the factual a%er$ents in the Infor$ation were fatall defecti%e in %iew of the absence of an s0ecific allegation that would indicate that the cri$es charged were co$$itted b the defendants in line of dut or in the 0erfor$ance of their official functions, The 0etition is $eritorious, The rule is that in order to ascertain whether a court has 1urisdiction or not) the 0ro%isions of the law should be inquired into,< :urther$ore) the 1urisdiction of the court $ust a00ear clearl fro$ the statute law or it will not be held to eCist, It cannot be 0resu$ed or i$0lied, :or this 0ur0ose in cri$inal cases) the 1urisdiction of the court is deter$ined b the law at the ti$e of the co$$ence$ent of the action,A The action here was instituted with the filing of the Infor$ations on !a (<) *+++ charging the 0etitioners with the offense of Obstruction of A00rehension and #rosecution of Cri$inal Offenders as defined and 0enali'ed under Section *) #aragra0h b of #,D, *B(+, The a00licable statutor 0ro%isions are those of #,D, No, *A>A as last a$ended b the Re0ublic Act No, B(;+, Section ; of #,D, No, *A>A as a$ended 0ro%ides insofar as 0ertinent. /SEC, ;, Jurisdiction 3 The Sandiganba an shall eCercise eCclusi%e original 1urisdiction in all cases in%ol%ing. a, Violations of Re0ublic Act No, 9>*+) as a$ended) otherwise "nown as the Anti3Eraft and Corru0tion #ractices Act) Re0ublic Act No, *9-+) and Cha0ter II) Section () Title VII) @oo" II of the Re%ised #enal Code) where one or $ore of the accused are officials occu0 ing the following 0ositions in the go%ern$ent) whether in a 0er$anent) acting or interi$ ca0acit ) at the ti$e of the co$$ission of the offense. CCC CCC CCC =<? All other national and local officials classified as Erade /(-/ and higher under the Co$0ensation and #osition Classification Act of *+B+, CCC CCC CCC b, Other offenses or felonies whether si$0le or co$0leCed with other cri$e co$$itted b the 0ublic officials and e$0lo ees $entioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office, CCC CCC CCC In cases where none of the accused are occu0 ing 0ositions corres0onding to salar Erade /(-/ or higher) as 0rescribed in the said Re0ublic Act A-<B) or $ilitar and #N# officers $entioned abo%e) eCclusi%e original 1urisdiction thereof shall be %ested in the 0ro0er regional trial court) $etro0olitan trial court) $unici0al trial court) and $unici0al circuit trial court) as the case $a be) 0ursuant to their 1urisdictions as 0ro%ided b @atas #a$bansa @lg, *(+) a$ended, CCC CCC CCC/

68
In &inay vs. !andigan'ayan,- this Court held that the !unici0al !a or) who occu0ies Salar Erade (- in the hierarch of 0ositions in the go%ern$ent under Re0ublic Act No, A-<B and the IndeC of Occu0ational Ser%ices, #osition Titles and Salar Erades) falls within the eCclusi%e original 1urisdiction of the Sandiganba an, The bone of contention here is whether the offenses charged $a be considered as co$$itted /in relation to their office/ as this 0hrase is e$0lo ed in the abo%e3quoted Section ;, As earl as Montilla vs. Gilario,B this Court has inter0reted the require$ent that an offense be co$$itted in relation to the office to $ean that /the offense cannot eCist without the office /or/ that the office $ust be a constituent ele$ent of the cri$e/ as defined and 0unished in Cha0ter Two to SiC) Title Se%en of the Re%ised #enal Code =referring to the cri$es co$$itted b the 0ublic officers?, People vs. Monte/o+ enunciated the 0rinci0le that the offense $ust be inti$atel connected with the office of the offender and 0er0etrated while he was in the 0erfor$ance) though i$0ro0er or irregular of his official functions, The Court) s0ea"ing through Chief Justice Conce0cion said that although 0ublic office is not an ele$ent of the cri$e of $urder in =the? abstract) the facts in a 0articular case $a show that 3 /CCC the offense therein charged is inti$atel connected with =the accusedHs? res0ecti%e offices and was 0er0etrated while the were in the 0erfor$ance though i$0ro0er or irregular) of their official functions, Indeed =the accused? had no 0ersonal $oti%e to co$$it the cri$e and the would not ha%e co$$itted it had the not held their aforesaid offices, The co3defendants of res0ondent &ero S, @rown obe ed his instructions because he was their su0erior officer) as !a or of @asilan Cit ,/ *> The cited rulings in Montilla vs. Gilario and in People vs. Monte/o were reiterated in !anchez vs. #emetriou,** Repu'lic vs. $suncion,*( and Cunanan vs. $rceo.*9 The case of Repu'lic vs. $suncion categoricall 0ronounced that the fact that offense was co$$itted in relation to the office $ust be alleged in the infor$ation. /That the 0ublic officers or e$0lo ees co$$itted the cri$e in relation to their office) $ust) howe%er) be alleged in the infor$ation for the Sandiganba an to ha%e 1urisdiction o%er a case under Section ; =a? =(?, This allegation is necessar because of the unbending rule that 1urisdiction is deter$ined b the allegations of the infor$ation,/*; :or this 0ur0ose what is controlling is not whether the 0hrase /co$$itted in %iolation to 0ublic office/ a00ears in the infor$ationD what deter$ines the 1urisdiction of the Sandiganba an is the s0ecific factual allegation in the infor$ation that would indicate close inti$ac between the discharge of the accusedHs official duties and the co$$ission of the offense charged in order to qualif the cri$e as ha%ing been co$$itted in relation to 0ublic office,*< In this case) the Infor$ations sub1ect of Cri$inal Cases Nos, (<<(* and (<<(( quoted earlier) fail to allege that 0etitioners had co$$itted the offenses charged in relation to their offices, Neither are there s0ecific allegations of facts to show the inti$ate relationSconnection between the co$$ission of the offense charged and the discharge of official functions of the offenders) i,e, that the obstruction of and a00rehension and 0rosecution of cri$inal offenders was co$$itted in relation to the office of 0etitioner #rudente Soller) whose office as !a or is included in the enu$eration in Section ; =a? of #,D, *A>A as a$ended, Although the 0etitioners were described as being /all 0ublic officers) then being the !unici0al !a or) !unici0al 2ealth Officer) S#O II) #O I) Sanitar Ins0ector and !idwife/) there was no allegation that the offense of altering and su00ressing the gunshot wound of the %icti$ with intent to i$0air the %eracit ) authenticit and a%ailabilit as e%idence in the in%estigation of the cri$inal case for $urder =Cri$inal Case No, (<<(*? or of gi%ing false and fabricated infor$ation in the auto0s re0ort and 0olice re0ort to $islead the law enforce$ent agenc and 0re%ent the a00rehension of the offender =Cri$inal Case No, (<<((? was done in the 0erfor$ance of official function, Indeed the offenses defined in #,D, *B(+ $a be co$$itted b an 0erson whether a 0ublic officer or a 0ri%ate citi'en) and accordingl 0ublic office is not an ele$ent of the offense, !oreo%er) the Infor$ation in Cri$inal Case No, (<<(( states that the fabrication of infor$ation in the 0olice and auto0s re0ort /would indicate that the %icti$ was shot b Vincent Soller) the son of herein 0etitioners s0ouses #rudente and #reciosa Soller/, Thus there is a categorical indication that the 0etitioners s0ouses Soller had a 0ersonal $oti%e to co$$it the offenses and the would ha%e co$$itted the offenses charged e%en if the did not res0ecti%el hold the 0osition of !unici0al !a or or !unici0al 2ealth Officer, A cursor reading of the duties and functions of the !unici0al !a or as enu$erated in Section ;;; of the &ocal Eo%ern$ent Code will readil show that the 0re0aration of 0olice and auto0s re0orts and the 0resentation and gathering of e%idence in the in%estigation of cri$inal cases are not a$ong such duties and functions) and the broad res0onsibilit to $aintain 0eace and order cannot be a basis for construing that the cri$inal acts i$0uted to 0etitioner !a or fall under his functions as !unici0al !a or, *A 6hat is ob%ious is that 0etitioners s0ouses 0robabl acted as the 0arents of the alleged assailant and if at all) were $oti%ated b 0ersonal reasons rather than official dut , Consequentl ) for failure to show in the infor$ations that the charges were inti$atel connected with the discharge of the official functions of accused !a or Soller) the offenses charged in the sub1ect cri$inal cases fall within the eCclusi%e original function of the Regional Trial Court) not the Sandiganba an, 'HEREFORE) the 0etition is GR!NTE# and the challenged orders are SET !SI#E and declared N LL and &OI# for lac" of 1urisdiction, No costs,1K.phi1.nLt

69
SO ORDERED,1K.phi1.nLt Re0ublic of the #hili00ines S PRE(E $O RT !anila T2IRD DIVISION G.R. No. 1,5590 F-.ruary 9, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, #laintiff3A00ellee) %s, FERN!N#O &ILL!(IN / S!N JOSE !LI!S !N#O/, Accused3A00ellant, DECISION PER!LT!, J.: This is an a00eal fro$ the Decision* dated Jul *+) (>>A of the Court of A00eals =CA? in CA3E,R, CR32C No, >>+A-) affir$ing the Decision( dated !a -) (>>9 of the Regional Trial Court =RTC? of !alolos) @ulacan) @ranch (>) in Cri$inal Case No, (99(3!3(>>() finding accused3a00ellant :ernando Villa$in guilt be ond reasonable doubt of %iolation of Section <) Article II of Re0ublic Act =R,A,? +*A<, The facts) as culled fro$ the records) are the following. !e$bers of the Drug Enforce$ent Fnit =DEF? of San Jose del !onte #olice Station recei%ed a re0ort fro$ a ci%ilian infor$ant and fro$ the @aranga Ca0tain of @aranga Eu$ao") San Jose del !onte) @ulacan so$eti$e during the first wee" of August (>>() that a certain :ernando Villa$in) alias /Ando )/ was engaged in the sale of sha'u9 in that sa$e 0lace, ; Thus) a tea$ co$0osed of Senior #olice Officer ( =S#O(? !ario &larinas) Eduardo Oca$0o) a 0olice aide) and a ci%ilian asset) was for$ed to conduct a test3bu o0eration of sha'u fro$ accused3a00ellant,< A ci%ilian asset of the DEF and #olice Aide Eduardo Oca$0o) on August *<) (>>() went to accused3a00ellant in order to bu sha'u, Accused3a00ellant infor$ed the$ that he ran out of stoc" and as"ed the$ to return the following da , 6hen the ci%ilian asset and Eduardo Oca$0o returned the neCt da ) accused3a00ellant infor$ed the$ that the sha'u was not et a%ailable and again suggested that the return the following da , A On August *-) (>>() a tea$ 33 co$0osed of S#O; Abelardo TarucD #olice Officers ( =#O(? !ario &larinas and Nasser Sai adiD $e$bers of the DEFD and four =;? 0olice aides) na$el D Eduardo Oca$0o) Jude Illana) Elendo Villa$or) and Jerson @ausa 33 was then for$ed to conduct a bu 3bust o0eration directed at accused3a00ellant,- The designated leader and 0oseur3bu er was S#O; Taruc,B In connection therewith) S#O; Taruc 0re0ared two #*>>,>> $ar"ed bills before the bu 3bust o0eration,+ The tea$ then 0roceeded to @aranga Eu$ao") San Jose del !onte) @ulacan at around **.>> oHcloc" in the $orning, S#O; Taruc and the ci%ilian asset a00roached the house of accused3a00ellant) while the rest 0ositioned the$sel%es at strategic locations near the house, The ci%ilian asset introduced S#O; Taruc to accused3a00ellant and told the latter that S#O; Taruc wanted to bu shabu worth #(>>,>>, Accused3a00ellant res0onded) sa ing) /!eron na) $eron na,/*> Afterwards) accused3a00ellant entered his house, 6hen accused3a00ellant o0ened the door of the house) S#O; Taruc noticed that there were se%eral 0eo0le sniffing shabu inside the sa$e house, After a few $inutes) accused3a00ellant ca$e out of his house holding a s$all 0ac"etS0lastic sachet, Accused3a00elant a00roached S#O; Taruc) and the latter handed the for$er the two #*>>,>> $ar"ed bills, Thereafter) accused3a00ellant ga%e the 0lastic sachet he was holding to S#O; Taruc,** S#O; Taruc) after $a"ing sure that the content of the 0lastic sachet was indeed sha'u) held the hands of accused3a00ellant and 0laced hi$ under arrest, Accused3a00ellant was) thereafter) fris"ed and the $ar"ed $one ) along with siC $ore sachets of shabu) were sei'ed fro$ hi$, As a signal to the other $e$bers of the bu 3bust o0eration tea$ that the transaction was alread co$0leted) S#O; Taruc 0laced his hand on his head, 2ence) the rest of the tea$ hurried to a00rehend accused3a00ellant and the other 0eo0le inside the house, 2owe%er) the others sca$0ered to different directions,*( The 0olice officers and their aides were able to a00rehend onl two wo$en) na$el . Al$a :rial) accused3a00ellantHs neighbor) and Josel n #atilano3Cabardo) accused3a00ellantHs li%e3in 0artner,*9 Also reco%ered inside the house of accused3a00ellant were siC other sachets of sha'u and sha'u 0ara0hernalia, Subsequentl ) accused3a00ellant) Al$a :rial) and Josel n #atilano3Cabardo) as well as the e%idence reco%ered) were brought to the 0olice headquarters where the $e$bers of the bu 3bust o0eration tea$ also 0re0ared their 1oint affida%its,*;

