LATEST SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

IN CRIMINAL LAW

January 2016-September 2017

Contributed for Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS) by:

Polytechnic University of the Philippines

College of Law

______________________________________________
JANUARY2016

Ibanez vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No.190798, January 27, 2016
Perez, J.

Facts: Rodolfo, Ronald and his sons Emilio, Bobot, Boyet and David were neighbors in CAA, Las Pinas City.
At around 2 a.m. Rodolfo complained about the garbage at their premise which angered Emilio and
Boyet which leads the latter to throw rocks at Rodolfo and hit him twice in the head. Rodolfo went inside
his house to wash the blood and get a 2x2 wood but was attacked by a shovel by David. He was stabbed
in the abdomen by Boyet and Bobot which made him unconscious while David was rendering him
helpless. He woke up in the hospital and was later brought to PGH for the much-needed surgical
procedure. The prosecution presented the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by the Records Division of the
PGH showing that Rodolfo suffered multiple stab wounds in the abdomen and underwent medical
procedures.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are liable for the crime of frustrated homicide.

Ruling: The petitioners are liable for the crime of frustrated homicide.

1|Page
 The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as
manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s
but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for
murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present. In ascertaining whether
intent to kill exists, the Court considers the presence of the following factors: (1) the means used by the
malefactors; (2) the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of
the malefactors before, during, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances
under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused.

In the case at bar, intent to kill Rodolfo was evident in the manner in which he was attacked, by
the concerted actions of the accused, the weapon used and the nature of wounds sustained by Rodolfo.
The kind of weapon used for the attack, in this case, a knife and the vital parts of Rodolfo's body at which
he was undeniably stabbed demonstrated petitioners' intent to kill. The medico-legal certificate revealed
that Rodolfo sustained multiple stab wounds in the epigastrium, left upper quadrant of the abdomen
resulting to internal injuries in the transverse colon (serosal), mesentery and left kidney. Given these
injuries, Rodolfo would have succumbed to death if not for the emergency surgical intervention.
Therefore, the petitioners are liable for frustrated homicide.

FEBRUARY2016

Franco v People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 191185, February 01, 2016
Reyes, J.

Facts: On November 3, 2004 at around 11:00 a.m., Benjamin Joseph Nakamoto went to work out at the
Gym. Upon arrival, he then placed his cell phone worth P18,500.00 on the altar where gym users usually
put their valuables and proceeded to the comfort room to change his clothes. After ten minutes, he
returned to get his cell phone, but it was already missing. Arnie Rosario (Rosario), who was also working
out, informed him that he saw Franco got a cap and a cell phone from the altar. Nakamoto requested
everyone not to leave the gym, but upon verification from the logbook, he found out that Franco had left
within the time that he was in the shower. A report was received from another police officer that
somebody saw Franco along Coral Street, which is near the gym and that he was holding a cell phone. A
vendor at Coral Street told them that he saw a person who was holding a cell phone, which was then
ringing and that the person was trying to shut it off. They talked to Franco who denied having taken the
cell phone. Nakamoto then filed a complaint with the barangay but no settlement was arrived thereat;
hence, a criminal complaint for theft was filed against Franco.

Issue: Whether or not Franco is liable

Ruling: No, Franco is not liable for theft. In every criminal conviction, the prosecution is required to
prove two things beyond reasonable doubt: first, the fact of the commission of the crime charged, or the
presence of all the elements of the offense; and second, the fact that the accused was the perpetrator of
the crime. Under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the essential elements of the crime of theft are:
(1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking away was done

2|Page
with intent to gain; (4) the taking away was done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking
away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against person or force upon things.

Not all the facts on which the inference of guilt is based were proved. The matter of what and
whose cell phone Franco took from the altar still remains uncertain. The facts and circumstances proven
by the prosecution, taken together, are not sufficient to justify the unequivocal conclusion that Franco
feloniously took Nakamoto's cell phone. No other convincing evidence was presented by the prosecution
that would link him to the theft. The fact that Franco took a cell phone from the altar does not
necessarily point to the conclusion that it was Nakamoto's cell phone that he took. Not all of the
elements of theft are present at instant case which can convict Franco for the said crime.

People of the Philippines vs Padit

G.R. No. 202978, February 01, 2016
Peralta, J.

Facts: On May 5, 2006, the victim, AAA, a four-year-old girl, was called by accused-appellant Victor P.
Padit, who is their neighbor and the uncle of her mother. AAA was brought upstairs where she was lie
down and her short was removed. Accused-appellant also removed his short pants and proceeded to rub
his penis against AAA's vagina. AAA felt pain but was rendered helpless and prevented from making any
sound. AAA's mother came looking for her and when they are back at their house, AAA told her mother
about the incident that happened to her. AAA's parents then filed a complaint to the barangay and made
AAA undergo examination on May 8, 2006 where it was found that the child's vulva showed a slight
hymenal abrasion.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant is liable for rape.

Ruling: Yes, the accused-appellant is guilty of rape. The pertinent provisions of Articles 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that rape is committed: 1) By a man who shall have carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or
intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve
(12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
AAA, who was then four years old at the time of the molestation, was not expected to be
knowledgeable about sexual intercourse and every stage thereof. The fact that she claimed that accused-
appellant rubbed his penis against her vagina did not mean that there was no penetration. Carnal
knowledge is defined as the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman. This explains
why the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates the rape. As such, a mere touching of
the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act already constitutes
consummated rape.
In the present case, AAA testified that she felt pain when accused-appellant rubbed his penis
against her vagina and that she still felt severe pain in that area when she was being given a bath by her
mother after her molestation. Such kind of pain could not have been the result of mere superficial
rubbing of accused appellant's sex organ with that of the victim. Such pain could be nothing but the
result of penile penetration sufficient to constitute rape. Thus, these facts alone prove that there was
indeed a penetration of the accused’s penis on the victim’s vagina, thereby consummating the crime of
rape.

3|Page
People vs Enad
G.R. No. 205764, February 03, 2016
Peralta, J.

Facts: A buy-bust operation against appellant was conducted where P/Insp. Bañares acted as the poseur-
buyer, while P/Insp. Demauro acted as the back-up. P/Insp. Bañares approached the motorcycle and
introduced himself as a band member and told the habal-habal driver that he needs illegal drugs for
their performance. Appellant butted in the conversation and asked how much is needed. P/Insp.
Bañares pulled out from his right pocket the boodle money which was sandwiched between two (2) One
Hundred Peso bills P100.00 and gave it to appellant. In turn, appellant opened the bag with suspected
dried marijuana. After seeing the contents, P/Insp. Bañares took the bag and made the pre-arranged
signal that the transaction was already consummated. They introduced themselves as police officer,
recover the money, and arrested the appellant.

Issue: Whether or not the appellant is liable beyond reasonable doubt of the crime.

Ruling: Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 provides that the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs is
committed when all the following elements are proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti, as evidence. Since the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the
dangerous drugs itself, then proof beyond reasonable doubt that the seized item is the very same object
tested to be positive for dangerous drugs and presented in court as evidence is essential in every
criminal prosecution under R.A. 9165. To this end, the prosecution must establish the unbroken chain of
custody of the seized item.

The links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are as follows:
(1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the
court. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the first three
links in the chain of custody. The prosecution evidence failed to convincingly show who between P/Insp.
Bañares, as poseur-buyer, and P/Insp. Demauro, as back-up and arresting officer, marked the bag of
marijuana seized from appellant with the initials "LQE" dated "08-14-2005" at the PDEA Office. Anent
the second link in the chain of custody, there is no showing who between P/Insps. Bañares and Demauro
turned over to the investigating officer the drugs seized from appellant. With respect to the third link in
the chain of custody, there is likewise no indication as to the identity of the investigating officer who
then turned over the drugs to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination.

The instant case failed to(a) to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the bag of marijuana
seized from appellant, (b) to prove that the specimen found to be positive for marijuana upon laboratory
examination, was the same dangerous drugs seized from him, and (c) to proffer any justifiable ground for
the non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165. These flaws cast serious doubt on whether the
specimen found to be positive of marijuana upon laboratory examination was the same drugs seized
from appellant and offered in evidence before the trial court. With the failure of the prosecution to

4|Page
prove with moral certainty the identity and the unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drugs seized
from him, appellant deserves exoneration from the crime charged. therefore, the appellant is not liable
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

People vs Lagbo
G.R. No. 207535, February 10, 2016
Peralta, J.

Facts: In March 2001, Accused-appellant Ricardo Lagbo, the father of the victim, AAA who was 12 years
old at the time, was left alone with AAA at their house while all of the sudden he forcibly removed AAA's
shorts and panty then she was made to lie down. AAA was punched in the face and threatened by
accused-appellant that he will kill her mother and siblings. Thereafter, accused-appellant's sex organ
penetrated AAA's. AAA was not able to informe her mother of the incident in fear of the threats of her
father. On the following year, Accused-appellant committed again the incident to AAA but this time AAA
was able to mention the incident to her mother but she did not believe AAA. In February 2002, accused-
appellant committed again the incident to AAA for the third time. On April 3, 2003, AAA's mother filed a
complaint against accused-appellant for raping her daughter.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant is liable for qualified rape.

Ruling: Yes, accused-appellant Ricardo Lagbo is liable for qualified rape.

Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as (RPC) is committed by: (1)
By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:(a)
Through force, threat or intimidation;(b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise
unconscious; (c)By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; (d) When the offended
party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.

In this case, AAA's recollection of the heinous acts of her father was vivid and straightforward.
She was able to positively identify the accused-appellant as her sexual assailant. While there are minor
inconsistencies, her testimony was given in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and candid
manner. Thus, the accused is liable for the crime of rape.

People vs. Sapitula

G.R. No. 209212, February 10, 2016
Perez, J.

Facts: After the surveillance and a successful test-buy operation where a shabu worth P300.00 was
purchased from accused-appellant, PSI Gagaoin headed and organized a buy-bust team.PO3 Palabayas
poseur-buyer, had already been in communication via short message system (SMS) with accused-
appellant, Romel Sapitula y Paculan, regarding the amount of shabu to be purchased. In their agreed
location, PO3 approached accused-appellant who immediately handed to him a heat-sealed plastic
sachet containing a white crystalline substance. Accused-appellant then counted the money while PO3
Palabay placed the sachet in his pocket substance; and PO3 Palabay, in exchange, gave accused-appellant
the marked money. PO3 Palabaytook a photograph of accused-appellant as well as the area and the

5|Page
plastic sachet which he marked "AJP-1-11." He also made an inventory of the marked money and the
seized plastic sachet in the presence of the Barangay Captain and another witness. The accused-
appellant was brought to the police station thereafter. Then, he brought accused-appellant and the
seized items to the crime laboratory, received by PSI Antonio.[7] Chemistry Report No. D-030-2011
signed by PI Manuel as Forensic Chemist found the seized plastic sachet positive for the presence of
Methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Issue: 1.Whether or not the accused-appellant is liable under Republic Act. No. 9165.
2. Whether or not the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs was not
complied with.

Ruling: 1. Yes, accused-appellant, Romel Sapitula y Paculan, is liable under Republic Act. No. 9165. In
every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefor. In the case at bar, all elements for illegal sale were duly
established with accused-appellant having been caught inflagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-
bust operation conducted by the buy-bust team of PO3 Palabay. The delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust
transaction. Therefore, Romel Sapitula y Paculan is liable for selling shabu.

2. The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs was complied with. In
People v. Enriquez, the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are:
first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
In the case at bar, PO3 Palabay, the poseur buyer, positively testified that he placed in his pocket
the plastic sachet of shabu handed to him by accused-appellant. At the time of arrest, he photographed
accused-appellant, the area and the sachet of shabu, marked the same and conducted the inventory
before the Barangay Chairman and another witness. PO3 Palabay further testified that he brought
accused-appellant and the sachet of shabu to the police station, and there, executed affidavits of arrest
and of the poseur buyer and made a request for laboratory examination. PO3 Palabay then took
accused-appellant and the sachet of shabu to the crime laboratory and the latter was received by PSI
Antonio. Chemistry Report No. D-030-2011 signed by PI Manuel as Forensic Chemist and PSI Antonio as
Administering Officer confirmed that the sachet is positive for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride. And finally, in open court, PO3 Palabayo opened the envelope from the Forensic Chemist
and identified its contents as the same sachet of shabu he had purchased from accused-appellant.
Hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were duly preserved as the chain of
custody remained intact.

People vs. Roxas

6|Page
G.R. No. 218396, February 10, 2016
Perez, J.

Facts: Severino Manalo and Vicente were talking to each other when Nestor Roxas approached
Severino from behind and suddenly stabbed the latter thrice. Vicente testified that Severino was caught
off guard when he was stabbed by the accused-appellant. Immediately after Severino was stabbed, the
accused-appellant fled from the place of the incident. Vicente, together with some people, returned to
the crime scene where they found Severino sprawled on the ground already dead. Per the post mortem
examination on the victim's cadaver, the cause of death was massive hemorrhage secondary to multiple
stab wounds.

For his part, the accused-appellant invoked self-defense. In his version, Severino punched the
accused-appellant without warning, hitting him on the lower eyelid portion. Severino's answer was to
pull a knife and poke it at the accused-appellant. This prompted the accused-appellant to grab the knife
and while they grappled for its possession, both Severino and the accused-appellant fell and rolled on
the ground. It was only when he stood up that the accused-appellant noticed that he sustained stab
wounds on his left hand and saw Severino lying on the ground.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant is liable for murder

Ruling: Accused-appellant is liable for murder of Severino Manalo. Treachery exists when the offender
commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in its execution which
tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense
which the offended party might make. At this point, it bears to emphasize that the stabbing was not
preceded by any argument between the victim and the accused-appellant and that Severino was just
casually conversing with Vicente at that time. So, when the accused-appellant surreptitiously
approached the victim from behind, the latter had no inkling nor reason to believe that his life was in
danger and his defenses were down. Therefore, it is clear from the facts of the case that accused-
appellant is liable for murder with treachery as qualifying circumstance.

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty for the crime of murder
qualified by treachery is reclusion perpetua to death. Since there were no aggravating or mitigating
circumstances that attended the commission of the crime, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed
on the accused-appellant in accordance with Article 63, paragraph 2 of the same Code.

G.R. No. 170192, February 10, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARISSA BAYKER, Accused-Appellant

Facts: Caniazares testified that he and Dahab had met the accused-appellant at the house of a friend in
Makati City and she had then represented herself to be recruiting workers for overseas employment,
probably as hotel porters in Canada; he had gone to her residence in Pembo, Makati City to pay for his
medical examination, and she had then accompanied him to the Medical Center in Ermita, Manila for
that purpose; she had gone to his house to inform him that he would be deployed as a seaman instead
but that he had to pay P6,000.00 more; that he had paid the P6,000.00 to her, for which she had issued a
receipt; that two weeks thereafter, she had called him about his deployment; that on the promised date,

7|Page
he had gone to her office at GNB Marketing in Makati but no one was around; that he had then
proceeded to her house, and she had then told him that his seaman's application would not push
through; that the two of them had then proceeded to her office bringing all his certificates of
employment, and that it was there that she had introduced him to her manager, the accused Bermudez,
who promised his deployment in Hongkong within two weeks; that because he had not been deployed
as promised, he had gone to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), where he had
learned that the accused, Bermudez and Langreo, had not been issued the license to recruit and place
people overseas; and that he had then decided to charge them all with illegal recruitment and estafa.

Issue: Is the accused guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa?

Held: Yes. Illegal recruitment is committed by a person who: (a) undertakes any recruitment activity
defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 and Article 38 of
the Labor Code; and (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers. It is committed in large scale when it is committed against three or more persons
individually or as a group. The CA properly affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant by the RTC
for illegal recruitment committed in large scale because she had committed acts of recruitment against
at least three persons despite her not having been duly licensed or authorized by the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) for that purpose.

The conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal recruitment committed in large scale did not
preclude her personal liability for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code on the ground
of subjecting her to double jeopardy. The elements of estafa as charged are, namely: (1) the accused
defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party, or a third
party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. The active representation by the
accused-appellant of having the capacity to deploy Miparanum abroad despite not having the authority
or license to do so from the POEA constituted deceit as the first element of estafa. Her representation
induced the victim to part with his money, resulting in damage that is the second element of
the estafa. Considering that the damage resulted from the deceit, the CA's affirmance of her guilt
for estafa as charged was in order.

APRIL2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FUNDADOR CAMPOSANO

Apr 20, 2016
G.R. No. 207659
Del Castillo, J.

Doctrine: There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure
its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
make," "The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate,
and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or
escape.

8|Page
Facts: Composano was indicted for murder for stabbing the 16 year old minor Esmeraldo Ilao to death
on January 11, 2001. The prosecution presented six (6) witnesses all of them claimed that they saw
Composano together with Delos Reyes attacked Ilao with a dangerous weapon while the latter was
facing down. Appellant denied such allegations and interposed and appeal to the CA wherein they
contested (1) the weapon used in the victim (2) the position of the appellants when they inflicted mortal
stab wounds and (3) who between the appellants inflicted the stab wound. However, the CA upheld the
RTC and ruled that appellants killed Ilao with treachery.

Issues: Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by
treachery.

Held: Yes. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure
its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The
essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and
unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or
escape. Here, the evidence on record conclusively showed that the appellants assaulted and killed Ilao
while he was face down on the ground. Camposano took advantage of their victim's defenseless and
helpless position to inflict the fatal stab wounds, giving their victim no chance at all to retaliate or defend
himself.

JUNE2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHIILIPPINES v. DELIA MOLINA

June 1, 2016
G.R. No. 207811
Peralta, J.

Doctrine: Article 13, par. (b) of the Labor Code, reads as follows:

(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising and advertising
for employment locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which,
in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed
engaged in recruitment and placement.

Facts: Delia Molina, being authorized by the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit workers for
overseas employment, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit and promise
complainants Anthony Galiste, Romulo Nones, Elisa Escobar, Geraldine Cariño, Gilbert Rosimo, Eric
Valdez for overseas job placement in consideration of P 75,000 each. However, having failed to actually
deploy said complainants without any valid reason and without the latter’s fault, said accused failed to
reimburse the expenses incurred by the said private complainants to their damage and prejudice

9|Page
contrary to law. The RTC, on May 31, 2010, promulgated the Decision convicting accused-appellant in
Criminal Case No. 07-1399 for large scale illegal recruitment

Issues: Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of committing the crime of illegal recruitment in a
large scale

Held: Yes.All the elements of the crime of illegal recruitment-in large scale are present, namely:(1) the
offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in
recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the
meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13 (b) 6 of the Labor Code, or any of the
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. 8042); and (3)
the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. More
importantly, all the said elements have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, it is clear that Molina failed to actually deploy the complainants without any valid
reason and without the latter’s fault. Further, said accused also failed to reimburse the expenses
incurred by the said private complainants to their damage and prejudice contrary to law.

People of the Philippines vs. Daryl Polonio y Tuangcay

June 08, 2016
G.R. No. 211604
Leonardo-De Castro, J.

Doctrine: The crime of rape, defined under Article 266-A paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 8353,is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of
the three circumstances: (a) through force, threat or intimidation; (b) when the offended party is
deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; (c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse
of authority; and, (d) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. And penalized under Article 266-B by
reclusion perpetua or death.

Facts: On or about February 10, 2005atIlocos Sur, Polonio, have carnal knowledge of AAA, a 16year-old,
by means of force and intimidation and against the latter's will and consent. Polonio in squatting position
with his two hands raised, carrying AAA who was naked below the waist was saw by AAA’s uncle within
their backyard garden where the incident happened. AAA lost his consciousness when Polonio knocked
out by clubbing her thrice with a piece of wood and punching different parts of her body. When the
person noticed CCC's presence, he ran away and threw AAA over it upon reaching a fence. AAA was
brought to Hospital by his uncle for a medical treatment. The doctor and a nurse told that AAA had been
raped, sustained several injuries and the medical findings are consistent with the fact that the panties
used by the victim had blood stains. Taken together, the circumstances established beyond moral
certainty that AAA was ravished while she was deprived of consciousness and the accused was the one
culpable for defiling her.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A of
RPC?

10 | P a g e
Ruling: Yes. The accused is guilty as he admitted that he used force and violence against the victim AAA.
Force as an element of rape is that which is needed to overpower the' resistance of the offended party
and to consummate the offense. In this case, the three (3) blows to the head with a stick and several
blows using his fist that caused AAA's unconsciousness definitely enabled accused-appellant to carry out
his evil deed without any defense on the part of AAA. Further, it has been established that the accused
boxed AAA and when she fell, he sat on her stomach and boxed her again. It proved the element of rape
in the case at bar, namely: (a) through force, threat or intimidation; (b) when the offended party is
deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; (c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse
of authority; and, (d) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
Hence, a conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence which is indirect or presumptive
evidence that refers to a set of facts from which the existence of the allegation sought to be proved may
be inferred. The pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution constitute an unbroken chain of events
which clearly points to the accused as the guilty person.

People of the Philippines vs. Jay Gregorio Y Amar

June 08, 2016
G.R. No. 194235
Leonardo-De Castro, J.

Doctrine: The crime of kidnapping, defined under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659, is committed when any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or
in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
through the following circumstances: (a) If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five
days. (b) If it shall have been committed simulating public authority. (c) If any serious physical injuries
shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been
made. (d) If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer. The penalty
shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom
from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present
in the commission of the offense.

Facts: Between October 8 to 14, 2002 in Bulacan and Ilocos Norte, Jay with Rolando and Efren ,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with threats and intimidation, with the use
of illegal firearms did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, carry away and deprive
Jimmy Ting, male, of his liberty against his will for the purpose of extorting money as in fact a demand
for money in the amount of (P50,000,000.00) was made as a condition for his release that the ~mount of
(Pl,780,000.00) ransom money was actually paid.