70
The se%en =-? 0lastic sachets of sha'u) including the one bought fro$ accused3a00ellant during the bu 3bust o0eration) as well as the drug 0ara0hernalia) were referred to the #hili00ine National #olice =#N#? Cri$e &aborator , *< :orensic Che$ist) #N# Ins0ector Nellson Sta, !aria) after conducting a series of tests to deter$ine the contents of the gathered 0ieces of e%idence) ca$e out with the following findings. S#ECI!EN SF@!ITTED. A 3 One =*? heat3sealed trans0arent 0lastic sachet with $ar"ings /AT3:V/ containing >,*;< gra$ of white cr stalline substance, CCC :INDINES. Kualitati%e eCa$ination conducted on the abo%e stated s0eci$ens ga%e #OSITIVE result to the test for the 0resence of !eth la$0heta$ine h drochloride)*A a regulated drug,*Resultantl ) three se0arate Infor$ations were filed charging accused3a00ellant) and the others who were caught during the bu 3bust o0eration) with %iolation of Secs, <) A and **) Art, II of R,A, +*A<) which read) as follows. Cri$inal Case No, (99*3!3(>>( The undersigned Cit #rosecutor accuses :ernando Villa$in San Jose alias Ando of %iolation of Section **) Art, II of R,A, +*A<) otherwise "nown as /The Co$0rehensi%e Dangerous Drugs Act of (>>()/ co$$itted as follows. That on or about the *-th da of August) (>>() in San Jose del !onte Cit ) 0ro%ince of @ulacan) #hili00ines) and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the abo%e3na$ed accused) without authorit of law and legal 1ustification) did then and there willfull ) unlawfull and feloniousl ha%e in his 0ossession and control siC =A? heat3sealed trans0arent 0lastic sachets containing !eth la$0heta$ine 2 drochloride ha%ing a total weight of *)>;( gra$s) which is a regulated drug, Contrar to law, Cri$inal Case No, (99(3!3(>>( The undersigned Cit #rosecutor accuses :ernando Villa$in San Jose alias Ando of Violation of Section <) Art, II of R, A, +*A<) otherwise "nown as /The Co$0rehensi%e Dangerous Drugs Act of (>>()/ co$$itted as follows. That on or about the *-th da of August) (>>() in San Jose del !onte Cit ) 0ro%ince of @ulacan) #hili00ines) and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the abo%e3na$ed accused) without authorit of law and legal 1ustification) did then and there willfull ) unlawfull and feloniousl sell) deli%er dis0atch in transit and trans0ort one =*? heat3sealed trans0arent 0lastic sachet containing !eth la$0heta$ine 2 drochloride weighing ,*;< gra$) which is a regulated drug, Contrar to law, Cri$inal Case No, (9993!3(>>( The undersigned Cit #rosecutor accuses :ernando Villa$in San Jose alias Ando of Violation of Section A) Art, II of R, A, +*A<) otherwise "nown as /The Co$0rehensi%e Dangerous Drugs Act of (>>()/ co$$itted as follows. That on or about the *-th da of August) (>>() San Jose del !onte Cit ) 0ro%ince of @ulacan) #hili00ines) and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the abo%e3na$ed accused) without authorit of law and legal 1ustification) did then and there willfull ) unlawfull and feloniousl o0enl $aintain his residence located at @rg , Eu$ao" East) this Cit ) as drug den where drugs are ad$inisteredSsold) dis0ensed and used, Contrar to law, On Se0te$ber ;) (>>() accused3a00ellant 0leaded Not Euilt to all the charges against hi$, Thereafter) trial ensued,

71
The #rosecution 0resented the testi$onies of #olice Officer 9 =#O9? Nasser Sai adi) *B S#O; Abelardo Taruc)*+ S#O( !ario &larina)(> and #olice Aide Eduardo Oca$0o(* who testified as to the facts earlier narrated, The defense) on the other hand) 0resented the testi$onies of accused3a00ellant(( and his li%e3in 0artner) Josel n #atilano3Cabardo,(9 According to accused3a00ellant) on August *-) (>>() around -.>> oHcloc" in the $orning) he was ha%ing brea"fast inside his house at @aranga Eu$ao") San Jose del !onte) @ulacan) when three 0ersons entered his house through the "itchen door, Al$a #rial) one of the three 0ersons) as"ed accused3a00ellant if she and her co$0anions could sta in his house because so$ebod was chasing the$) and said that one of her co$0anions was in trouble, Accused3a00ellant refused the request of Al$a for fear of being i$0licated in whate%er trouble Al$a and her two co$0anions were in%ol%ed, Accused3a00ellant added that Josel n #atilano3Cabardo) his li%e3in 0artner) o%erheard the abo%e con%ersation and told the for$er not to allow Al$a :rial and her co$0anions to sta in their house, Accused3a00ellant) in turn) told Al$a :rial about the senti$ents of his li%e3in 0artner, &ater on) as narrated b accused3a00ellant) so$ebod "ic"ed the "itchen door of his house, Three $en entered as the door o0ened) with one of the$ sa ing) /=alang +i+ilos, dyan +a lang.3 The two other $en i$$ediatel 0roceeded to the roo$ of accused3a00ellant and Cabardo, Accused3a00ellant was then as"ed) /0asaan na yung mga +asama moM3 To this he re0lied that nobod else was inside the house eCce0t he and his li%e3in 0artner, F0on reali'ing the co$$otion) accused3a00ellantHs li%e3in 0artner shouted) /=ala +ayong +arapatan na pumaso+ dito,/ !eanwhile) so$ebod outside the house shouted) /!a roong tao dito,/ Thereafter) four 0ersons) one of the$ Al$a :rial) entered accused3a00ellantHs house, One of the $en who earlier barged inside the house of accused3a00ellant said) /!inungaling +a, ang sa'i mo hindi nanggaling dito yang mga taong iyan,/ Josel n #atilano3Cabardo tried to hel0 accused3a00ellant but another $an said) /@sa +a pa, maingay +a, +asama +a rin,/ It was then that S#O; Taruc ordered) /Dalhin na nin o i an,/ 2owe%er) Cabardo said) /&a+it ninyo +ami dadalhin, .ala naman +aming +asalananI/ In short) accused3a00ellant denied that he was caught selling sha'u) a denial which Josel n #atilano3Cabardo corroborated, The RTC found accused3a00ellant guilt be ond reasonable doubt of %iolation of Section <) Article II of R,A, +*A< in Cri$inal Case No, (99(3!3(>>() but acquitted hi$ of the other charges, The dis0ositi%e 0ortion of the trial courtHs decision reads. 62ERE:ORE) 0re$ises considered) 1udg$ent is hereb rendered as follows. =*? In $r797na: $a3- No. 2AA2*(*2002, 6@- $our6 =7n13 a22u3-1 F-rnan1o &7::a97n y San Jo3-, guilt be ond reasonable doubt of &7o:a67on o= S-267on 5, !r672:- II o= R. !. 9165 and hereb sentences hi$ to life i$0rison$ent, 2e is also ordered to 0a a fine of :i%e 2undred Thousand #esos =#<>>)>>,>>?D =(? In Cri$inal Cases Nos, (99*3!3(>>( and (9993!3(>>() the Court finds that the 0rosecution failed to 0ro%e be ond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused :ernando Villa$in San Jose of the cri$es charged and he is therefore acquittedD =9? :or insufficienc of e%idence) the Court hereb acquits accused Josel n #atilano3Cabardo and Al$a :rial Cri$inal Case No, (99;3!3(>>(, Caluntod in

The dangerous drugs and drug 0ara0hernalia sub$itted as e%idence in these cases are hereb ordered to be trans$itted to the Dangerous Drugs @oard =DD@?, SO ORDERED, Due to the 0enalt i$0osed) which is &ife I$0rison$ent) the case was ele%ated to this Court on a00eal, 2owe%er) 0er Resolution(; of this Court dated !arch (B) (>><) the case was transferred to the CA in confor$it with the Decision of this Court dated Jul -) (>>; in People v. Mateo,(< $odif ing the 0ertinent 0ro%isions of the Re%ised Rules of Cri$inal #rocedure) 0articularl Sections 9 and *> of Rule *(() Section *9 of Rule *(;) Section 9 of Rule *(<) and an other rule insofar as it 0ro%ides for direct a00eals fro$ the RTC to this Court in cases where the 0enalt i$0osed is death) reclusion perpetua or life i$0rison$entD as well as the resolution of this Court en 'anc, dated Se0te$ber *+) *++<) on Internal Rules of the Su0re$e Court) in cases si$ilarl in%ol%ing the death 0enalt ) 0ursuant to this CourtHs 0ower to 0ro$ulgate rules of 0rocedure in all courts under Article VIII) Section < of the Constitution) and allowing an inter$ediate re%iew b the CA before such cases are ele%ated to this Court, The CA) in its Decision dated Jul *+) (>>A) affir$ed the con%iction of accused3a00ellant, The dis0ositi%e 0ortion reads as follows. 62ERE:ORE) 0re$ises considered) the instant a00eal is hereb DIS!ISSED for lac" of $erit) and the assailed decision is A::IR!ED and F#2E&D in toto,

72
SO ORDERED, Accused3a00ellant) in his @rief dated Se0te$ber (>) (>>;) ascribes the following errors) to wit. I T2E COFRT A3KFO ERAVE&5 ERRED IN :INDINE T2AT T2E EFI&T O: T2E ACCFSED3A##E&&ANT :OR T2E CRI!E C2AREED 2AS @EEN #ROVEN @E5OND REASONA@&E DOF@T, II T2E COFRT A3KFO ERAVE&5 ERRED IN DISREEARDINE T2E CONSTITFTIONA& RIE2TS O: T2E ACCFSED3 A##E&&ANT AEAINST FNREASONA@&E SEARC2ES AND SEI4FRES, Accused3a00ellant clai$s that he was not gi%en the o00ortunit to "now the reason for his arrest) as he was i$$ediatel handcuffed b the arresting officers) $a"ing it a00ear that he was caught in flagrante selling shabu) which is in contra%ention of his rights against unreasonable searches and sei'ures as e$bodied under the *+B- #hili00ine Constitution, 2e further argues that the 0resu$0tion of regularit in the 0erfor$ance of official dut cannot 0re%ail o%er the constitutionall 0rotected rights of an indi%idual, The Office of the Solicitor Eeneral =OSE?) in its @rief) states the argu$ent that. T2E #ROSECFTION SATIS:ACTORI&5 #ROVED T2E EFI&T O: A##E&&ANT @E5OND REASONA@&E DOF@T, The OSE 0osits that the cri$e of drug 0ushing $erel requires the consu$$ation of the sale) whereb the 0usher hands o%er the drugs to the bu er in eCchange for $one ) which the 0rosecution is able to 0ro%e be ond reasonable doubt, It further contends that) accused3a00ellantHs denial cannot 0re%ail o%er his 0ositi%e identification as a 0eddler of sha'u, As to the clai$ of accused3a00ellant that his arrest and the search $ade b the 0olice officers were illegal) the OSE 0oints out that during his testi$on ) when as"ed if he e%er 0rotested his arrest during the ti$e of the arrest itself) accused3a00ellant ad$itted that he $erel infor$ed the 0rosecutor about it) but did not file an written co$0laint or 0rotest against the arresting officers,1avvphi1 The a00eal is de%oid of an $erit, The ele$ents necessar for the 0rosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are. =*? the identities of the bu er and the seller) the ob1ect) and the considerationD and =(? the deli%er of the thing sold and the 0a $ent therefor, 6hat is $aterial to the 0rosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the 0roof that the transaction or sale actuall too" 0lace) cou0led with the 0resentation in court of e%idence of cor0us delicti,(A All of the abo%e ele$ents ha%e been 0ro%en to be 0resent in this case, The identities of the bu er and the seller) as well as the ob1ect and the consideration) were 0ro0erl and sufficientl 0ro%en b the 0rosecution, As testified to b S#O; Taruc regarding the bu 3bust o0eration conducted. K. !r, 6itness) ou stated that ou are 0resentl assigned at the San Jose de !onte #olice Station) will ou 0lease tell before this 2onorable Court what 0articular unit or di%ision were ou assignedI A. At DEF) sir, K. @eing assigned at the DEF of the San Jose del !onte #olice Station) will ou 0lease tell before this 2onorable Court our s0ecific duties as suchI A. I a$ the chief of that section) sir, K. @eing the chief of the said section of the DEF) will ou 0lease tell before this 2onorable Court our duties as chief of the officeI A. To arrest drug 0ushers and drug users) sir, K. Do ou rcall if ou ha%e re0orted for dut on August *-) (>>(I

73
A. 5es) sir, K. At what ti$e did ou re0ort for dut on said dateI A. At about +.>> oHcloc" in the $orning) sir, K. 6hen ou re0orted for dut ) do ou recall if there was unusual incident that trans0ired thereatI A. 6hen we were instructed to 0roceed to Eu$ao" East to conduct bu 3bust o0eration) sir, K. 6ho instructed ou to conduct bu 3bust o0eration at Eu$ao" East) San Jose del !onte Cit ) @ulacanI A. Our chief of 0olice) sir, K. And who is our chief of 0olice !r, 6itness) at that ti$eI A. #SSr, Su0t, Ro$eo R, #alisoc) sir, K. 6ho are our co$0anions who were directed b #SSr, Su0t, #alisoc to conduct bu 3bust o0eration at Eu$ao" East) Cit of San Jose del !onteI A. S#O( !ario &larinas) #O9 Nasser Sai adi and the other $e$bers of our station) sir, K. 6hat did ou 0re0are if an 0rior to the actual bu 3bust o0eration that too" 0lace at Eu$ao" East) San Jose del !onte Cit ) @ulacanI A. The %ehicle and our bu 3bust $one ) sir, K. 2ow $uch bu 3bust $one did ou 0re0areI A. Two hundred 0esos =#(>>,>>?) sir, "% '7:: you 5:-a3- 6-:: 6@73 Honora.:- $our6 your 5ar67275a67on 7n 6@- a26ua: .uy*.u36 o5-ra67onQ !% !3 Po3-ur .uy-r, 37r. "% !22or17n; 6o you you B-r- 17r-26-1 .y your 2@7-= o= o==72- 6o 2on1u26 .uy*.u36 o5-ra67on 7n Gu9ao8, an1 B@o 73 6@- 5-r3on or 6@- 3u.C-26 o= 6@- .uy*.u36 6o .- 2on1u26-1 .y youQ !% F-rnan1o &7::a97n a:7a3 !n1oy, 37r. "% (r. '76n-33, I a9 3@oB7n; 6o you 6Bo E2F on- @un1r-1 5-3o .7::3 B@72@ a22or17n; 6o you u67:7J-1 a3 6@- .uy*.u36 9on-y, B7:: you 5:-a3- ;o o>-r 6@- 3a9- an1 6-:: .-=or- 6@73 Honora.:- $our6 B@a6 r-:a67on 7= any 6@-3- 6Bo E2F on@un1r-1 5-3o .7::3Q !% T@73 73 76, 37r. "% '@y 1o you 3ay 6@a6 6@-3- ar- 6@- 3a9- 6Bo E2F on- @un1r-1 5-3o .7::3, B@a6 B-r- your 71-n67=y7n; 9ar8 7= anyQ !% (y 7n767a:, 37r. K. 6ill ou 0lease 0oint our initial which according to ou ou 0ut thereI A. 2ere) sir, =witness 0ointed to the initial AT written on the collar of !anuel RoCas alread $ar"ed as EChibits A3* and @3*?,(-

74
:ro$ the abo%e testi$on ) it is clear that the first ele$ent has been co$0lied with. the 0oseur3bu er 0ositi%el identified the seller of shabu and the $one used for the sale of the sa$e, The second and crucial ele$ent) which is the 0roof that a transaction indeed trans0ired between the bu er and the seller) was categoricall testified to b S#O; Taruc) as follows. K. At what ti$e did ou actuall 0roceed to Eu$ao") San Jose del !onte Cit ) @ulacan to conduct bu 3bust o0eration against :ernando Villa$inI A. 6e arri%ed there at around **.>> a, $,) sir, K. 6hen ou reached the 0lace at **.>> oHcloc" in the $orning) what trans0ired neCt if an I A. 6hen we arri%ed there) we saw Ando and he $et us and announced /$eron na) $eron na)/ sir, K. !r, 6itness let us clarif this $atter) how $an of ou 0roceeded to the 0laceI A. !an ) sir, K. According to ou ou acted as the 0oseur bu er) who acted as the bac" u0I A. &larinas) Sai adi and other DEF $e$bers) sir, K. 6ho are the DEF $e$bersI A. Jerson @ausa) Eduardo Oca$0o) Elendo Villa$or and $an others) sir, K. 6hen ou reached the 0lace) being the 0oseur bu er what did ou doI A. 6e bought alread ) sir, K. 2ow about our other co$0anionsI A. The were fro$ us) sir, K :ro$ where ou are) how far were bac" u0 0ositioned the$sel%es) if ou "nowI A. The were on the o00osite side of the street and the were hidden) sir, K. According to ou 0roceeded to the 0lace) will ou 0lease describe the 0laceI A. It is a s$all house $ade of wood and hollow bloc"s) sir, K. 6ho owns the 0laceI A. :ernando Villa$in) sir, K. 6hat ha00ened neCt after ou 0roceeded to the house of :ernando Vila$inI A. I alread bought shabu fro$ hi$) sir, K. 6here did the transaction ta"e 0laceI A. Near his house) sir, K. In front of the houseI A. 5es) sir,

75
K. 6ere ou alone in bu ing the shabuI A. I was with our ci%ilian asset) sir, K So it is now %er clear that ou being the 0oseur bu er as well as our asset together with :ernando Villa$in were alone in the 0laceI A 5es) sir, K. 6hat ha00ened neCt thereafterI A. 6hen I said I a$ going to bu shabu) he readil ga%e $e) sir, K. 6hat ha00ened neCt thereafterI A. 6hen I said I a$ going to bu shabu) he readil ga%e $e) sir, K. 6hat ha00ened neCt thereafterI A. 2e turned his bac" and went inside and get the shabu and ca$e bac" carr ing the shabu alread ) sir, K. !r, 6itness let us be s0ecific) ou stated he went inside) fro$ where did he went insideI A. Inside his house) sir, CCC K. 6hat ha00ened neCt thereafter after Villa$in went inside his houseI A. 6hen Villa$in entered his house and after we saw the 0ersons using shabu) he went outside and handed the shabu to $e) sir, K. 2ow about the two hundred =#(>>,>>?I A. I handed to hi$) sir, K. 6hich ca$e first) the handing of shabu or the handing of the two hundred =#(>>,>>?I A. I first handed hi$ the $one and he handed to $e the shabu) sir, K. 2ow $an 0ieces of shabuI A. Onl one =*?) sir, K. I a$ showing to ou one s$all 0lastic sachet and inside is another 0lastic sachet which states @@ O#N and EChibit A) will ou 0lease go o%er the sa$e and tell before this 2onorable Court what relation if an that one s$all 0lastic sachetI A. This is what he handed $e) sir, =witness referring to one s$all 0lastic sachet 0laced inside a bigger sachet with $ar"ing @@ O#N? CCC K. After the accused handed to ou the shabu which is the sub1ect of the bu 3bust) what ha00ened neCt if an I A. I held hi$ b his hand and announced to hi$ that I a$ arresting hi$ for selling shabu) sir,(B