Issues: (1) Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping for ransom
under Article 267 of RPC?
(2) Whether or not the accused should be punished with death penalty and be eligible for
parole?

Ruling: (1) Yes. The court ruled that there was conspiracy among all five accused-appellants, thus, they
should all be equally liable as principals for the crime of kidnapping for ransom. The appellate court
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on accused-appellants taking into account the enactment in
2006 of R.A. No. 9346. The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential

11 | P a g e
elements of the crime of kidnapping for ransom as embodied under Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code, giving weight and credence to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies having been sufficiently
proven, and the appellants, being private individuals, having been clearly identified by the kidnap victim,
this Court affirms the finding of appellants' guilt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom. The law is indeed
hard, but even in the case of the herein five (5) accused who are not that hardened but even seemingly
amateurish in perpetrating their crime without unnecessary maltreatment to their victim, it is still the
law on kidnapping for ransom. Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as well as its amending Republic Act
No, 7659, provides, that, "The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed
for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person". The kidnappers found guilty as
principal cannot avoid the imposition of this supreme penalty.

(2) Yes. The elements of kidnapping, since accused-appellants' guilt for the crime of kidnapping for
ransom had been established beyond reasonable doubt, they should be meted the penalty of death
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. However, Republic Act No. 934635 already
prohibited the imposition of the death penalty. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly sentenced
accused-appellants to reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, without eligibility for parole. The accused
having been convicted offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences were reduced to
reclusion perpetua by reason of Republic Act No. 9346 enacted on June 24, 2006, amending Republic Act
No. 7659 dated January 1, 2004 punished with death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is
disqualified to parole.

People of the Philippines vs. Ronald Gabuya y Bacalan

June 08, 2016
G.R. No. 209038
Del Castillo, J.

Doctrine: The crime of robbery with rape is defined and penalized in Article 294, paragraph 1 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), and sentencing them to death. It is committed by any person who, with intent
to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of
any person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery. When robbery is accompanied by
rape, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Although the trial court imposed the death penalty, the
CA correctly modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, pursuant to RA
9346.

Facts: On or about March 18 2002, at 12:20am in Cebu City, Gabuya, armed with a knife, conniving and
confederating together and mutually helping each other, poked said knife at one "AAA" and announced a
"hold-up" with deliberate intent, with violence and intimidation upon person, took turns in divesting her
bag, with its contents such as wristwatch, one casio calculator; cash money and coin purse with a total
value of P2,965.00 from the possession of and belonging to said "AAA" while the latter was walking
along Visitacion St., a public highway against her will, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the
amount aforestated, and on the occasion thereof, dragged said victim to a vacant lot and then there take
turns in having sexual intercourse with said victim while the other accused held her shoulders, without
the consent and against the will of the complainant.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape under Article
294 of RPC?

12 | P a g e
Ruling: Yes. The court gave judgment finding both Gabuya and Giron guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of robbery with rape as defined and penalized under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the RPC. This
judgment was based on the positive identification by the victim "AAA" and the corroborating medical
examination conducted on her. The arresting officers were able to seize from them the calculator owned
by the victim and the two fifty-peso bills which is the amount left of the P480.00 cash money taken from
her. It is established in evidence that there was forceful penile penetration as shown by the medical
certificate and presence of spermatozoa. The abrasions and hematoma found in the body of the victim
are consistent with the struggle put up by the rape victim, as evidence of rape abound. Physical
resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she
submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for life and personal safety. Moreover,
the Supreme Court has ruled that due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft of witnesses,
and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself. Thus, in the resolution of rape cases, the
victim's credibility becomes the primordial consideration. Indeed, the State in this case had satisfactorily
established the following essential elements of that felony: "a) the taking of personal property is
committed with violence or intimidation against persons; b) the property taken belongs to another; c)
the taking is done with animolucrandi, and d) the robbery is accompanied by rape.

Virginia Jabalde Y Jamandron vs. People of the Philippines

June 15, 2016
G.R. No. 195224
Reyes, J.

Doctrine: The mitigating circumstances defined in Chapter 3, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code are
those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal
liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty. One single fact cannot be made the basis of more than one
mitigating circumstance. Hence, a mitigating circumstance arising from a single fact, absorbs all the other
mitigating circumstances arising from the same fact. It is based on the diminution of either freedom of
action, intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender. Under paragraph 6, Passion and
Obfuscation laid down its elements whereas follows: (a) The accused acted upon an impulse (b) The
impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation. However, it is not
mitigating when committed: (a) In the spirit of lawlessness (b) In the spirit of revenge. And it cannot co-
exist with (a) Vindication of grave offense
(b) Treachery.

Facts: On December 13, 2000 at 9:00amin Negros Oriental, Lin Bitoon, 8 years of age, Grade 1 pupil of
Cawitan Elementary School, while playing "langit lupa" with other classmates, touched the shoulder of
Nova, Jabalde's daughter, causing the latter to fall down and wounding her head. One of Bitoon’s
classmates called Jabalde. Soon thereafter, Jabalde arrived, slapped and striked Bitoon, her grandchild,
hitting Bitoon on the latter's nape; and immediately thereafter, choke the Bitoon causing the latter to
sustain the following injuries: Abrasions: 2, linear 1 cm in length at the base of the right mandibular area;
1, linear 1 inch at the right lateral neck; 2, linear 1 cm in length at the anterior neck; and 4, minute
circular at the left lateral neck, which acts of said accused caused the said offended party not only
physical but also emotional harm prejudicial to his development.

13 | P a g e
Issue: Whether or not Jabalde is entitled to the aforementioned mitigating circumstances in his favor?

Ruling: Yes, in imposing the correct penalty, the Court has to consider the mitigating circumstance of
passion or obfuscation under Article 13(6) of the RPC, because, Jabalde lost his reason and self-control,
thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power. There is passion obfuscation when the crime was
committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due
to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. For passion and obfuscation to be
considered a mitigating circumstance, it must be shown that: (1) an unlawful act sufficient to produce
passion and obfuscation was committed by the intended victim; (2) the crime was committed within a
reasonable length of time from the commission of the unlawful act that produced the obfuscation in the
accused's mind; and (3) the passion and obfuscation arose from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit
of lawlessness or revenge. With her having acted under the belief that Lin had killed her daughter,
Jabalde is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.

People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio A. Quim

June 15, 2016
G.R. No. 213919
Carpio, J.

Doctrine: In drug-related prosecutions, the State should not only establish all the elements of the sale
and possession of shabu under RA 9165, but also prove the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, to
discharge its overall duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The illegal drug
itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital for the conviction of
the accused.

Facts: PO2 Repompo, the lone witness for the prosecution, testified that after a report confirmed
appellant as selling shabu, the police officers applied for a search warrant which was granted. A team
was then formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. The civilian asset who acted as poseur buyer
approached appellant. The police officers who composed the buy-bust team were positioned about 10
to 15 meters from where the transaction occurred. The poseur buyer then handed the P100 marked
money to appellant who gave the poseur buyer one packet of shabu. The police team then arrested
appellant and they were able to recover from appellant P290, including the P100 marked money.

Appellant, despite denial of selling the shabu or that the drug transaction happened, was
convicted based on the sole testimony of PO2 Repompo who testified that he was 10 to 15 meters away
from the alleged transaction. Moreover, PO2 Repompo omitted to testify to whom the poseur buyer
handed the shabu which was allegedly bought from appellant during the buy-bust operation.

Issue: Whether or not the appellant is guilty of sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu"
under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

Ruling: No. Even if PO2 Repompo did see clearly the alleged transaction, still the substantial gaps in the
chain of custody of the seized illegal drug raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in
court.
In drug-related prosecutions, the State should not only establish all the elements of the sale and
possession of shabu under RA 9165, but should also prove the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, to

14 | P a g e
discharge its overall duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The illegal drug
itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital for the conviction of
the accused.

To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved, the chain of
custody rule requires the prosecution to be able to account for each link in the chain of custody of the
dangerous drug, from the moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was presented in
court. Testimony must be presented on every link in the chain of custody, from the moment the
dangerous drug was seized up to the time it is offered in evidence. After testifying about the poseur
buyer buying the shabu from appellant, PO2 Repompo no longer mentioned the succeeding actions of
the poseur buyer, particularly to whom the poseur buyer gave the shabu for custody. The only conclusion
from this omission is that PO2 Repompo did not witness the subsequent acts of the poseur buyer,
especially with regard to the custody of the shabu.

Ariel Lopez v. People of the Philippines

June 29, 2016
G.R. No. 212186
Leonen, J.

Doctrine: To sustain a conviction for cattle-rustling, the identity of the stolen cattle must be proven with
certainty. Otherwise, the accused must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Facts: Ariel Lopez, the petitioner, was charged with the violation of Presidential Decree No. 533 when
Spouses Mario and Teresita Perez alleged that the petitioner stole their carabao. Such allegations were
supported when Prosecution witness Felix Alderete testified that he worked as an errand boy for Lopez
and that the latter instructed him to bring the carabao to the petitioner’s boss Boy Platan which was
then delivered to Davao City. On the other hand, the petitioner denied stealing the carabao and knowing
Alderete.

The trial court found Lopez guilty of cattle-rustling. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals
arguing that the prosecution was unable to prove that the carabao allegedly stolen was the same
carabao owned by the Spouses Perez. However, the CA affirmed the trial court’s decision but modified
the penalty imposed. Hence, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court
reiterating the arguments raised in his appeal before the CA.

Issue:Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of P.D. No. 533 or the
Anti-Cattle Rustling Act of 1974.

Ruling: No, the prosecution failed to prove one of the elements of cattle-rustling, specifically, that the
lost carabao of Mario and Teresita Perez is the same carabao allegedly stolen by petitioner.

The elements of cattle-rustling are: (1) large cattle is taken; (2) it belongs to another; (3) the
taking is done without the consent of the owner or raiser; (4) the taking is done by any means, method
or scheme; (5) the taking is done with or without intent to gain; and (6) the taking is accomplished with
or without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things.

15 | P a g e
 In this case, not all of the elements of cattle-rustling were proven by the prosecution. The
carabao transported by petitioner and Alderete was not sufficiently proven to be the same carabao
owned by Mario and Teresita Perez.

JULY 2016

People of the Philippines Vs. MaritessCayas Y Calitis

July 04, 2016
G.R. No. 206888
BRION, J.