76
As distinctl narrated abo%e b the witness) a transaction indeed too" 0lace) which led to the arrest of the accused3a00ellant in flagrante, The other witnesses) $e$bers of the bu 3bust o0eration tea$) corroborated the abo%e testi$on of S#O; Taruc, #rosecutions in%ol%ing illegal drugs de0end largel on the credibilit of the 0olice officers who conducted the bu 3bust o0eration,(+ It is a funda$ental rule that findings of the trial courts) which are factual in nature and which in%ol%e credibilit ) are accorded res0ect when no glaring errorsD gross $isa00rehension of factsD or s0eculati%e) arbitrar ) and unsu00orted conclusions can be gathered fro$ such findings, The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better 0osition to decide the credibilit of witnesses) ha%ing heard their testi$onies and obser%ed their de0ort$ent and $anner of testif ing during the trial, The rule finds an e%en $ore stringent a00lication where said findings are sustained b the Court of A00eals,9> Accused3a00ellant) during his testi$on and in his A00ellantHs @rief) $erel denied the charge against hi$, According to hi$) he was 1ust ha%ing brea"fast when the $e$bers of the bu 3bust tea$ suddenl barged inside the house and arrested hi$, Against the 0ositi%e testi$onies of the 0rosecution witnesses) a00ellantLs 0lain denial of the offenses charged) unsubstantiated b an credible and con%incing e%idence) $ust si$0l fail,9* :ra$e3u0) li"e alibi) is generall %iewed with caution b this Court) because it is eas to contri%e and difficult to dis0ro%e, !oreo%er) it is a co$$on and standard line of defense in 0rosecutions of %iolations of the Dangerous Drugs Act,9( :or this clai$ to 0ros0er) the defense $ust adduce clear and con%incing e%idence to o%erco$e the 0resu$0tion that go%ern$ent officials ha%e 0erfor$ed their duties in a regular and 0ro0er $anner,99 Fnfortunatel ) the accused3a00ellant $iserabl failed to 0resent an e%idence that the $e$bers of the bu 3bust o0eration tea$ did not 0ro0erl 0erfor$ their dut ) or that the entire o0eration was cou0led with an i$0ro0er $oti%e, As an added argu$ent) the accused3a00ellant questions the legalit of his arrest, 2e clai$s that he was not gi%en the o00ortunit to "now the reason for his arrest) and that the arresting officers were not ar$ed with an warrant for arrest, This Court) howe%er) finds the said argu$ent to be 0re0osterous, It $ust be re$e$bered that the accused3a00ellant was the sub1ect of a bu 3bust o0eration) the $ain goal of which was to catch hi$ in flagrante selling shabu) and fro$ the e%idence for the 0rosecution) he was arrested while co$$itting a cri$e 33 0eddling of illegal drugs) a circu$stance where warrantless arrest is 1ustified under Rule **9) Section <=a? of the Rules of Court) which states that. SEC, <, Arrest without warrantD when lawful, 3 A 0eace officer or a 0ri%ate 0erson $a ) without a warrant) arrest a 0erson. =a? 6hen) in his 0resence) the 0erson to be arrested has co$$itted) is actuall co$$itting) or is atte$0ting to co$$it an offense, CCC A bu 3bust o0eration is a for$ of entra0$ent which in recent ears has been acce0ted as a %alid and effecti%e $ode of a00rehending drug 0ushers, In a bu 3bust o0eration) the idea to co$$it a cri$e originates fro$ the offender) without an bod inducing or 0rodding hi$ to co$$it the offense,9; If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards) a bu 3bust o0eration deser%es 1udicial sanction,9< Thus) fro$ the %er nature of a bu 3bust o0eration) the absence of a warrant does not $a"e the arrest illegal, 62ERE:ORE) the a00ealed decision dated Jul *+) (>>A of the Court of A00eals in CA3E, R, CR, 3 2, C, No, >>+A-) affir$ing the Decision dated !a -) (>>9 of the Regional Trial Court of !alolos) @ulacan) @ranch (> in Cri$inal Case No, (99(3!3(>>() finding accused3a00ellant) :ernando Villa$in San Jose) guilt be ond reasonable doubt of %iolation of Section <) Article II of Re0ublic Act =R,A,? +*A< is hereb !FFIR(E# in toto, SO ORDERED, Re0ublic of the #hili00ines S PRE(E $O RT !anila FIRST #I&ISION G.R. No. 1698,5 #-2-9.-r 18, 200,

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 0laintiff3a00ellee) %s, #!NILO JO$SON y 0! TIST!, accused3a00ellant, #E$ISION P NO, C.J.%

77
On a00eal are the Decision* dated A0ril (+) (>>< and the Resolution( dated Se0te$ber *9) (>>< of the Court of A00eals) in CA3E,R, CR32,C, No, >>(;<, The Court of A00eals affir$ed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan Cit in Cri$inal Case No, C3 AA>9;) con%icting accused3a00ellant Danilo Jocson of %iolation of Sections < and **) Art, II of R,A, No, +*A<) or the Co$0rehensi%e Dangerous Drugs Act of (>>(, On the e%ening of August -) (>>() an infor$ant re0orted to the office of the Station Drug Enforce$ent Fnit) Caloocan Cit ) a 0erson referred to b the alias /!anong)/ who was allegedl selling shabu at the %icinit of @,!,@,A,) (nd A%e,) East Caloocan Cit , 6ith this infor$ation) #olice Chief Senior Ins0ector Jose Valencia for$ed a tea$ to conduct a bu 3bust o0eration) in which S#O* Jose0h delos Santos was designated as the 0oseur3bu er, That sa$e night) the tea$ 0roceeded to the re0orted area, The infor$ant) u0on seeing /!anong)/ a00roached the latter and introduced Delos Santos as a custo$er, Delos Santos then told /!anong)/ /Pare, pa'ili ng piso)/ and handed hi$ the $ar"ed *>>30eso bill with serial nu$ber F!B<A<+;, F0on recei0t of the $ar"ed $one ) /!anong/ too" out fro$ his 0oc"et and handed Delos Santos a 0lastic sachet containing white cr stalline granules, Delos Santos then scratched his left ear) signaling a 0ositi%e bust, S#O9 Rodrigo Antonio res0onded to the signal and ca$e to the aid of Delos Santos, The fris"ed /!anong/ and found four $ore 0lastic sachets of white cr stalline granules on his bod , The also reco%ered the $ar"ed $one fro$ /!anong,/ The then brought /!anong/ to the 0olice station for in%estigation, It was onl then that the 0olice learned that /!anong/ is Danilo Jocson) herein accused3a00ellant, S#O* Delos Santos and S#O9 Antonio also turned o%er to #olice In%estigator :erdinand !oran the 0lastic sachets and the $ar"ed $one reco%ered fro$ /!anong/ u0on arri%ing at the 0olice station, !oran) in turn) $ar"ed the 0ieces of e%idence, Then) the $ar"ed 0ieces of e%idence were turned o%er to the Northern #olice District =N#D? cri$e laborator for che$ical anal sis, #olice Ins0ector Juanita Sioson) a :orensic Che$ical Engineer) found the white cr stalline granules) contained in fi%e heat3 sealed trans0arent 0lastic sachets) to be 0ositi%e for $eth la$0heta$ine h drochloride) a dangerous drug, :urther) four of the fi%e sachets weighed >,>< gra$ each) and one sachet weighed >,>; gra$, Accused3a00ellant Jocson was charged with %iolations of Sections < and **) Art, II of R,A, No, +*A<) or the Co$0rehensi%e Dangerous Drugs Act of (>>() in two se0arate Infor$ations. CRI!INA& CASE NO, AA>9; That on or about the -th da of August (>>( in Caloocan Cit ) !,!, and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the abo%e3na$ed accused) without ha%ing been authori'ed b law) did then and there willfull ) unlawfull and feloniousl sell and deli%er to one #O* JOSE#2 DE&OS SANTOS) who 0osed as bu er) >,>< gra$ of !eth la$0heta$ine 2 drochloride =Shabu?) for One 2undred #esos with SN F!B<A<+; "nowing the sa$e to be a dangerous drug, CONTRAR5 TO &A6, CRI!INA& CASE NO, AA>9< That on or about the -th da of August (>>( in Caloocan Cit ) !,!, and within the 1urisdiction of this 2onorable Court) the abo%e3na$ed accused) without ha%ing been authori'ed b law) did then and there willfull ) unlawfull and feloniousl ha%e in his 0ossession) custod and control four =;? 0cs, of heat3sealed trans0arent 0lastic sachet containing !eth la$0heta$ine 2 drochloride =Shabu? with a total weight 7of8 >,*+ gra$) "nowing the sa$e to be a dangerous drug, CONTRAR5 TO &A6,9 The two cri$inal cases against accused3a00ellant were consolidated) and trial ensued, Accused3a00ellant Jocson denied the accusations against hi$, 2e testified that on the night of his arrest) he was at his residence at No, *+( (nd A%enue) Erace #ar") Caloocan Cit , 6hile watching a late3night tele%ision show with his $other and his **3 ear old niece) S#O9 Antonio entered his house) and u0on seeing hi$) shouted /#ositi%eT/ Thereafter) fi%e other 0olice$en entered the house) forced accused3a00ellant out of his bed and handcuffed hi$, The 0olice officers then brought hi$ to the 0olice station without infor$ing hi$ of the charges, In his testi$on ) accused3a00ellant denied selling shabu to the 0olice 0oseur3bu er or 0ossessing $ore quantities of shabu, 2e alleged that the charges against hi$ were fabricated, Ele%en3 ear old A0ril Jane @uenaobra) niece of accused3a00ellant) corroborated the latterLs testi$on , @uenaobra testified that on August -) (>>() at around ele%en oLcloc" in the e%ening) while watching tele%ision) her grand$other answered a "noc" on the door, Suddenl ) 0olice$en barged into the house) grabbed her uncle and forcibl too" hi$ awa , On A0ril B) (>>9) the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan Cit con%icted the accused3a00ellant, The dis0ositi%e 0ortion of the decision reads.

78
T2ERE:ORE) 0re$ises considered and the 0rosecution ha%ing established to a $oral certaint the guilt of Accused DANI&O JOCSON @AFTISTA of the cri$es charged) this Court hereb renders 1udg$ent as follows. *, In Cri$, Case No, AA>9; for Violation of Sec, <) Art, ** of RA +*A<) this Court in the absence of an aggra%ating circu$stance hereb sentences the aforena$ed Accused to &I:E I!#RISON!ENTD and to 0a the fine of #<>>)>>>,>> without an subsidiar i$0rison$ent in case of insol%enc D (, In Cri$, Case No, AA>9< for Violation of Sec, **) Art, ** of sa$e Act) this Court in the absence of an $odif ing circu$stance hereb sentences co$$on Accused to a 0rison ter$ of twel%e =*(? ears and one =*? da to fourteen =*;? ears and eight =B? $onths and to 0a the fine of three hundred thousand 0esos =#9>>)>>>,>>?) without an subsidiar i$0rison$ent in case of insol%enc , Sub1ect drug in both cases are hereb declared confiscated and forfeited in fa%or of the go%ern$ent to be dealt with in accordance with law, CCCCCC SO ORDERED,; Accused3a00ellant Jocson a00ealed to this Court) with the following assign$ent of errors. I T2E TRIA& COFRT ERAVE&5 ERRED IN EIVINE :F&& 6EIE2T AND CREDENCE TO T2E SE&:3SERVINE TESTI!ONIES O: #O&ICE O::ICERS RODRIEO ANTONIO AND JOSE#2 DE &OS SANTOS, II T2E TRIA& COFRT ERAVE&5 ERRED IN CONVICTINE T2E ACCFSED3A##E&&ANT O: T2E CRI!E C2AREED DES#ITE T2E :AI&FRE O: T2E #ROSECFTION TO #ROVE 2IS EFI&T @E5OND REASONA@&E DOF@T, < This Court) howe%er) referred the case to the Court of A00eals in confor$it with the ruling in P-o5:- >. (a6-o,A The Court of A00eals affir$ed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, It also denied accused3a00ellantLs $otion for reconsideration, 6e affir$ the decision of the Court of A00eals, The testi$on of S#O* Delos Santos was s0ontaneous) straightforward and categorical, :urther) S#O9 Antonio) bac"3u0 securit of S#O* Delos Santos) corroborated the latterLs testi$on on its $aterial 0oints, On the other hand) we find no reason to belie%e the denials and self3ser%ing allegation of accused3a00ellant that his arrest was concocted out of thin air b the 0olice officers, No e%idence was 0resented to show an antagonis$ between hi$ and the 0olice officers to eC0lain wh the 0olice officers allegedl 0ic"ed on hi$, Settled is the rule that in cases in%ol%ing %iolations of the Dangerous Drugs Act) credence is gi%en to 0rosecution witnesses who are 0olice officers for the are 0resu$ed to ha%e 0erfor$ed their duties in a regular $anner) unless there is e%idence to the contrar suggesting ill $oti%e on the 0art of the 0olice officers or de%iation fro$ the regular 0erfor$ance of their duties,- None was 0resented in the instant case, Neither will the testi$on of his **3 ear old niece eCcul0ate accused3a00ellant fro$ the cri$es charged against hi$, On cross3 eCa$ination) A0ril Jane ad$itted that her grand$other i$0ressed on her that her uncle was arrested b the 0olice e%en when he had done nothing wrong, As obser%ed b the trial court) A0ril Jane a00eared to be a rehearsed witness, :urther) being a close "in of accused3a00ellant) her credibilit is highl sus0ect, A 0ortion of her testi$on is as follows. CROSS3EUA!INATION K Are ou sa ing now !ada$ 6itness that ou 7were8 also discussing this case to =sic? our $otherI A 5es) sir,

79
K 6hen ou discussed this case) !ada$ 6itness) do I get ou right that the were tal"ing to ou with res0ect 7to8 how our uncle was arrestedI A 5es) sir, K And) the 7were8 also discussing to =sic? ou that our uncle has not co$$itted an wrongI A 5es) sir, K And) the were also discussing with ou !ada$ 6itness) that what was done b the 0olice$an is also wrongI A 5es) sir,B The findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibilit of witnesses are entitled to great res0ect because the trial courts ha%e the ad%antage of obser%ing the de$eanor of witnesses as the testif , In the 0rocess of con%erting into written for$ the state$ents of li%ing hu$an beings) not onl fine nuances but a world of $eaning a00arent to the 1udge 0resent) watching and listening) $a esca0e the reader of the translated words,+ In the instant case) the 0olice arrested accused3a00ellant in a bu 3bust o0eration, A bu 3bust o0eration is one for$ of entra0$ent e$0lo ed b 0eace officers as an effecti%e wa of a00rehending a cri$inal in the act of the co$$ission of an offense,*> Entra0$ent has recei%ed 1udicial sanction when underta"en with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards,** 6here the cri$inal intent originates in the $ind of the accused and the cri$inal offense is co$0leted) the fact that a 0erson) acting as a deco for the state) or that 0ublic officials furnished the accused an o00ortunit for co$$ission of the offense) or that the accused is aided in the co$$ission of the cri$e in order to secure the e%idence necessar to 0rosecute hi$) there is 0er$issible entra0$ent and the accused $ust be con%icted,*( 6hat the law forbids is the inducing of another to %iolate the law) the /seduction/ of an otherwise innocent 0erson into a cri$inal career,*9 6here the cri$inal intent originates in the $ind of the state deco ) such as an underco%er agent) and the accused is lured into the co$$ission of the offense charged in order to 0rosecute hi$) there is instigation) as we call it in our 1uris0rudence) and no con%iction $a be had,*; In instigation) the instigator 0racticall induces the would3be accused into the co$$ission of the offense and hi$self beco$es a co30rinci0al, In entra0$ent) the 0eace officer resorts to wa s and $eans to tra0 and ca0ture the lawbrea"er in the eCecution of the latterLs cri$inal 0lan, Instigation is illegal and contrar to 0ublic 0olic , Entra0$ent is not,*< In the case at bar) the details of the transaction were clearl and adequatel shown) %i',. =a? the initial contact between the 0oseur3 bu er and the 0usherD =b? the offer to bu D =c? the 0ro$ise or 0a $ent of the considerationD and =d? the deli%er of the illegal drug sub1ect of the sale, The initial contact was $ade through an infor$ant, On the da of the o0eration) the infor$ant a00roached accused3 a00ellant Jocson) a,",a, /!anong)/ and introduced hi$ to S#O* Delos Santos) the 0oseur3bu er, Delos Santos then offered to bu when he told /!anong)/ /Pare, pa'ili ng piso,/ The sale was consu$$ated after 0a $ent and deli%er when S#O* Delos Santos handed /!anong/ the $ar"ed *>>30eso bill) and /!anong/ too" out fro$ his 0oc"et and handed S#O* Delos Santos a 0lastic sachet containing shabu, :ro$ the $o$ent S#O* Delos Santos recei%ed the 0rohibited drug fro$ /!anong)/ the illegal sale of the dangerous drug was consu$$ated,*A /!anong/ was at once a00rehended) and four $ore sachets of shabu were found in his 0ossession, 2a%ing established that the illegal sale too" 0lace between the 0oseur3bu er and the seller) the 0rosecution li"ewise 0resented the dangerous drug) i.e.) the corpus delicti) as e%idence in court, The illegal substance sold) including the four other sachets reco%ered fro$ the 0oc"et of accused3a00ellant) was offered as e%idence during the trial and 0ro0erl identified b the 0rosecution witnesses, The 0rosecution also accounted for the chain of custod of the sub1ect substances, :ro$ accused3a00ellantLs 0ossession) 0olice officers Delos Santos and Antonio sei'ed the sachets of shabu and turned the$ o%er to #olice In%estigator !oran who $ar"ed the 0ieces of e%idence, Then) !oran turned the$ o%er to the N#D cri$e laborator for che$ical anal sis) where #olice Ins0ector Juanita Sioson) a :orensic Che$ical Engineer) found the white cr stalline granules contained in fi%e heat3sealed trans0arent 0lastic sachets to be 0ositi%e for $eth la$0heta$ine h drochloride) a dangerous drug, IN &IE' 'HEREOF) the 0etition is #ENIE# and the Decision and Resolution of the Court of A00eals in CA3E,R, CR32,C, No, >>(;<) dated A0ril (+) (>>< and Se0te$ber *9) (>><) res0ecti%el ) are !FFIR(E#, SO OR#ERE#. SE$ON# #I&ISION G.R. No. 1,58A2 O26o.-r 15, 2008

80
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 0laintiff3a00ellee) %s, S!L&!#OR S!N$HE) ESPIRIT , accused3a00ellant, #E$ISION 0RION, J.% This case confronts us once $ore with the bu 3bust of a 0rohibited drug and the 0rocedural difficulties this t 0e of o0eration 0oses for the 0olice as well as for the 0rosecution, On a00eal is the Se0te$ber **) (>>A Decision* of the Court of A00eals =C$? in CA3E,R, CR32,C, No, >*>+<, The CA affir$ed the A0ril *;) (>>< Decision( of the Regional Trial Court =R-C?) @ranch *>9) Kue'on Cit ) that found the accused3a00ellant Sal%ador Sanche' y Es0iritu =appellant? guilt be ond reasonable doubt of %iolation of Section <) Article II of Re0ublic Act =R.$.? No, +*A< =the Co$0rehensi%e Dangerous Drugs Act of (>>(?) $eriting hi$ the 0enalt of life i$0rison$ent, !NTE$E#ENT F!$TS The 0rosecution charged the a00ellant before the RTC with %iolation of Section <) Article II of R,A, No, +*A< under an Infor$ation that states. CCC That on or about the Ath da of A0ril (>>9 in Kue'on Cit ) #hili00ines) the said accused) not being authori'ed b law to sell) dis0ense) deli%er) trans0ort or distribute an dangerous drug) did) then and there) willfull and unlawfull sell) dis0ense) deli%er) trans0ort) distribute or act as bro"er in the said transaction) 'ero 0oint 'ero two =>,>(? gra$s of white cr stalline substance containing $eth la$0heta$ine h drochloride) a dangerous drug, CONTRAR5 TO &A6,9 The a00ellant 0leaded not guilt to the charge,; The 0rosecution 0resented its lone witness 3 S#O( &e%i Se%illa =!P 8 !evilla? 3 in the trial on the $erits that followed, The a00ellant and his witness) Nida Detera =0ida?) too" the stand for the defense, The RTC su$$ari'ed the $aterial 0oints of the testi$on of S#O( Se%illa as follows. C C C while he was on Station 9 dut at Tali0a0a) No%aliches) Kue'on Cit on A0ril A) (>>9 a confidential infor$ant arri%ed at around ;.9> noon and re0orted that there is a 0erson who has been selling shabu, An entra0$ent tea$ was for$ed consisting of hi$self as 0oseur bu er) S#O* @rigido An) #O9 Virgilio @ernardo) #O( !ann #aulilis and #O* Cecil Collado, A 0re3o0erational re0ort was sub$itted of the underta"ing, At <.>> 0,$,) the tea$ was dis0atched to the target area N at the far end &ualhati Street) !anoto" Subd,) @aesa) Kue'on Cit , #O Se%illa 0ut his initial /&S/ on the $one gi%en to hi$ to be used at the entra0$ent,< At the 0lace) which is a squatterHs colon located at the edge or side of &ualhati St,) #O Se%illa and his infor$ant wal"ed towards the 0lace 0ointed b the infor$ant and $et the drug 0usher, The infor$ant introduced #O Se%illa to the 0usher, The infor$ant and the 0usher tal"ed for a while, Thereafter) #O Se%illa tal"ed to the latter, 2e told hi$ that he badl needs shabu para pumayat, C C C #O Se%illa then ga%e the 0usher #*>>,>> =the $ar"ed $one ? and in return the 0usher ga%e hi$ a 0lastic sachet of shabu,A After recei%ing the 0lastic sachet) #O Se%illa scratched his head as a 0re3arranged signal to his colleagues who were de0lo ed nearb , Said other 0olice$en rushed to the cri$e scene while #O Se%illa grabbed the right hand of the accused and introduced hi$self as a co0, The accused was fris"ed and #O Se%illa reco%ered the #*>>,>> $ar"ed $one bill =ECh, E? in the right side 0ants 0oc"et of the accused who was later brought to Station 9, #O Se%illa identified the trans0arent 0lastic sachet on which he 0laced his initial /&S/ and the initial /SS/ of the accused =ECh, E?,On cross eCa$ination) #O Se%illa reiterated his testi$on adding that whene%er he is tas"ed as a 0oseur bu er he alwa s gi%es as reason that he wanted to be thinner and drug 0ushers ne%er questioned hi$ about that, #O Se%illa) who was wearing a crew cut in court said that when he bought shabu fro$ the accused his hair st le was different, It was his first ti$e to entra0 at that 0lace as a 0oseur bu er, Their $ar"ed Anfra %an was 0ar"ed along Kuirino 2ighwa ) Kue'on Cit fro$ where he and the infor$ant wal"ed to &ualhati Street for about *> $inutes as the target scene was about *>> $eters awa , 2e reiterated that their #re3o0 Re0ort