Doctrine: In this jurisdiction, the defense of denial and frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with
disfavor for it can be easily concocted and is a common defense ploy in drug cases. These weaknesses,
however, do not add any strength nor can they help the prosecution's case because the evidence for the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight

Facts: Cayas was formally charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs in two (2) separate
information. She pleaded not guilty to both charges. Cayas was caught in a buy-bust operation handling
and selling 2 sachets containing shabu.
Cayas narrated a different version of the events. She denied that she was caught in a buy-bust
operation and claimed that she was about to step out from their house to buy her daughter biscuits a
policeman grabbed her hand. Another policeman then asked Cayas the whereabouts of her husband.
Cayas replied that her husband was out at sea. The police officers then showed her two plastic sachets,
told her that they contained shabu, and asked for P200.00. Cayas replied that she did not know what
they were talking about but pulled out P2.00 from her pocket. No marked money and drugs was found in
her.
The trial court found Cayas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and possession of
shabu. The CA found no reason to disturb the findings of fact of the trial court

Issue: (1) Whether or not there had been a buy-bust operation where Cayas was caught red-handed
selling prohibited drugs.
(2) Whether or not petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of R.A. No. 9165 or
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

Ruling: (1) No. The defense evidence must likewise be so regarded without being hobbled by the
presumption of regularity. From the perspective of the defense, we cannot but note that the evidence
for the defense is not strong as Cayas merely claimed that she was framed, and implied that the plastic
sachets confiscated from her were planted.
(2) The conditions set by Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 were not met in the
present case. In People v. Kamad, we recognized the following links that must be established to ensure
the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug should there be no strict
compliance with the procedure provided in Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165: first, the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory

16 | P a g e
examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court.
The procedural lapses in the handling and identification of the seized drugs, as well as the
unexplained discrepancy in the marking, collectively raise doubts on whether the items presented in
court were the exact same items that were taken from Cayas when she was arrested. These constitute
major lapses that, standing unexplained, are fatal to the prosecution's case.

People of the Philippines Vs. Steve Siaton Y Bate

July 04, 2016
G.R. No. 208353
Perez, J.

Doctrine: In prosecutions for illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.

Facts: Siaton, the appellant, was charged and convicted by the lower courts for selling shabu, in violation
of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. He was
caught in a buy-bust operation selling to the police officer acting as the poseur-buyer a small pack of
shabu.
For the defense, appellant denied that he was caught in a buy-bust operation and claimed that
he was playing a computer game at the store of his aunt when a chubby and curly haired person
approached him asking where he could obtain shabu. The unknown person asked him where he could
obtain shabu. Appellant replied that he did not know. Said person briefly left him and entered a house
about 100 meters away from the store of his aunt. While he was still playing, the unknown person came
back, sat beside him and asked him what game he was playing. Three more unknown persons, who
turned out policemen, arrived. The policemen forced him to go with them.
The trial court found appellant guilty of the offense charged. Aggrieved, appellant sought the
reversal of the decision. The CA affirmed the judgment of conviction of the trial court.

Issue: Whether or not the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 of R.A.
9165 or the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs

Ruling: No. For a prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs to prosper, the following elements must
be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and to sustain a
conviction, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be shown to have been preserved. This
requirement necessarily arises from the "illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not
readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or
otherwise." In drugs cases, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond
reasonable doubt. The mere fact of unauthorized possession or sale is not sufficient to sustain a finding
of guilt. The fact that the substance said to be illegally sold is the very same substance offered in court as
exhibit must be established. The chain of custody requirement performs this function.
In the case at bar, the court found several glaring gaps in the chain of custody. The prosecution
failed to establish an important element of the offense, which is the identity of the object.

17 | P a g e
People of the Philippines v. Gabby Concepcion y Nimenda and Toto Morales
July 4, 2016
G.R. No. 212206
Perez, J.

Doctrine: There is treachery when the means used by the accused-appellants to insure the execution of
the killing of the victims, so as to afford the victims no opportunity to defend themselves.

Facts: Accused-Appellants were charged with the crime of murder when they willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault, shoot and stab one Jessie Asis, hitting the victim on the different parts of his
body, thereby caused his immediate death. On their defense, appellants denied the crime and claimed
that they do not know the victim.
Trial ensued and the RTC rendered a decision finding the Appellants guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of crime of murder. The trial court found that the killing was attended by treachery and that
appellants conspired to kill the victim. Aggrieved, appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals which
affirmed the RTC’s decision. Hence, the matter is now elevated to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.

Ruling: The Supreme Court see no reason to grant the appeal. Both lower courts correctly found
appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
The attending circumstance of treachery was likewise properly appreciated. Treachery is present
when the following conditions are present: (1) the employment of such means of execution that gave
the one attacked no opportunity to defend oneself or to retaliate and (2) deliberate or conscious
adoption of the means of execution. In People v. Osianas, we held there is treachery when "the means
used by the accused-appellants to insure the execution of the killing of the victims, so as to afford the
victims no opportunity to defend themselves was the tying of the hands of the victims."
In this case, it was correctly pointed out by the trial court that the fact that "the arms of the
[victim] were held he was stabbed in the back by accused Toto Morales is enough to qualify the killing to
murder."Further, the Court of Appeals added that "appellants' attack and their co-accused came without
warning and without the slightest provocation from the victim."
Hence, decision of the CA was affirmed with modifications by the Supreme Court

People of the Philippines Vs. Beltran Fuentes Jr.

July 04, 2016, G.R. No. 212337
Perez, J.

Doctrine: Even absent any actual force or intimidation, rape may be committed if the malefactor has
moral ascendancy over the victim. We emphasized that in rape committed by a close kin, such as the
victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, moral influence or
ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation

18 | P a g e
Facts: Appellant Fuentes was convicted for the crime of rape. AAA, a fourteen-years old, was defecating
under a gmelina tree then suddenly appellant appeared and grabbed her from behind. AAA struggled
when he started to kiss her, but she was overpowered by appellant. After managing to strip his and
AAA's pants and underwear, appellant mounted AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. She
immediately told her parents about her ordeal and went to the police station to report the rape incident.
Thereafter, AAA underwent a medical examination where she was found to have lacerations in her
hymen and her underwear had blood-stained secretions.
Appellant claimed that on the alleged date of the crime, he was doing carpentry work in the
house of the parents of AAA. After work, appellant rested for a while in their house. He heard a certain
Gina Becang calling for him and accusing him of molesting AAA. He first went directly to the store of
AAA' s parents and told AAA not to make accusations. He then went to the house of his parents-in-law
where he was arrested.
AAA filed an Affidavit of Desistance. The trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of rape. Appellant filed a motion for new trial invoking AAA's retraction. The trial court denied the
motion. Hence, this appeal.

Issue: (1) Whether or not the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
(2) Whether or not the affidavit of desistance executed by the complainant reliable.

Ruling: (1) Yes. Based on the testimony of AAA, there was carnal knowledge between her and appellant.
This was further corroborated by medical findings which showed vaginal lacerations. It was further
stipulated during pre-trial that the appellant is AAA's uncle by affinity and that she was fourteen years
old at the time of the rape incident. It was ruled in People v. Ofemiano that "even absent any actual force
or intimidation, rape may be committed if the malefactor has moral ascendancy over the victim. We
emphasized that in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the
common-law spouse of her mother, moral influence or ascendancy substitutes for violence or
intimidation."
The prosecution was able to show evidence that all the circumstances necessary to convict
appellant under the above provisions were present in the case. The appellant is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

(2) No. Jurisprudence has invariably regarded such affidavit as exceedingly unreliable, because it
can easily be secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary
consideration. Moreover, there is always the probability that it would later on be repudiated, and
criminal prosecution would thus be interminable.The Court finds the Affidavit of Desistance executed by
AAA is highly suspect.The document was a product of compulsion and influence on the part of
appellant's wife to force AAA to sign the document.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESvs.RODRIGO QUITOLA y BALMONTE

July 13, 2016, GR NO.200537
PEREZ, J

DOCTRINE: Rule 133, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that an extra-judicial confession shall not
be a sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. In the case at
bar, the confession made by accused-appellant was corroborated by other evidence. While there was no
prosecution witness who positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant, his culpability was
nonetheless proven through circumstantial evidence.

19 | P a g e
 To warrant a conviction for Robbery with Homicide, the prosecution must prove the confluence
of the following elements:
(1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person;

(2) the property thus taken belongs to another;

(3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and

(4) on occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in a generic
sense, was committed

FACTS: Quitola is an outgoing security guard of the cumpound where the victim lives. On the night
before the victim was found dead in her rented room, someone saw Quitola that his arms were covered
and that he boarded on a black car which was said to be of the victims. After investigation, Quitola was
apprehended and detained. He was interviewed by a reporter in which he admitted the crime. The Trial
court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt due to his statements with the reporter being an
extrajudicial confession. The Court f Appeals by appeal of accused uphold RTC decision and dismissed
appeal of accused.

ISSUE: (1) Whether or not CA erred in admitting as evidence the extrajudicial confession of accused
(2) Whether or not CA erred in proving that accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING: (1) NO. The court agrees that extra-judicial confession given by accused-appellant during the
interview conducted by the field reporter is admissible in evidence. It has been consistently held that the
Bill of Rights does not concern itself with relations between private individuals. The prohibitions therein
are primarily addressed to the State and its agents; thus, accused appellant's confession to field reporter
Tacason is not covered by Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution.

(2) No. To warrant a conviction for Robbery with Homicide, the prosecution must prove the
confluence of the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or
intimidation against a person; (2) the property thus taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is
characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) on occasion of the robbery or by reason
thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in a generic sense, was committed.

In proving Robbery with Homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be established
conclusively as any other essential element of the crime. In the instant case, the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses, the extra-judicial confession of accused-appellant and the Investigation Report of
Urdaneta City Police Station support the charge of the component offense of Robbery. It should also be
noted that in Robbery with Homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit
robbery; thus, the intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. In previous cases,
this Court had occasion to explain that intent to rob is an internal act but it may be inferred from proof
of violent unlawful taking of personal property, and when the fact of asportation has been established
beyond reasonable doubt, conviction is justified even if the subject property is not presented in court.
"After all, the property stolen may have already been abandoned, thrown away or destroyed by the
robber.”Considering that the motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount or value
involved, the prosecution is not expected to prove the actual value of the property stolen. More

20 | P a g e
importantly, accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession glaringly reveals his intention to rob the
deceased.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DARIUS RENIEDO Y CAUILAN

July 13, 2016, GR NO.206927
PEREZ, J.

DOCTRINE: The chain-of-custody rule is a method of authenticating evidence, by which the corpus delicti
presented in court is shown to be one and the same as that which was retrieved from the accused or
from the crime scene.

The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs embodied in Section 21 of R.A. 9161 also
ensures the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized. The provision requires that upon seizure of
the illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall:

(a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and

(b) take photographs thereof

(c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or confiscated and

(d) a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official

(e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.

The Court has emphasized the import of Section 21 as a matter of substantive law that mandates strict
compliance. The Congress laid it down as a safety precaution against potential abuses by law
enforcement agents who might fail to appreciate the gravity of the penalties faced by those suspected to
be involved in the sale, use or possession of illegal drugs. Under the principle that penal laws are strictly
construed against the government, stringent compliance therewith is fully justified.