81
was sent to #DEA and gi%en a control nu$ber,B N@talics and footnotes referring to the pertinent parts of the records supplied? The RTC dis0ensed with the testi$on of :orensic Che$ist John #aul #uentes0ina after the 0arties sti0ulated that /the ite$s allegedl confiscated fro$ the accused were sub$itted to the cri$e laborator for eCa$ination and the findings were 0ut into writing,/ + In the hearing of Dece$ber ;) (>>9) the 0rosecution offered the following as eChibits. EChibit /A/ 3 the request for laborator eCa$ination of the s0eci$en confiscated fro$ the a00ellantD EChibit /@/ 3 the Initial &aborator Re0ort 0re0ared b :orensic Che$ist #aul Jero$e #uentes0inaD EChibit /C/ 3 the Confir$ator or :inal Che$istr Re0ort No, D39AA3>9 0re0ared b :orensic Che$ist #aul Jero$e #uentes0inaD EChibit /D/ 3 sworn Certification to show that the Che$istr Re0ort was subscribed and sworn to before an Ad$inistering OfficerD EChibits /E/) /E3*/ and /E3(/ 3 the s0eci$en ta"en fro$ the a00ellantD the initials of :orensic Che$ist #uentes0inaD and the initials of the 0olice officer who arrested the accused and who recei%ed the s0eci$en in eCchange for the bu bust $one ) res0ecti%el D EChibit /:/ 3 the brown en%elo0e where the sei'ed e%idence was 0laced after it was eCa$ined b :orensic Che$ist #uentes0inaD EChibits /E/ and /E3*/ 3 the bu bust $one and the initials written therein of the 0oseur bu er) res0ecti%el D EChibits /2/ and /23*/ 3 the Joint Affida%it of the entra0$ent tea$ and the signature therein b S#O( Se%illa) res0ecti%el , The defense ob1ected to EChibits /E)/ /E3*)/ /E3()/ /E/ and /2)/ contending that the a00ellant /had nothing to do with the s0eci$en 0resented before the court)/ and that the confiscated s0eci$en resulted fro$ an illegal arrest, On EChibit /E)/ the defense argued that no e%idence of 0owder was e%er 0resented b the 0rosecution witness, The defense li"ewise ob1ected to the 0resentation of EChibit /2/ on the ground that its contents were self3ser%ing, The a00ellant ga%e a different %ersion of the e%ents in his testi$on of Januar 9>) (>><, 2e narrated that at around <.(< in the afternoon of A0ril A) (>>9) he was in his house 0utting his children to slee0 when three =9? 0olice officers suddenl barged into his house) searched the 0re$ises) fris"ed hi$) and forced hi$ to co$e with the$,*> 2e recogni'ed one of the 0olice$en as /Sir &e%i)/ a for$er colleague of his uncle) Sonn Catiis) at the 0olice station, The 0olice officers then handcuffed hi$ and as"ed hi$ to get into a 0olice %ehicle, 2e begged the$ and shouted) 3!ir you already fris+ed me in the house and you did not find anything, you might /ust plant evidence in my poc+et, please do not do so.3 The 0olice brought hi$ to #olice Station 9) Tali0a0a) Kue'on Cit ) and 0laced hi$ in a detention cell without an in%estigation being conducted,** 6hile inside his cell) the 0olice showed hi$ a 0lastic sachet and said that it was the shabu ta"en fro$ hi$, S#O( Se%illa as"ed hi$ to call his uncle) but he refused to do soD he feared that his uncle would thin" that the confiscated shabu was reall ta"en fro$ hi$,*( Nida testified that she was at the "itchen of the a00ellantHs house doing the laundr between (.>>39.>> in the afternoon of A0ril A) (>>9) when she heard loud "noc"s on the door, The a00ellant) who was in bed) stood u0 and o0ened the door,*9 A 0erson entered) 0ushed the a00ellant bac"wards) and handcuffed hi$, This 0erson then ordered the a00ellant to sit down so he =the a00ellant? could be as"ed questions, A total of four 0ersons) all $ale) entered the house, Afterwards) the a00ellant and she were fris"edD a lighter was ta"en fro$ her) but nothing was sei'ed fro$ the a00ellant,*; The RTC 0ri$aril considered the re0utation of S#O( Se%illa in gi%ing weight to his testi$on ) and held that /#O Se%illa has been a frequent witness in drugs cases and he has alread established his credibilit before this court,/ Its decision of A0ril *;) (>>< found the a00ellant guilt be ond reasonable doubt of %iolation of Section <) Article II of R,A, No, +*A<, It i$0osed on hi$ the 0enalt of life i$0rison$ent and ordered hi$ to 0a a fine of #<>)>>>,>>, The a00ellant a00ealed to the CA) with the a00eal doc"eted as CA3E,R, CR32,C, No, >*>+<, In its decision of Se0te$ber **) (>>A) the CA affir$ed the RTC decision, In his brief*< on a00eal) the a00ellant contends that the court a 7uo gra%el erred in finding hi$ guilt be ond reasonable doubt for %iolation of R,A, No, +*A<, 2e $aintains that the courtLs order of con%iction was $erel based on the good re0utation S#O( Se%illa has established with the court based on the $an drug cases he had handled, The trial court) too) wrongl inter0reted the a00ellantLs a00earance and de$eanor because /his head was bowed and his e es were drea$ and sad,/*A

82
The defense har0s) too) on the 0rosecutionLs failure to 0ro%e that the sachets allegedl reco%ered fro$ the a00ellant were the ones sub$itted to the forensic che$ist for eCa$ination) as well as its failure to follow the 0ro0er chain of custod in handling the sei'ed e%idence, It was onl the arresting officer who testified that he confiscated the sachet fro$ the accused, The 0olice officer who conducted the subsequent in%estigation and to who$ the confiscated sachet was allegedl turned o%er was not identified nor 0resented as witness, 2ence the identit of the e%idence 0resented against the a00ellant is doubtful,*The 0rosecution counters with the argu$ent that the trial courtLs findings on the credibilit of S#O( Se%illa and the lac" of it with res0ect to the a00ellant and his witness Nida) should be gi%en great weight and res0ect) as the trial court had the chance and the 0rerogati%e to hear and a00reciate these $atters at the trial, S#O( Se%illa described in a clear and unwa%ering $anner how the 0olice tea$ 0lanned for and conducted the bu 3bust o0eration) and how he $ar"ed the 0lastic sachet of shabu he bought fro$ a00ellant i$$ediatel after the latterLs arrest, E%en the state$ent regarding the credibilit of S#O( Se%illa) a frequent witness before the trial court in drug cases) does not $ean that the trial court was biased, If at all) it onl $eant that the trial court had "nown S#O( Se%illa and had often obser%ed his de$eanor as a witness, The 0rosecution further argues that the e%idence for the defense is incredible and doubtful 1udging fro$ the testi$onies of the a00ellant and his witness Nida, 6hile the a00ellant testified that his alleged unlawful arrest trans0ired at <.(< 0,$, of A0ril A) (>>9) his witness Nida testified with certaint that she witnessed the arrest ta"e 0lace on the sa$e date between (.>> 0,$, and 9.>> 0,$, as she saw the ti$e on the wall cloc", !oreo%er) the a00ellant hi$self ad$itted that he had no "nowledge of an ad%erse reason or ill $oti%e that would induce the arresting 0olice officers to falsel i$0licate hi$, To the 0rosecution) this lac" of ill $oti%e su00orts the %iew that S#O( Se%illa testified to the truth and his acts should en1o the 0resu$0tion of regularit , As to the corpus delicti) the 0rosecution stresses that it full 0ro%ed that the ite$ reco%ered fro$ the a00ellant is 0ositi%e for shabu, The request for laborator eCa$ination of the s0eci$en confiscated fro$ the a00ellantD the initial laborator re0ort showing that the ite$ bought andSor sei'ed fro$ a00ellant is 0ositi%e for shabuD and the final che$istr re0ort were all for$all offered in e%idence) without an ob1ection fro$ the a00ellant, The defense) in fact) agreed to sti0ulate on the contents and the %eracit of the forensic eCa$inations $ade relati%e to the ite$ reco%ered fro$ the a00ellant, The corpus delicti ha%ing been 0ro%en and e%en ad$itted b the a00ellant) there was nothing $ore for the 0rosecution to establishD it had 0ro%en be ond reasonable doubt all the ele$ents of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs) s0ecificall 3 =a? the identit of the bu er and seller) the ob1ect and the considerationD and =b? the deli%er of the things sold and the 0a $ent therefor, THE $O RTIS R LING !=6-r 1u- 2on371-ra67on, B- r-3o:>- 6o a2Lu76 6@- a55-::an6 =or 6@- 5ro3-2u67onR3 =a7:ur- 6o 5ro>- @73 ;u7:6 .-yon1 r-a3ona.:1ou.6. Non*o.3-r>an2- o= 6@r-Lu7r-9-n63 o= S-267on 21, 5ara;ra5@ 1 o= !r672:- II o= R-5u.:72 !26 No. 9165 In considering a cri$inal case) it is critical to start with the lawLs own starting 0ers0ecti%e on the status of the accused N in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven 'eyond reasona'le dou't,*B Thus) while the charge was laid after a 0reli$inar finding that a 0robable cause eCisted showing that a cri$e had been co$$itted and the accused was 0robabl guilt thereof) the cri$inal trial itself starts with the substanti%e 0resu$0tion of the innocence on the 0art of the accused) rebuttable onl b 0roof of his guilt be ond reasonable doubt, The burden of such 0roof rests with the 0rosecution which $ust rel on the strength of its case rather than on the wea"ness of the case for the defense, #roof be ond reasonable doubt) or that quantu$ of 0roof sufficient to 0roduce a $oral certaint that would con%ince and satisf the conscience of those who act in 1udg$ent) is indis0ensable to o%erco$e the constitutional 0resu$0tion of innocence,*+ To 0ro%e the legiti$ac of the 0olice bu 3bust o0eration) the 0rosecution 0resented the following. =a? a 0re3o0eration re0ort bearing Fnit Control Nu$ber ><>;3>93>- signed b the des" officer) 0olice chief and tea$ leader of the station drug enforce$ent unit) which indicated the t 0e) ti$e and general area of o0eration) the t 0e of %ehicles and firear$s to be used) and the res0ecti%e na$es of the tea$ leader) 0oseur3bu er and $e$bers of the bu 3bust tea$D =b? a 0hotoco0 of the $ar"ed $one D and =c? the 1oint affida%it of the entra0$ent tea$ signed b the 0oseur3bu er) S#O( Se%illa) and #O* Collado, The o0eration ielded a 0lastic sachet containing shabu allegedl confiscated fro$ the a00ellant, A bu 3bust o0eration is a for$ of entra0$ent e$0lo ed b 0eace officers to a00rehend 0rohibited drug law %iolators in the act of co$$itting a drug3related offense,(> @ecause of the built3in danger for abuse that a bu 3bust o0eration carries) it is go%erned b s0ecific 0rocedures on the sei'ure and custod of drugs) se0aratel fro$ the general law 0rocedures geared to ensure that the rights of 0eo0le under cri$inal in%estigation(* and of the accused facing a cri$inal charge(( are safeguarded, 6e eC0ressed this concern in People v. -an)(9 when we recogni'ed that 3'y the very nature of anti,narcotic operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease .ith .hich stic+s of mari/uana or grams of heroin can 'e planted in the poc+ets or hands of

83
unsuspecting provincial hic+s, and the secrecy that inevita'ly shrouds all drug deals, the possi'ility of a'use is great. -hus, the courts have 'een e)horted to 'e e)tra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.3 The required 0rocedure on the sei'ure and custod of drugs is e$bodied in Section (*) 0aragra0h *) Article II of R,A, No, +*A<) which states. *? The a00rehending tea$ ha%ing initial custod and control of the drugs 3@a::) i$$ediatel after sei'ure and confiscation) 5@y372a::y 7n>-n6ory an1 5@o6o;ra5@ 6@- 3a9- 7n 6@- 5r-3-n2- o= 6@- a22u3-1 or 6@- 5-r3onD3 =ro9 B@o9 3u2@ 76-93 B-r- 2on=732a6-1 andSor sei'ed) or hisSher re0resentati%e or counsel) a re0resentati%e fro$ the $edia and the De0art$ent of Justice =DOJ?) and an elected 0ublic official who shall be required to sign the co0ies of the in%entor and be gi%en a co0 thereof, 76mphasis ours8 This is i$0le$ented b Section (*=a?) Article II of the @mplementing Rules and Regulations of R,A, No, +*A<) which reads. =a? The a00rehending officerStea$ ha%ing initial custod and control of the drugs 3@a::) i$$ediatel after sei'ure and confiscation) 0h sicall in%entor and 0hotogra0h the sa$e in the 0resence of the accused or the 0ersonSs fro$ who$ such ite$s were confiscated andSor sei'ed) or hisSher re0resentati%e or counsel) a re0resentati%e fro$ the $edia and the De0art$ent of Justice =DOJ?) and an elected 0ublic official who shall be required to sign the co0ies of the in%entor and be gi%en a co0 thereof. C C C #ro%ided) further that non3co$0liance with these require$ents under Cu367=7a.:- ;roun13) as long as the integrit and the e%identiar %alue of the sei'ed ite$s are 0ro0erl 0reser%ed b the a00rehending officerStea$) shall not render %oid and in%alid such sei'ures of and custod o%er said ite$s, 76mphasis supplied8 The records of the 0resent case are bereft of e%idence showing that the bu 3bust tea$ followed the outlined 0rocedure des0ite its $andator ter$s) as indicated b the use of /shall/ in its directi%es, The deficienc is 0atent fro$ the following eCchanges at the trial. :ISCA& EI@SON ARAF&A. K. Now after ou recei%ed that shabu or trans0arent 0lastic sachet containing shabu and ga%e the #*>>,>> bill to the accused) what ha00ened neCtI S#O( &EVI SEVI&&A. A. After I recei%ed 7sic8 I scratched $ head, K. 6hat is the 0ur0oseI A. #re3arrange7d8 signal, K. After that what ha00enedI A. The swoo0ed down in the scene, K. 6hat ha00ened after thatI A. I grab 7sic8 his right hand, K. 6hen ou grabbed his right hand what did ou tell hi$I A. I introduced $ self as #olice Officer, K. Then after that what ha00ened neCtI A. I grabbed the accused and infor$ed hi$ of his constitutional right, K. After infor$ing of his constitutional right what ha00ened !r, 6itnessI A. 6e brought hi$ to our station,