FACTS: A buy bust operation was conducted by PO1 Antazo and his team with approval from his police
chief based on reliable information from an informant that there are drug transactions ongoing the area.
PO1 Antazo acted as the designated poseur and was given two (2) Fifty Peso (P50.00)-bills as buy-bust
money, both marked with "x" at the dorsal portion. He approached the accused and when transaction
was done he scratched his head as a signal to apprehend accused. Accused was brought to the police
station and PO1 Antazo prepared to take custody of the drugs. According to the accused, they were
extorted money but when they were not able to give money, the inquest proceeding took place. The RTC
found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as prosecution through the lone testimony of PO1
Anatzo was able to establish the concurrence of all the elements of illegal sale and possession of
dangerous drugs. On appeal the petitioner contested that there were gaps on the chain of custody but
CA said that the authorities have complied to what the law states.

ISSUE: Whether or not there were gaps on the chain of custody.

RULING: Yes. After due consideration, the Court resolves to acquit appellant on the ground of reasonable
doubt. The RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider the break in the chain of custody of the
seized drugs and the serious infirmity of the buy-bust team's non-observance of the rules of procedure

21 | P a g e
for handling illegal drug items. The chain-of-custody rule is a method of authenticating evidence, by
which the corpus delicti presented in court is shown to be one and the same as that which was retrieved
from the accused or from the crime scene.

The substantial evidentiary gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs put into question the
reliability and evidentiary value of their contents - whether these drugs are the same ones brought to
the laboratory for examination, found positive for shabu and then presented before the RTC. The Court
of Appeals thus gravely erred in ruling that there was an unbroken chain of custody simply because the
illegal drugs have been marked, sent to the crime laboratory for analysis, and found positive for shabu,
despite the fact that the integrity of the confiscated items throughout the entire process had never been
established.

The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs embodied in Section 21 of R.A. 9161 also
ensures the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized. The provision requires that upon seizure of
the illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall:

(a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and

(b) take photographs thereof

(c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or confiscated and

(d) a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official

(e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.

The Court has emphasized the import of Section 21 as a matter of substantive law that mandates strict
compliance. The Congress laid it down as a safety precaution against potential abuses by law
enforcement agents who might fail to appreciate the gravity of the penalties faced by those suspected to
be involved in the sale, use or possession of illegal drugs. Under the principle that penal laws are strictly
construed against the government, stringent compliance therewith is fully justified.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESVS. JONATHAN ARCILLO

July 13, 2016, GR NO.211028
PONENTE:PEREZ, J

DOCTRINE: In rape cases failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape and the victim's lack
of resistance especially when intimidated by the offender into submission does not signify voluntariness
or consent. Moreover, delay in reporting rape incidents, in the face of threats of physical violence,
cannot be taken against the victim because delay in reporting an incident of rape is not an indication of a
fabricated charge and does not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant.

FACTS: AAA, 14 years old, was told by his grandfather to gather feeds for the pigs. AAA was near the
accused’s house when she was forcefully taken inside the house and was raped. After the act, AAA went
back to their house wherein her grandfather noticed her that she looks weak. Her aunt came in and
confessed that the accused raped her. AAA’s mother went to the police and filed criminal charges. The
accused denies the charges filed against him. On trial, the court found the accused guilty beyond

22 | P a g e
reasonable doubt based on the positive assertion of AAA is more credible than the denial of appellant.
The Court of appeals on the other had modified the damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape.

RULING: YES. The appeal is dismissed. The RTC found AAA's testimony to be credible and noted that it
was positive, direct and straightforward. The Court of Appeals agreed that AAA's testimony was
straightforward and categorical.

For a charge of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) to prosper, the prosecution
must prove that:

(1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and

(2) he accomplished such act through force, threat or intimidation, when she was deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.[14]

The prosecution in the present case positively established the elements of rape required under
Article 266-A of the RPC. First, the appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim. AAA was positive and
categorical in asserting that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. Her testimony was corroborated
by the medical evaluation which is suggestive of sexual abuse. Second, appellant employed threat and
force. Fie used a long blade to threaten AAA to submit to his desire.
At the time of the rape incident, AAA was only 14 years old. However, the qualifying
circumstance of relationship was not proven. Thus, appellant was correctly convicted of the crime of
simple rape. Both courts correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESVS.ALVIN CENIDO y PICONES and REMEDIOS CONTRERAS y CRUZ

July 18, 2016, GR NO.210801
PONENTE:PERLAS-BERNABE, J

DOCTRINE: The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability
as well as his civil liability ex delicto. Consequently, Remedios's death on March 7, 2014 renders the
Court's July 7, 2014 Resolution irrelevant and ineffectual as to her, and is therefore set aside. Accordingly,
the criminal case against Remedios is dismissed.

FACTS: Remedios was convicted for sale of illegal drugs. While the Supreme Court was hearing her
motion for reconsideration for her appeal on the decision to uphold the RTC and CA decisions, the Court
received a letter from the Correctional Institution for Women informing the Court informing Remedios’s
death.

ISSUE: Whether or not the death of a person extinguishes criminal liability.

RULING: YES. As Remedios's death transpired before the promulgation of the Court's July 7, 2014
Resolution in this case, i.e., when her appeal before the Court was still pending resolution, her criminal
liability is totally extinguished in view of the provisions of Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code which
states:
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. – Criminal liability is totally extinguished:

23 | P a g e
 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People of the Philippines

July 19, 2016, G.R. No. 220598
Bersamin, J.

Doctrine: In order to convict the offender under RA 7080, the identification of the main plunderer sought
to be prosecuted as an element of the crime of plunder.Such identification of the main plunderer was not
only necessary because the law required such identification, but also because it was essential in
safeguarding the rights of all of the accused to be properly informed of the charges they were being
made answerable for.

Facts: That during the period from January 2008 to June 2010 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto
xxx accused Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the then President of the Philippines xxx Benigno Aguas, then
PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager, all public officers committing the offense in relation to their
respective offices and taking undue advantage of their respective official positions, authority,
relationships, connections or influence, conniving, conspiring and confederating with one another, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate and/or acquire, directly or
indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of PHP365,997,915.00, more or less,
[by raiding the public treasury]. That On July 10, 2012, the Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan
former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager Aguas (and
some other officials of PCSO and Commission on Audit whose charges were later dismissed by the
Sandiganbayan after their respective demurrers to evidence were granted, except for Uriarte and Valdes
who were at large) for conspiracy to commit plunder, as defined by, and penalized under Section 2 (b) of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.

Issue:Whether or not the prosecution sufficiently established the elements of RA 7080 to convict Aroyo
and Aguas and whether they conspire to do the crime.

Ruling: No, in this case the court ruled that the prosecution did not sufficiently proved that a conspiracy
between Arroyo and Aguas for the commission of the crime. Furthermore, the prosecution failed
to properly allege the main plunderer in this case. Then, there was no proof of amassing, or
accumulating, or acquiring ill-gotten wealth of at least Php50 Million was adduced against GMA
and Aguas. Finally, The Prosecution failed to prove the predicate act of raiding the public
treasury (under Section 2 (b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended). Therefore, the court
annuls and set aside the decision rendered in connection the criminal case.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff -Appellee, vs ARDO BACERO y CASABON, Accused-Appellant.

July 20, 2016, G.R. No. 208527
PEREZ, J

Doctrine:When the killing is committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, the qualifying
circumstances attendant to the killing would be considered as generic aggravating circumstances. Thus,
the circumstance of abuse of superior strength serves to aggravate the crime.

24 | P a g e
Facts: That on or about the 24 th day of March, 2003, in the Municipality of Taytay, Province of Rizal,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, in conspiracy
with @Victor Bisaya, @Rodel, @Rommel, @John Doe, @Peter Doe[,] whose true identities and
whereabouts are still unknown, with the use of deadly bladed weapons, with intent to gain and by
means or force, violence and intimidation, did then and th.ere wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob,
take and divest one Virgilio San Juan[, Jr.] y Molina @Jun of his Nokia 3310 cellphone valued at
Php4,500.00 and one Juliet Bunot y Dumdum of her Smart Buddy 3388 model cellphone valued at
[P]2,400.00 and cash money amounting to [P]70.00, to the damage and prejudice of both offended
parties in the total amount of Php6,970.00; that by reason and on the occasion of the robbery, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill, and by means of the qualifying aggravating circumstances of
treachery, evident premeditation and superior strength, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and stab with said deadly bladed weapons, said Virgilio San Juan[, Jr.] y Molina
@Jun, hitting him on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the victim mortal stabbed
wounds which directly caused his death.

Issue: (1) Whether or not the trial court and the CA committed error in convicting the accused-appellant
in this instant case with Robbery with Homicide.
(2) Whether or not the trial court and CA properly appreciate the aggravating circumstance of
abuse of superior strength in this instant case.

Ruling: (1) The trial and appellate courts committed no error in convicting the accused-appellant of
Robbery with Homicide Section 9, Article 294, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
R.A. No. 7659, reads:" Art. 294 - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or
intimidation of any person shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or
on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall
have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
In proving Robbery with Homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be established
conclusively as any other essential element of the crime.

(2) The trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is considered whenever there is
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor that is plainly and obviously
advantageous to the aggressor and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the
commission of the crime. It is taken into account whenever the aggressor purposely used excessive force
that is out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The felonious acts of
accused-appellant and the other malefactors of robbing and killing the victim were clearly executed with
abuse of superior strength. Their combined force and physical strength overwhelmed the victim and left
him defenseless. Accused-appellant struck with his knife the unarmed victim. The multiple stab wounds
sustained by the victim indisputably show that the group of accused-appellant took advantage of their
superior strength to perpetrate the crime.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DONNA RIVERA y DUMO

July 20, 2016, G.R. No. 208837
PEREZ, J.

Doctrine: In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently
proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery

25 | P a g e
of the thing sold and the payment therefor. On the other hand, to prove the complicity of the accused to
illegal possession of a dangerous drug, there must be proof that (1) the accused was in possession of an
item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by
law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.

Facts:Acting on a tip from an informant, that appellant was selling drugs in San Nicolas Central, Agoo, La
Union and upon confirmation with the PDEA Regional Office in San Fernando City, La Union, formed a
buy-bust team. The team proceeded to the target area, The informant introduced the police officer to
appellant as the one who wanted to buy shabu worth P500. Thereafter, the officer gave the appellant
the marked money and on his behalf the appellant took out an elongated plastic sachet from her pocket
and handed it over. Then, the buy-bust team introduced themselves and arrested and subjected the
appellant to body search.

Issue:Whether or not the trial court as well as the CA properly convicted the appellant in violation of RA
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Ruling: Yes, the Court in this case affirmed the decisions rendered by the trial court and CA, for the
prosecution established the elements of RA 9165 (both the illegal sale of shabu and illegal possession of
a dangerous drug). Without hesitation, the said appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and his
appeal was dismissed.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VICENTE R. SALVADOR,

July 20, 2016, G.R. No. 217381
REYES, J

Doctrine: Rape is qualified when paragraph d of Article 266-A of the RPC is present. However, the
relationship of the offender and the victim shall be taken into consideration. In this instant case, the
offender is the common-law husband of the victim such relationship or circumstance shall not qualify
the rape but only a simple one.

Facts: On December 13, 2003, while AAA was alone in their house, Salvador poked an ice pick in AAA's
belly and told her not to make any noise. Salvador then ordered AAA to lie down. AAA resisted but was
overpowered by Salvador. Salvador then removed AAA's underwear, placed himself on top of AAA, and
inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina. After having carnal knowledge of AAA, Salvador stood up, warned
her against informing anyone of what he did, and went outside. AAA was pregnant at the time of the
incident. Prior to December 13, 2003, Salvador had raped her several times. Two days after the incident,
AAA gave birth to a boy. It was founded that Salvador was the father of the boy AAA has delivered, for
she was raped even before the said date in this case.

Issue: whether or not Salvador is guilty for the commission of the crime of rape allege by the victim and
witnesses despite his defenses that AAA and BBB was his wives, that AAA loves her and that they had a
relationship, and that he is allowed to have 2 wives for he is a member of a tribe that allowed men to
have two wives.

Ruling: Yes, the Court ruled in this instant case that Salvador is guilty of the crime of simple rape as
provided in Article 266-A which states that: Rape is committed:

26 | P a g e
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a.
through force, threat, or intimidation; b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d. when the
offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.

In this case, taking into consideration the relationship of Salvador to AAA and BBB, such
relationship shall not qualify his crime into a qualified rape. Therefore, that he shall suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and that he is directed to pay the family of the victim damages.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MINNIE TUMULAK Y CUENCA

July 25, 2016, G.R. No. 206054
BRION, J.

Doctrine: The illegal sale of dangerous drugs is not consummated when the seller fails to deliver the
illegal drug to the buyer. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs requires
merely the consummation of the selling transaction which happens the moment the buyer receives the
drug from the seller. What is important is that the poseur-buyer received the drug from the accused.

As provided, a crime is attempted when the offender commences the commission of the of
crime directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which would produce the
crime by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

Facts: on July 31, 2002, a buy-bust operation was organized at the Narcotics Division of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) pursuant to a tip given by a confidential informant, who was able to set up
a sale for thirty (30) ecstasy tablets., the herein-appellant together with the confidential informant and
an agent of NBI (who acted as poseur-buyer) met in a café for the transaction. The appellant then shows
1 tablet of ecstasy to the agent for inspection, thereafter she excused herself to go to the restroom. At
that certain point of time, before the appellant could enter the restroom the agent together with his
partner introduced themselves as NBI agents and arrested her. Subsequently, the said agent inspected
her bag and found all 30 tablets of ecstasy.

Issue: (1) Whether or not the acts of the herein appellant is enough to make guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
(2) Whether or not the RTC and CA properly imposed the penalty and convicted the appellant
the crime of consummated safe of prohibited drugs.

Ruling: (1) Yes, she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt for her acts constitutes violation of RA 9165.

(2) No, in this case the Court modified the decisions made by the lower court and CA convicting
the appellant for consummated sale of prohibited drugs to conviction of crime of attempted sale of
prohibited drugs for reason that the evidence fails to establish the consummation of the said crime for
the element of receiving the prohibited drugs by the buyer lacks in this case.

27 | P a g e
 AUGUST 2016

Jesusa T. Dela Cruz vs. People of the Philippines

August 3, 2016, G.R. No. 163494
Reyes, J.

Doctrine: To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements must be present: (1) the
making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the
maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor
of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had
not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

Facts: The case stemmed from a complaint for violation of B.P. Big. 22 filed Ernesto Tan, against the
petitioner. Tan entered into several business transactions with the petitioner sometime in 1984 to 1985,
whereby Tan supplied and delivered to the petitioner rolls of textile materials worth P27,090,641.25. For
every delivery made by Tan, the petitioner issued post-dated checks made payable to "Cash". When
presented for payment, however, some of the checks issued by the petitioner to Tan were dishonored by
the drawee-bank for being "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds" or "Account Closed". The replacement
checks later issued by the petitioner were still dishonored upon presentment for payment.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22),
otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.

Ruling: No, the petitioner Jesusa T. Dela Cruz is acquitted of the crime of violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 on twenty-three (23) counts on the ground that her guilt was not established beyond
reasonable doubt. To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements must be present:
(1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge
of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent
dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
As between the parties to this case, the dispute only pertains to the presence or absence of the
second element. In order to support her plea for an acquittal, the petitioner particularly insists that she
failed to receive any notice of dishonor on the subject checks, which rendered absent the element of
knowledge of insufficient funds.
Although a notice of dishonor is not an indispensable requirement in a prosecution for violation
of B.P. Big. 22 as it is not an element of the offense, evidence that a notice of dishonor has been sent to
and received by the accused is actually sought as a means to prove the second element. Jurisprudence is
replete with cases that underscore the value of a notice of dishonor in B.P. Big. 22 cases, and how the
absence of sufficient proof of receipt thereof can be fatal in the prosecution's cause.

People vs Tuboro
GR No. 220023, August 8, 2016

Facts: AAA, a fourteen-year-old, was left alone at her sister’s house when she was awakened by the
latter’s husband, Dario, who she found was lying beside her. He placed himself on top of her then boxed

28 | P a g e
her in the chest and succeeded with his carnal knowledge. This incident happened thrice in her parent’s
house, the first time was when Dario held her at knifepoint and threatened to kill her.
During the trial however, Dario assailed the decision of the trial court finding him guilty was
erroneous as AAA was not able to recall the exact dates of the rape incidents and the medical
examination showed no injury or laceration in her vagina.

Issue: Whether or not Dario is guilty of rape.

Ruling: Yes. The court ruled that the discrepancies in AAA's testimony regarding the exact date of the
alleged rapesubject of this case are inconsequential, immaterial, and cannot discredit her credibility as a
witness. We held that the date of the rape need not be precisely proved, considering that it is not a
material element of the offense. It is sufficient that the Information alleges that the crime was
committed on or about a specific date. The date is not an essential element of the crime of rape since
the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. What is decisive in a rape charge is that
the commission thereof by the accused-appellant has been sufficiently proven.

On the matters of the medical examination result, it has been invariably held that an intact
hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. Penetration of the penis by entry into the
lips of the vagina, even the briefest of contacts and without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is
enough to justify a conviction for rape. In addition, a medical examination and a medical certificate are
merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.

People vs. Espia

G.R. No. 213380, August 10, 2016
Perez, J.

Facts: On February 21 1991, while acting as a lookout the co-accused of the appellant robbed the
residence of the Ganzon spouse while employing force and intimidation to the spouse and to their
helpers. The following morning the Ganzon spouses have been found dead due to gunshot wounds on
their heads. When apprehended by the police the co-accused of the appellant admitted their
participation in the robbery and implicated that the former was one of their co-conspirators.

Issue: Whether or not the lower courts had erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

Ruling: No. The trial and appellate courts committed no error in convicting appellant of Robbery with
Homicide. Article 294, paragraph (1) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, reads: to warrant a
conviction for Robbery with Homicide, the prosecution must prove the confluence of the following
elements: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person;
(2) the property taken thus belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus
lucrandi; and (4) on occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in
a generic sense, was committed.

29 | P a g e
 Furthermore the SC had held that homicide may precede the robbery or may occur after the
robbery, as what is essential is that there is a direct relation, an intimate connection between the
robbery and the killing.

No doubt exists that all the foregoing elements are present in the case at bar. Appellant's co-
accused admitted the taking of the cash, checks, and pieces of jewelry of Spouses Ganzon. In fact, some
of which were even found in the houses of his co-accused.

Even though the appellant only acted as a lookout he is also guilty for the crime of Robbery with
homicide because there is a conspiracy between him and his co-accused. According to Article 8 of the
RPC, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it. When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy can
be inferred from and established by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests. There should be a proof establishing
that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose.
In the case at bar, Jessie and Rex (the co-accused of the appellant) also testified that appellant
was present when they planned to rob the Ganzon's residence the day before the incident.
Furthermore, in robbing the Ganzon's residence, appellant served as a look out while the others were
robbing and ransacking the house. Danilo even testified that it was appellant who forcibly brought Mr.
Ganzon from the bedroom to the sala of the house before tying his hands and feet. Thus, the foregoing
circumstances prove beyond reasonable doubt that all of the accused acted in concert to commit the
crime of Robbery with Homicide.

Alburo vs. People

G.R. No. 196289, August 15, 2016
Paralta, J.

Facts: Petitioner and her husband bought a house and lot from petitioner's sister-in-law, Elsa Alburo-
Walter, who is married to James Walter, through Aurelio Tapang in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of Elsa
and James Walter.Petitioner and her husband made a partial payment of Twenty-One Thousand U.S.
Dollars ($21,000.00) and the remaining balance has been paid through four (4) postdated checks issued
by petitioner which eventually bounced. The petitioner was charged for the violation of BP 22 by
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously draw and issue to the complainant a check well-knowing that she
has no sufficient funds in the bank, which check when presented for payment was dishonored for reason
of "DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS," and demands notwithstanding for more than five (5) days
from notice of dishonor, the accused failed and refused, and still fails and refuses to redeem the said
check. She was consequently found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the RTC. The CA denied the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not CA erred in not considering the meritorious ground raised by the petitioner,
stating that the prosecution failed to prove: (1) the second element of the crime charged; (2) she had
knowledge when she issued the subject checks; and (3) she does not have sufficient funds for payment
thereof.

Ruling: The Court found that the petition is meritorious, for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the
prosecution must prove the following essential elements, namely: (1) The making, drawing, and issuance

30 | P a g e
of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at
the time of issue there were no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of
such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or the dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
cause, ordered the drawee bank to stop payment.

There is no dispute that the first and the third elements are present in this case. It was proven
that petitioner issued the subject Landbank checks in favor of Aurelio Tapang as payment for the balance
of the purchase of the house and lot owned by Elsa Alburo-Walter and when presented for payment, the
same checks were dishonored for the reason of being drawn against insufficient funds.

The remaining issue is whether or not the second element is present.

A perusal of the records of the case, shows the absence of any indication that petitioner received
the notices of dishonor allegedly sent by Landbank. The absence of proof that petitioner received any
notice informing her of the fact that her checks were dishonored and giving her five banking days within
which to make arrangements for payment of the said checks prevents the application of the disputable
presumption that she had knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds at the time she issued the checks

Anent the demand letter sent through registered mail, the same was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt that petitioner received the same. Although the Registry Return Card shows that the
letter was received and signed for by a Jennifer Mendoza who identified herself as a house helper of
petitioner, it was not proven that the same person is a duly authorized agent of the addressee or the
petitioner. For notice by mail, it must appear that the same was served on the addressee or a duly
authorized agent of the addressee.

Thus, there being no clear showing that petitioner actually knew of the dishonor of her checks,
this Court cannot with moral certainty convict her of violation of B.P. 22. The failure of the prosecution to
prove that petitioner was given the requisite notice of dishonor is a clear ground for her acquittal

SEPTEMBER 2016
People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Abayon y Aponte
(Arson; Simple Arson)
September 14, 2016
G.R. No. 204891
Brion, J.

Doctrine: There is no complex crime of arson with homicide because the crime of arson absorbs the
resultant death or is a separate crime altogether.