84
K. HoB a.ou6 6@- 6ran35ar-n6 5:a3672 3a2@-6, B@-r- 73 76Q A. I6 73 7n 9y 5o33-337on. K. 2ow about the bu 3bust $one in the a$ount of #*>>,>>I A. I reco%ered it fro$ the right 0ants 0oc"et, K. Now ou said that ou brought the accused to the #olice Station) what ha00ened to the #olice StationI A. 6e turn 7sic8 hi$ o%er to the Des" Officer, K. '@a6 171 you 6urn o>-rQ A. T@- a22u3-1 an1 6@- ->71-n2-3, 6@- 5:a3672 3@a.u 37r. K. 0-=or- you 6urn o>-r 6@a6 5:a3672 3a2@-6 (r. '76n-33, B@a6 171 you 5u6 6@-r-Q A. I 5u6 9y 7n767a: an1 7n767a: o= 6@- a22u3-1. K. If that trans0arent 0lastic sachet is shown to ou) can ou identif that !r, 6itnessI A. 5es) sir, K. Showing to ou this 0lastic sachet !r, 6itness) what can ou sa to that trans0arent 0lastic sachetI A. This was the one I 0urchased fro$ the accused because I ha%e here $ initial and the initial of the accused) sir, C C C C(; 76mphasis ours8 Other than the $ar"ings that S#O( Se%illa alleged) it is clear that no 5@y372a: 7n>-n6ory and no 5@o6o;ra5@ of the sei'ed ite$s were ta"en in the 0resence of the accused or his counsel) a re0resentati%e fro$ the $edia and the De0art$ent of Justice =DOJ?) and an electi%e official, @ased on the abo%e testi$on ) S#O( Se%illa 3 the 0rosecutionLs lone witness 3 also did not $ar" the 0lastic sachet of shabu i$$ediatel u0on sei'ureD it was onl $ar"ed u0on arri%al at the 0olice station, Thus) other than the sti0ulation regarding the handling and results of the s0eci$en at the forensic laborator ) S#O( Se%illaLs testi$on and the e%idence he identified constitute the totalit of the e%idence for the 0rosecution on the handling of the allegedl sei'ed ite$s, 6e recogni'e that the strict co$0liance with the require$ents of Section (* of R,A, No, +*A< $a not alwa s be 0ossible under field conditionsD the 0olice o0erates under %aried conditions) $an of the$ far fro$ ideal) and cannot at all ti$es attend to all the niceties of the 0rocedures in the handling of confiscated e%idence, The 0artici0ation of a re0resentati%e fro$ the DOJ) the $edia or an elected official alone can be 0roble$atic, :or this reason) the last sentence of the i$0le$enting rules 0ro%ides that /non,compliance .ith these re7uirements under /ustifia'le grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved 'y the apprehending officerOteam, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items./ Thus) non*2o95:7an2with the strict directi%e of Section (* of R,A, No, +*A< is no6 n-2-33ar7:y =a6a: to the 0rosecutionLs caseD 0olice 0rocedures in the handling of confiscated e%idence $a still ha%e so$e la0ses) as in the 0resent case, These la0ses) howe%er) $ust be recogni'ed and eC0lained in ter$s of their Cu367=7a.:- ;roun13 and the 7n6-;r76y an1 ->71-n67ary >a:u- o= 6@- ->71-n2- 3-7J-1 9u36 .- 3@oBn 6o @a>- .--n 5r-3-r>-1. In the 0resent case) the 0rosecution a00arentl did not want to acce0t that the 0olice had co$$itted la0ses in the handling of the sei'ed $aterials and thus did not bother to 0resent an eC0lanation to 1ustif the non3obser%ance of the 0rescribed 0rocedures, It li"ewise failed to 0ro%e that the integrit and e%identiar %alue of the ite$s adduced were not tainted as the discussions below will show, The non3obser%ance b the 0olice of the required 0rocedure cannot therefore be eCcused, T@- M2@a7n o= 2u36o1yM o>-r 6@2on=732a6-1 76-93 Ba3 no6 5ro>-n Fnder Section <) Article II(< of R,A, No, +*A<) the ele$ents necessar in e%er 0rosecution for the illegal sale of shabu are. =*? the identit of the bu er and the seller) the ob1ect and the considerationD and =(? the deli%er of the thing sold and the 0a $ent therefor,

85
I$0licit in all these is the need for 0roof that the transaction or sale actuall too" 0lace) cou0led with the 5r-3-n6a67on 7n 2our6 o= ->71-n2- o= corpus delicti * 6@- .o1y o= 6@- 2r79- B@o3- 2or- 73 6@- 2on=732a6-1 7::7276 1ru;. (A #roof be ond reasonable doubt de$ands that unwa%ering eCactitude be obser%ed in establishing the corpus delicti. e%er fact necessar to constitute the cri$e $ust be established,(- The chain of custod require$ent 0erfor$s this function in bu 3bust o0erations as it ensures that doubts concerning the identit of the e%idence are re$o%ed,(B In a long line of cases) we ha%e considered it fatal for the 0rosecution to fail to 0ro%e that the s0eci$en sub$itted for laborator eCa$ination was the sa$e one allegedl sei'ed fro$ the accused,(+ @lac"Ls &aw Dictionar eC0lains chain of custod in this wise. In e%idence) the one who offers real e%idence) such as narcotics in a trial of drug case) $ust account for the custod of the e%idence fro$ the $o$ent in which it reaches his custod until the $o$ent in which it is offered in e%idence) and such e%idence goes to the weight not to ad$issibilit of e%idence, Com. *. =hite, J9J Mass. IFP, 8J8 0.6.8d JJ9. &i"ewise) Section *=b? of Dangerous Drugs @oard Regulation No, *) Series of (>>(9> which i$0le$ents R,A, No, +*A< defines /chain of custod / as follows. /Chain of Custod / $eans the dul recorded authori'ed $o%e$ents and custod of sei'ed drugs or controlled che$icals or 0lant sources of dangerous drugs or laborator equi0$ent of each stage) fro$ the ti$e of sei'ureSconfiscation to recei0t in the forensic laborator to safe"ee0ing to 0resentation in court for destruction, Such record of $o%e$ents and custod of sei'ed ite$ shall include the identit and signature of the 0erson who held te$0orar custod of the sei'ed ite$) the date and ti$e when such transfer of custod were $ade in the course of safe"ee0ing and use in court as e%idence) and the final dis0osition, Although this regulation too" effect on October *B) (>>( =or after the co$$ission of the cri$e charged?) it is nonetheless useful in illustrating how the 0rocess of 0reser%ing the integrit of the chain of custod of the sei'ed drugs is ensured and $aintained, That the 0olice failed to a00roCi$ate these safeguards and the 0rosecution failed to 0ro%e the identit of the s0eci$en allegedl sei'ed and the s0eci$en sub$itted as e%idence during the trial is e%ident fro$ S#O( Se%illa hi$self who testified as follows. :ISCA& EI@SON ARAF&A. K. After infor$ing 7the accused8 of his constitutional right what ha00ened !r, 6itnessI S#O( &EVI SEVI&&A A. 6e brought hi$ to our station, K. HoB a.ou6 6@- 6ran35ar-n6 5:a3672 3a2@-6, B@-r- 73 76Q A. I6 73 7n 9y 5o33-337on. K. 2ow about the bu 3bust $one in the a$ount of #*>>,>>I A. I reco%ered it fro$ the right 0ants 0oc"et, K. Now ou said that ou brought the accused to the #olice Station) what ha00ened to the #olice StationI A. 6e turn hi$ o%er to the Des" Officer, K. '@a6 171 you 6urn o>-rQ A. T@- a22u3-1 an1 6@- ->71-n2-3, 6@- 5:a3672 3@a.u 37r. K. 0-=or- you 6urn o>-r 6@a6 5:a3672 3a2@-6 (r. '76n-33, B@a6 171 you 5u6 6@-r-Q A. I 5u6 9y 7n767a: an1 7n767a: o= 6@- a22u3-1. CCCC

86
K. @ the wa !r, 6itness after ou turned o%er to the in%estigator the 0lastic sachet) did ou ha00en to "now where the in%estigator brought the 0lastic sachetI A. I ;a>- 6@a6 5:a3672 3a2@-6 =7r36 6o 6@- 6a.:- o= 6@- #-38 O==72-r an1 6@- #-38 O==72-r ;a>- 76 6o 6@- 7n>-367;a6or. :ISCA& EI@SON ARAF&A. That would be all for the witness, C C C C9* Significantl ) this was the onl testi$on in the case that touched on the chain of custod of the sei'ed e%idence, It failed to disclose the identities of the des" officer and the in%estigator to who$ the custod of the drugs was gi%en) and how the latter handled these $aterials, No reference was e%er $ade to the 0erson who sub$itted the sei'ed s0eci$en to the #N# Cri$e &aborator for eCa$ination, &i"ewise) no one testified on how the s0eci$en was handled after the che$ical anal sis b the forensic che$ist, 6hile we are aware that the RTCHs Order of August A) (>>9 dis0ensed with the testi$on of the forensic che$ist because of the sti0ulations of the 0arties) we %iew the sti0ulation to be confined to the handling of the s0eci$en at the forensic laborator and to the anal tical results obtained, The sti0ulation does not co%er the $anner the s0eci$en was handled before it ca$e to the 0ossession of the forensic che$ist and after it left his 0ossession, To be sure) 0ersonnel within the 0olice hierarch =as S#O( Se%illaLs testi$on casuall $entions? $ust ha%e handled the drugs but e%idence of how this was done) i,e,) how it was $anaged) stored) 0reser%ed) labeled and recorded fro$ the ti$e of its sei'ure) to its recei0t b the forensic laborator ) u0 until it was 0resented in court and subsequentl destro ed N is absent fro$ the e%idence adduced during the trial, -o repeat an earlier o'servation, even the time and place of the initial mar+ing of the alleged evidence are not at all certain as the testimony on this point varies. The recent case of 4opez v. People9( is 0articularl instructi%e on how we eC0ect the chain of custod or /$o%e$ent/ of the sei'ed e%idence to be $aintained and wh this $ust be shown b e%idence. As a $ethod of authenticating e%idence) the chain of custod rule requires that the ad$ission of an eChibit be 0receded b e%idence sufficient to su00ort a finding that the $atter in question is what the 0ro0onent clai$s it to be, I6 Bou:1 7n2:u1- 6-3679ony a.ou6 ->-ry :7n8 7n 6@- 2@a7n, =ro9 6@- 9o9-n6 6@- 76-9 Ba3 5728-1 u5 6o 6@- 679- 76 73 o==-r-1 7n6o ->71-n2-, 7n 3u2@ a Bay 6@a6 ->-ry 5-r3on B@o 6ou2@-1 6@- -<@7.76 Bou:1 1-32r7.- @oB an1 =ro9 B@o9 76 Ba3 r-2-7>-1, B@-r- 76 Ba3 an1 B@a6 @a55-n-1 6o 76 B@7:- 7n 6@- B76n-33I 5o33-337on, 6@- 2on1767on 7n B@72@ 76 Ba3 r-2-7>-1 an1 6@- 2on1767on 7n B@72@ 76 Ba3 1-:7>-r-1 6o 6@- n-<6 :7n8 7n 6@- 2@a7n. T@-3- B76n-33-3 Bou:1 6@-n 1-32r7.- 6@- 5r-2au67on3 6a8-n 6o -n3ur- 6@a6 6@-r- @a1 .--n no 2@an;- 7n 6@2on1767on o= 6@- 76-9 an1 no o55or6un76y =or 3o9-on- no6 7n 6@- 2@a7n 6o @a>- 5o33-337on o= 6@- 3a9-. 6hile testi$on about a 0erfect chain is not alwa s the standard because it is al$ost alwa s i$0ossible to obtain) an unbro"en chain of custod beco$es 7n1735-n3a.:- an1 -33-n67a: when the ite$ of real e%idence is not distincti%e and is not reall identifiable) or when its condition at the ti$e of testing or trial is critical) or when a witness has failed to obser%e its uniqueness, The sa$e standard li"ewise obtains in case the e%idence is susce0tible to alteration) ta$0ering) conta$ination and e%en substitution and eCchange, In other words) the eChibitHs le%el of susce0tibilit to fungibilit ) alteration or ta$0ering N without regard to whether the sa$e is ad%ertent or otherwise not N dictates the le%el of strictness in the a00lication of the chain of custod rule, 76mphasis ours8 That the 0rosecution offered in e%idence the request for laborator eCa$ination =ECh, /A/?) the initial laborator re0ort =ECh, /@/?) and final Che$istr Re0ort No, D39AA3>9 =ECh, /C/?) to which the defense did not ob1ect) has no bearing on the question of whether the s0eci$en sub$itted for che$ical anal sis and subsequentl 0resented in court Ba3 6@- 3a9- a3 6@a6 3-7J-1 =ro9 6@- a55-::an6. All that these eChibits 0ro%ed were the -<736-n2- and au6@-n67276y of the request for laborator eCa$ination and the results of this eCa$ination) not the required chain of custod fro$ the ti$e of sei'ure of the e%idence, E%identl ) the 0rosecution has not 0ro%en be ond reasonable doubt the indis0ensable ele$ent of corpus delicti of the cri$e, In People v. wit. rteza)99 the Court had the occasion to discuss the i$0lications of the failure to co$0l with Section (*) 0aragra0h *) to