Facts: On July 25, 2002 in the evening, accused Abayon had a quarrel with his wife Arlene as heard by
their neighbors who live in apartments adjacent to each other in Las Pinas. When Arlene shouted for
help as her husband began strangling her, their neighbors Corazon and her husband pacified her. It was
about 11:00 o’clock in the evening when Abayon’s neighbors heard a hissing sound and smelled a leaking
gas. Robert Antonio, who is also the neighbor of the couple and Abayon’s bestfriend, found out that
Abayon was holding an LPG gas tank outside his apartment. Robert then approached Abayon as he heard

31 | P a g e
him say: “Putangina! Wala pala ako sibli! Inutil pala ako!”. When he found out what he was trying to do,
Robert then scolded Abayon saying: “Putangina mo, Boy! Magsusunog ka idadamay mo pa kami!” and he
immediately turned off the gas tank’s regulator.

Later on, it was also revealed by the records that at around 12:15 a.m. on the next day, Abayon
bought a match from Edmund Felipe while the former asked what it is for. The latter then answered:
“Wala, may susunugin lang ako.” It was past midnight already when the house started to catch fire. The
house that was lit up (containing the units where Abayon and his neighbors live) was completely burned
down. Three persons died as a result of the fire which were identified as Lourdes Chokilo, Aiza Delos
Angeles and Zenaida Velos.

Issue: (1) Whether or not the accused be liable for arson with multiple homicide.
(2) Whether or not the elements of simple arson be established through circumstantial evidence

Ruling: (1) No. The Supreme Court ruled that in cases where both burning and death occur, in order to
determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated - whether arson, murder or arson and
homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor: (a) if the main
objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of
arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the other hand, the
main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as
the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only; lastly, (c) if the objective is,
likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is resorted to as
a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed
— homicide/murder and arson.
In accordance to Section 5 of P.D. No. 1613, Abayon is charged with the crime of arson because
his intent was merely to destroy his family's apartment through the use of fire. The resulting deaths that
occurred, therefore, should be absorbed by the crime of arson and only increases the imposable penalty.
(2) Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that simple arson, defined and punished as explained in
Section 1 of P.D. No. 1613, is essentially the destruction of property by fire that is not under the
circumstances enumerated under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
In prosecuting arson, whether destructive or simple, the corpus delicti rule is generally satisfied by proof
that a fire occurred, and that it was intentionally caused.

Jester Mabunot vs. People of the Philippines

(Mala in Se)
September 19, 2016
G.R. No. 204659
Reyes, J.

Doctrine: When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they
are punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the other
elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed.

Facts: On September 14, 2007, the class to which petitioner Mabunot and Shiva is sewing at their
classroom. Petitioner Mabunot, 19 years old, arrived at the room intoxicated. He started a fight by
twisting the arm of Michael Fontanilla, strangling James and boxing William Thomas. Some of ther

32 | P a g e
classmates run away while Shive Baguiwa, 14 years old was boxed by the petitioner on her left flank
leaving the her with a fractured rib. Shiva became unconscious and was hospitalized for two days.
In his defense, petitioner Mabunot argued that it was not Baguiwa he intended to injure as the
fist fight was between him and Dennis who followed him after stepping out of the classroom. It just so
happened that Shiva Baguiwa followed to pacify them.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner Mabunot be convicted of violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A.
No. 7610, a special penal law.

Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court reiterated the jurisprudence in the case of Garcia vs. Court of Appeals
saying that:"when the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if
they are punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the
other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed.” Accordingly, physical abuse of a child is
inherently wrong, rendering material the existence of a criminal intent on the part of the offender.
In the case at bar, the petitioner's claim that he had no design to harm Shiva, when he swang his
arms, he was not performing a lawful act. He clearly intended to injure another person. However, it was
not Dennis but Shiva, who ended up with a fractured rib. Nonetheless, the petitioner cannot escape
liability for his error. Indeed, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

People of the Philippines vs. Belban Sic-open y Dimas

Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of Custody Rule
G.R. No. 211680
September 21, 2016
Peralta, J.

Doctrine: The following elements must be satisfied under Section 5 Article II of R.A. 9165 in proving
Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The delivery of the illicit
drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal
transaction. As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of an illegal drug were not compromised, non-
compliance with R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR may be excused.

Facts: In December 2008, a male informant who wished to change his way of life reported at PDEA-CAR
located in Camp Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad Benguet a certain Belban, a seller of marijuana. A buy-bust
operation team was then formed in the names of: Chumanao as poseur-buyer, Asiong as arresting
officer, Mosing as seizing officer, and Macad as the one who would read the constitutional rights of the
accused. At 3:00 a.m. the team was already at the place agreed upon and not long after Chumanao was
approached by Belban. After checking that the cartons Belban brought indeed contain marijuana, he
handed over the payment and immediately arrested him as the other police officers approached them
and do their specific tasks.
At past 7:00 a.m. they successfully arrived at Camp Dangwa where they team prepared the
affidavits of the members of the buy-bust team, the booking sheet and arrest report, and the requests
for physical examination on Belban and laboratory test on the drug items. Further, they also turned
overthe drug (marijuana bricks with the containers) and non-drug items (cellular phone and boodle
money) to SPO4 Abordo, who, as the Evidence Custodian of PDEA-CAR, conducted the inventory of the
seized items.

33 | P a g e
Issue: (1) Whether or not the elements for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were satisfied.
(2) Whether or not the chain of custody of the seized marijuana suffered from significant flaws.

Ruling: (1) Yes. The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 5 Article II of R.A. 9165, the following
elements must be satisfied: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The delivery of the illicit
drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal
transaction.
In the case at bar, all the requisites of the illegal sale of marijuana were met. The identities of the
buyer, the seller, the prohibited drug, and the marked money have all been proven beyond reasonable
doubt by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the supporting documents they presented
and offered in evidence. In open court, Chumanao identified the person of Belban; the 30 bricks of
marijuana he marked; the markings he placed on the two cartons, green-plastic bags, and the sack used
to cover the cartons; and the boodle money he prepared. Likewise, in her testimony, Mosing identified
Belban; the two cartons, the green plastics, and the 30 bricks of marijuana which were marked by
Chumanao in her presence; the booking sheet; and the requests for physical examination of the accused
and laboratory examination of the suspected illegal drugs. On her part, Asiong affirmed the Joint affidavit
she executed with Mosing and Macad as well as identified Belban, the inventory sheet, and the
photographs taken.

(2) No. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the prosecution was able to establish with moral
certainty and prove to the Court beyond reasonable doubt that there is an unbroken chain of custody
over the confiscated illegal drug, from the time it was lawfully seized and came into the possession of
the apprehending officers up to the time it was presented and offered in evidence before the trial court.
As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of an illegal drug were not compromised, non-compliance
with R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR may be excused. Accordingly, the prosecution presented every person
who touched the exhibit. They described how and from whom the seized marijuana was received, where
it was and what happened to it while in their possession, the condition in which it was received, the
condition it was delivered to the next link in the chain, and the precautions taken to ensure that there
had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to
have possession of the same.

OCTOBER 2016

Jerwin Dorado vs. People of the Philippines

October 03, 2016
G.R. No. 216671
Mendoza, J.

Doctrine: For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following must be proven beyond reasonable
doubt: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating
that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination
and execution to allow him to reflect upon the circumstances of his act. For this aggravating
circumstance to be considered, it is indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill was hatched or
how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.In order to be considered an aggravation of the

34 | P a g e
offense, the circumstance must not merely be "premeditation" but must be "evidentpremeditation."The
essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought
and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to
arrive at a calm judgment.

Facts: Ronald was talking to his friends but then Dorado, carrying a sumpak, and his friends arrived and
threw stones and bottles at Ronald’s group. Ronald’s group scampered for shelter and hid inside to avoid
being hit. Because of the thought that Dorado’s group was no longer in the vicinity, Ronald’s group came
out of hiding. The former’s group, however, resumed throwing stones to the latter’s group when they
surfaced. During the commotion, Dorado fired his sumpak and hit Ronald between the eyes. Thereafter,
the latter was brought to the hospital.

The lower courts found Dorado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated murder with
the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation due to his act of waiting for Ronald to come out
from hiding then shooting him on the face.

Issue: Whether or not there is an evident premeditation.

Ruling: No. The Court views that the prosecution was unable to establish the element of evident
premeditation to qualify the crime to frustrated murder. First, the circumstance must not merely be
“premeditation” but must be “evident premeditation”. Second, the prosecution failed toshow a sufficient
lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow Dorado to reflect upon the
circumstances of his act. Lastly, Dorado did not have a cool thought and reflection when he shot Ronald,
rather he was obscured by the heat or anger of the moment.

People of the Philippines vs. Charito Fernandez

October 3, 2016
G.R. No. 220761
Caguioa, J.

Doctrine: Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the
performance of an overt act which produces the crime. In proving conspiracy, direct evidence is not
indispensable as its existence may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after
the commission of the crime.

Facts: Appellant, together with the other accused, allegedly conspired to rob and kill the spouses
Vallecera. Some of them were convicted in the crime of robbery with homicide, wherein the appellant
contended that the evidence showing his participation in the planning stages of the crime was
insufficient to sustain his conviction and the finding of conspiracy between him and his co-accused.
Joseph, who was discharged as state witness, admitted that he had heard appellant and other
accused uttered that there is no problem about the plan as when the accused Lasconia laid all the details
thereof; that it was appellant who paid him two five-hundred peso bill in consideration for the execution
of the crime; and, that he saw appellant before, during, and after the execution of the plan to rob.

Issue:Whether or not appellant conspired with the other accused for the execution of their plan to rob.

35 | P a g e
Ruling: Yes. Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “There is conspiracy when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.”
In the instant case, there is conspiracy when there is an act of planning with the other accused
the conduct of robbery, by accompanying them during its commission and hasty getaway, as well as
providing payment for their getaway vehicle and even threatening their driver with mortal harm should
he reveal what they had committed.

Aurora A. Sales vs. Benjamin D. Adapon, Ofelia C. Adapon, and Teofilo D. Adapon
October 05, 2016
G.R. No. 171420
Bersamin, J.

Doctrine: The elements if the crime penalized under Article 172, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code
are all present in this case, namely: the documents is false; the offender had knowledge that such
document was false; and, the offender introduced in evidence in any judicial proceeding such false or
falsified document.

Facts: Plaintiff complained that the subject property was subdivided and most of it were parcelled out
among the defendants and registered in their names. Defendants attached a Deed of Extra-Judicial
Settlement during the filing of motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff then contended that the
subject deed is a falsified document; that she did not sign it; and, that she was in the United Sates when
the document was supposedly executed and could not have appeared before the notary public in Makati
City, Philippines.
Defendants, however, alleged that the plaintiff was represented by her daughter Victoria; that
they were assured by Victoria that she had authority to represent her mother; that they have no
knowledge of the alleged falsity of the deed; that they have absolutely no knowledge whether or not it
was forged or falsified; and that they presented it only to present their defenses in said case.