M In People v. 4a)a) where the bu 3bust tea$ failed to $ar" the confiscated $ari1uana i$$ediatel after the a00rehension of the accused) the Court held that the de%iation fro$ the standard 0rocedure in anti3narcotics o0erations 0roduced doubts as to the origins of the $ari1uana, Consequentl ) the Court concluded that the 0rosecution failed to establish the identit of the corpus delicti, The Court $ade a si$ilar ruling in People v. Dimura) where the Narco$ o0erati%es failed to 0lace $ar"ings on the sei'ed $ari1uana at the ti$e the accused was arrested and to o.3-r>- 6@- 5ro2-1ur- an1 6a8- 2u36o1y o= 6@- 1ru;.

87
!ore recentl ) in 2arraga v. People) the Court held that the $aterial inconsistencies with regard to when and where the $ar"ings on the shabu were $ade and 6@- :a28 o= 7n>-n6ory on 6@- 3-7J-1 1ru;3 created reasonable doubt as to the identit of the corpus delicti, The Court thus acquitted the accused due to the 0rosecutionHs failure to indubitabl show the identit of the shabu, 7E$0hasis su00lied8 6e reached the sa$e conclusion in People v. 0azareno9; and People v. !antos)9< where we again stressed the i$0ortance of co$0l ing with the 0rescribed 0rocedure, P@y372a: 7n>-n6ory an1 5@o6o;ra5@ r-Lu7r-9-n6 un1-r S-267on 21 vis-a-vis 'mar(ing' of sei)ed evidence =hile the first sentence of !ection 81(a) of the @mplementing Rules and Regulations of R.$. 0o. P1<9 states that 3the apprehending officerOteam having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same,3 the second sentence ma+es a distinction 'et.een .arrantless seizures and seizures 'y virtue of a .arrant, thusH (a) ) ) ) Provided, t$at t$e p$ sical inventor and p$otograp$ s$all be conducted at t$e place w$ere t$e searc$ warrant is served* or at t$e nearest police station or at t$e nearest office of t$e appre$ending officer+team, w$ic$ever is practicable, in case of warrantless sei)ures* Provided, further that non,compliance .ith these re7uirements under /ustifia'le grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved 'y the apprehending officerOteam, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. N6mphasis supplied? -hus, the venues of the physical inventory and photography of the seized items differ and depend on .hether the seizure .as made 'y virtue of a search .arrant or through a .arrantless seizure such as a 'uy,'ust operation. @n sei)ures covered b searc$ warrants, the physical inventory and photograph must 'e conducted in the place .here the search .arrant .as served. n the other hand, in case of warrantless sei)ures suc$ as a bu - bust operation, the physical inventory and photograph shall 'e conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officerOteam, .hichever is practica'le5 ho.ever, nothing prevents the apprehending officerOteam from immediately conducting the physical inventory and photography of the items at the place .here they .ere seized, as it is more in +eeping .ith the la.Qs intent of preserving their integrity and evidentiary value. =hat !ection 81 of R.$. 0o. P1<9 and its implementing rule do not e)pressly specify is the matter of 3mar+ing3 of the seized items in .arrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence su'/ected to inventory and photography .hen these activities are underta+en at the police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency .ith the 3chain of custody3 rule re7uires that the 3mar+ing3 of the seized items R to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence R should 'e done (1) in t$e presence of t$e appre$ended violator (8) immediatel upon confiscation. -his step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from du'ious and concocted searches, and of protecting as .ell the apprehending officers from harassment suits 'ased on planting of evidence under !ection 8PJ< and on allegations of ro''ery or theft.J; (or greater specificity, 3mar+ing3 means the placing 'y the apprehending officer or the poseur,'uyer of hisOher initials and signature on the itemOs seized. @f the physical inventory and photograph are made at the nearest police station or office as allo.ed 'y the rules,J: the inventory and photography of the seized items must 'e made in accordance .ith !ec. 8 of &oard Resolution 0o. 1, !eries of 8FF8,JP 'ut in every case, the apprehended violator or counsel must 'e present. $gain, this is in +eeping .ith the desired level of integrity that the handling process re7uires. -hereafter, the seized items shall 'e placed in an envelope or an evidence 'ag unless the type and 7uantity of the seized items re7uire a different type of handling andOor container. -he evidence 'ag or container shall accordingly 'e signed 'y the handling officer and turned over to the ne)t officer in the chain of custody. Conclusion -he evidentiary gap in identifying the specimen that the forensic la'oratory analyzed 'rings us 'ac+ to .here .e started in analyzing the case R to the presumption of innocence that the Constitution accords the appellant. -o reiterate, starting from this point, the prosecution must proceed to esta'lish the guilt of the accused 'y proof 'eyond reasona'le dou't. -o do this, the prosecution presented its lone .itness, !P 8 !evilla, .hom the lo.er court 'elieved 'ecause the .itness had testified 'efore the court 'efore. -hus, rather than loo+ at the merits of his testimony, the lo.er court simply considered his person and past performance, and decided on this 'asis that he .as a credi'le .itness. -his, 'y itself, is a ma/or error R a violation of due process R on the part of the lo.er court that the appellate court apparently did not fully appreciate. $ court must al.ays decide on the 'asis of the evidence presented, not on the 'asis of any other e)traneous consideration not 'efore the court.

88
-he court apparently 'an+ed also on the presumption of regularity in the performance that a police officer li+e !P 8 !evilla en/oys in the a'sence of any taint of irregularity and of ill motive that .ould induce him to falsify his testimony. $dmittedly, the defense did not adduce any evidence sho.ing that !P 8 !evilla had any motive to falsify. -he regularity of the performance of his duties, ho.ever, leaves much to 'e desired given the lapses in his handling of the allegedly confiscated drugs as heretofore sho.n. $n effect of this lapse, as .e held in 4opez v. People,IF is to negate the presumption that official duties have 'een regularly performed 'y the police officers. $ny taint of irregularity affects the .hole performance and should ma+e the presumption unavaila'le. -here can 'e no ifs and 'uts regarding this conse7uence considering the effect of the evidentiary presumption of regularity on the constitutional presumption of innocence. People v. !antosI1 instructively tells us that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot 'y itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof 'eyond reasona'le dou't.I8 @n People v. CaCete,IJ .e also saidH =hile the Court is mindful that the la. enforcers en/oy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to 'e presumed innocent and it cannot, 'y itself constitute proof of guilt 'eyond reasona'le dou't. -he presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot 'e used as 'asis for affirming accused,appellantQs conviction 'ecause 3(irst, the presumption is precisely /ust that R a mere presumption. nce challenged 'y evidence, as in this case, ))) Nit? cannot 'e regarded as 'inding truth. !econd, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthro.n 'y proof 'eyond reasona'le dou't.3 -he presumption also cannot prevail over positive averments concerning violations of the constitutional rights of the accused. @n short, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot 'y itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof 'eyond reasona'le dou't. =ithout the presumption of regularity, the evidentiary gap in identifying the seized evidence from its turnover 'y the poseur,'uyer, its handling and custody, until its turnover to the forensic la'oratory for analysis, stands out in 'old relief. -his gap renders the case for the prosecution less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused 'eyond reasona'le dou't. (rom the perspective of the defense, .e cannot help 'ut note that the evidence for the defense is far from strong5 the appellant merely denied that a 'uy,'ust operation too+ place and claimed that the evidence against him .as a planted evidence. @n this /urisdiction, the defense of denial or frame,up, li+e ali'i, has 'een vie.ed .ith disfavor for it can easily 'e concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the #angerous #rugs $ct.II 4i+e.ise, the testimony of the other defense .itness, 0ida, fails to fully corro'orate the appellantSs testimony due to inconsistencies in their respective statements. -hese .ea+nesses, ho.ever, do not add any strength nor can they help the prosecutionQs cause. @f the prosecution cannot esta'lish, in the first place, the appellantQs guilt 'eyond reasona'le dou't, the need for the defense to adduce evidence in its 'ehalf in fact never arises. -hus, ho.ever .ea+ the defense evidence might 'e, the prosecutionQs .hole case still falls. -o har+ 'ac+ to the .ell,entrenched dictum in criminal and constitution la.H the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its o.n .eight and cannot 'e allo.ed to dra. strength from the .ea+ness of the defense. -hus, .e return to the conclusion that .e should ac7uit the accused for failure of the prosecution R due the gap,induced .ea+nesses of its case R to prove the appellantQs guilt 'eyond reasona'le dou't. ,"-&-.O&-, in light of all the foregoing, the !eptem'er 11, 8FF< #ecision of the Court of $ppeals in C$,".R. CR,G.C. 0o. F1FP9 affirming the /udgment of conviction of the Regional -rial Court, &ranch 1FJ, Quezon City is here'y &-/-&S-0 and S-T 1S20-. $ppellant !alvador !anchez y 6spiritu is 1C342TT-0 on reasona'le dou't and is ordered immediately &-L-1S-0 from detention, unless he is confined for any other la.ful cause. -he #irector of the &ureau of Corrections is 02&-CT-0 to 2!PL-!-5T this #ecision and to report to this Court the action ta+en hereon .ithin five (9) days from receipt. SO O&0-&-0.