Issue: Whether or not there is a falsification of documents.

Ruling: Yes. The Court was not convinced that defendants had a lack of knowledge of the falsity of
complainant’s signature on it. Moreover, the falsified deed was presented in support of a motion to
dismiss filed by complainant in civil case, which is a judicial proceeding.
Therefore, the defendants are criminally liable under Article 172(3) of the Revised Penal Code for
presenting a false document, for having knowledge of the falsity of the document, and for introducing in
evidence in any judicial proceeding such false or falsified document.

People of the Philippines v. Mc Henry Suarez y Zurita, John Joseph Ravena y Acosta and John Paul
Vicencio y Barranco

36 | P a g e
October 19, 2016
G.R. No. 224889
Mendoza, J.

Doctrine: The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor that is plainly and obviously
advantageous to the aggressor and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the
commission of the crime. The appreciation of this qualifying circumstance in the commission of the
crime of Murder depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties.

Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or
inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when these point to a joint purpose and design,
concerted action, and community of interest. Action in concert to achieve a common design is the
hallmark of conspiracy. Where conspiracy is proven, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals
regardless of the extent and character of their participation because, in contemplation of law, the act of
one is the act of all. A co-conspirator does not have to participate in every detail of the execution;
neither does he have to know the exact part performed by the co-conspirator in the execution of the
criminal act.

Facts: The appellants and the deceased were at 123 Videoke Bar. Around 12 o’clock midnight, the
appellants decided to leave after 2 incidents involving them occurred. They proceeded to a lamppost
outside the bar. Appellant Suarez broke a bottle and the three appellants started pushing each other. The
victim was outside the bar and shouted at them to go home. The appellants made a sign to the victim to
come closer, and started to box him. The victim was able to parry the punches but Ravena, who was
positioned at his back, stabbed him. The victim was able to cry for help and was able to rely the identity
of the person who stabbed him. The next morning, the victim died. The RTC rendered its decision finding
the appellants guilty for the crime of Murder. It opined that although treachery is absent, there is abuse
of superior strength to qualify the killing to murder. It also added that the manner by which the felonious
act was committed revealed a community of criminal design, hence there is conspiracy. The same
decision was affirmed by the CA. In his appeal for review, Ravena argued that both courts erred in
appreciating abuse of superior strength in qualifying the killing to Murder. Appellants Suarez and
Vicencio contend that the dying declaration of the victim did not implicate them as his assailants.

Issue: (1) Whether or not the CA erred in appreciating abuse of superior strength as a qualifying
circumstance.
(2) Whether or not conspiracy is present in the instant case.

Ruling: (1) Yes. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is
a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor that is plainly and obviously
advantageous to the aggressor and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the
commission of the crime. Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this

37 | P a g e
circumstance. The appreciation of this qualifying circumstance in the commission of the crime of Murder
depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties.
The prosecution failed to prove that there is disparity in age, size, and strength, except showing
that there are three assailants, and of them armed with a pointed object, attacked the victim. Neither
did it present evidence that the victim suffered from inferior physical condition. In fact, there is evidence
that the victim was able to parry the fist blows.

(2) Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was
perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when these point to a joint purpose
and design, concerted action, and community of interest. A co-conspirator does not have to participate
in every detail of the execution; neither does he have to know the exact part performed by the co-
conspirator in the execution of the criminal act. The combined efforts of the accused were perpetrated
with concerted coordination indication a common objective. Thus, conspiracy is present. Action in
concert to achieve a common design is the hallmark of conspiracy. Where conspiracy is proven, all the
conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation
because, in contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all.

NOVEMBER2016

People of the Philippines v. Gener Villar

November 09, 2016
G.R. No. 215937
Perez, J.

Doctrine: The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus
or other paraphernalia for or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or
introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law.

Facts: A confidential asset tipped the police that there was a rampant sale of shabu in Purok Kalubihan,
Talisay City by a certain alias Gener. Police Chief Inspector Bartolome formed a buy-bust team, including
PO1 Santillan as the poseur-buyer. They proceeded to Purok Kalubihan, where the asset pointed three
persons later identified as appellant, Jude Alyn Bawi-in, and an alias Turko. When PO1 Santillan
approached them and asked for a “stapa”, he handed Php 500 marked money. Appellant then gave him
one sachet of shabu, which prompted Santillan to execute the pre-arranged signal to signify that the
transaction is done. The other members of the buy-bust team then barged in and arrested appellant and
Bawi-in, while alias Turko escaped. PO1 Santillan frisked the appellant and was able to recover the Php
500 marked money, three (3) empty sachets with traces of shabu, an improvised tooter, a green lighter,
and an orange straw. The seized items were marked by PO2 Venus but he lost one plastic sachet of shabu
after the appellant tried to escape. Bawi-in was dropped from the charges after he tested negative from

38 | P a g e
the drug test. The RTC rendered a decision finding the appellant guilty for violating Sections 5 and 12,
Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, which was affirmed by the CA. The Court of Appeals found that all the elements
for the crime of illegal sale and possession of drug paraphernalia are present. The appellant argues that
he was only framed up by the police and that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable
doubt the corpus delicti of the case.

Issue: Whether or not the elements of illegal possession of equipment and other drug paraphernalia are
present.

Ruling: The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia
for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other
paraphernalia for or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing
any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law.
These elements are present in the case since the prosecution was able to convincingly establish
that appellant was in possession of drug paraphernalia such as three (3) empty plastic sachets, one (1)
improvised tooter, and one (1) orange plastic straw, all of which were found positive for traces of shabu.
Appellant also did not present any proof that he was authorized to possess the same.

People of the Philippines v. Mardan Ameril

November 14, 2016
G.R. No. 203293
Brion, J.

Doctrine: Chain of custody is defined as "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction." Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date
and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition.
Marking the seized drugs or other related items immediately after being seized from the accused
is a crucial step to establish chain of custody.
"Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials
and signature on the items seized to identify it as the subject matter of the prohibited sale. Marking after
seizure is the starting point in the custodial link and is vital to be immediately undertaken because
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence
serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the
time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings,
thus preventing switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

39 | P a g e
Facts: A confidential informant reported to the office of the Criminal Investigation and Intelligence
Bureau that Ameril was going to sell him three packs of shabu worth Php 9,000 each. A buy-bust team
was formed, including PO3 Pandong, PO3 Olmedo, PO3 Salazar, and PO2 Ilagan, and proceeded to the
target area with the informant who acted as the poseur-buyer. When the informant whistled, Ameril
came downstairs and the poseur-buyer showed him the boodle money. Ameril went back to his
apartment and afterwards, handed the poseur-buyer with three packs of shabu, which prompted the
latter to execute the pre-arranged signal. The buy-bust team came forward to arrest Ameril, where PO2
Ilagan recovered three packs of shabu and PO3 Salazar recovered the boodle money. The seized packets
were marked “BB-MA-1” to “BB-MA-3”. The RTC convicted the accused beyond reasonable doubt of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision and concluded that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been preserved. It also stressed that such
evidence is presumed to have been preserved in the absence of any showing of bad faith, ill will, or
proof that the evidence has been tampered.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in its conclusion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
drugs had been preserved

Ruling: Yes. In the present case, the prosecution presented conflicting testimonies on who made the
actual markings. PO3 Salazar claimed it was the investigator who marked the sachets. However, PO2
Ilagan claimed in his direct testimony that it was he who made the markings. The prosecution simply
failed to reconcile its witnesses’ conflicting. Inevitably, these contradictions create doubt as to the
integrity of the evidence against the accused. The totality of evidence against Ameril cannot support his
conviction. The failure of the prosecution to comply with Sec.21, Art. II of RA No. 9165 and with the
chain of custody requirement compromised the identity and evidentiary value of the seized packs of
shabu.

Antonio Gamboa y Delos Santos Vs. People of the Philippines

November 14, 2016
G.R.No. 220333
Perlas-Bernabe, J.

Doctrine: Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure
police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve its integrity and evidentiary
value. Under the said section, the apprehending team shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation
conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the
person from whom the items were seized, his representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to
the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination. The IRR of
RA 9165 adds that t the said inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest police station
or office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure.
As a general rule, the apprehending team must strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR. However, their failure to do so does not ipso facto render the seizure

40 | P a g e
and custody over the items as void and invalid if: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and
(b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. This applies only
where the prosecution has recognized the procedural lapses on the part of the police officers or PDEA
agents, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds; after which, the prosecution must show
that' the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved.
Facts: A buy bust operation was conducted to catch a certain Jun Negro (Negro) for being engaged in
illegal drug activity. Negro sensing that something was wrong, ran to the nearest house and was chased
by the apprehending team. There petitioner Gamboa with Elizabeth Sarona was found to be in
possession of shabu paraphernalia and sachets of shabu. The petitioner and Elizabeth were brought to
the nearest police station where the seized items were marked. The next day, the seized items were
delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination and was found to contain methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, an illegal drug. The RTC found the petitioner and Elizabeth guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. he RTC held that a valid buy-bust
operation had been conducted, and the subsequent warrantless arrests were lawful. It noted that
although the officers failed to mark the items at the scene of the crime and instead, brought them to the
police station where they were marked and thereafter, to the crime laboratory for examination, they
were able to preserve their integrity and identity. The CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling. Gamboa claimed
that the police officers failed to abide by Section 21 of RA 9165 was fatal to the case. Gamboa moved for
reconsideration in the CA but was denied.
Issue:Whether or not Gamboa's conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs defined and
penalized under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld.

Ruling: No, Gamboa’s conviction under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 should not be upheld. The
apprehending team failed to comply with the chain of custody. The prosecution has also failed to
acknowledge the shortcomings of the apprehending team in complying with Sec. 11, Article II of RA 9165
and its IRR. The court found that it was silent on the absence of a representative from the DOJ and
elected public official to witness the inventory of the seized items and receive copies of the same. There
is also the unexplained dearth of photographs of the seized items. Not only that there was the failure to
deliver said items to the PNP crime laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours

Bonifacio Nieva y Montero Vs. People of the Philippines

November 16, 2017
G. R. No. 188751
Jardeleza, J.

Doctrine: The elements of frustrated homicide are: first, the accused intended to kill his victim, as
manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; second, the victim sustained a fatal or mortal
wound but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and third, none of the qualifying
circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present.
Intent to kill may be proved by: (a) the means used by the malefactors; (b) the nature, location and
number of wounds sustained by the victim; (c) the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or
immediately after the killing of the victim; (d) the circumstances under which the crime was committed;
and (e) the motives of the accused.

41 | P a g e
Under Article 12 (4), Book I of the Revised Penal code which gives the circumstances which are exempt
from criminal liability. There must be a complete absence of negligence and intent. An accident is an
affirmative defense which the accused is burdened to prove by clear and convincing evidence.
To successfully claim the defense of accident, the accused must show that the following circumstances
are present: (1) a person is performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3) he causes an injury to another
by mere accident; and (4) he had no fault in or intention of causing the injury.
Facts: Nieva is accused for the crime of frustrated murder for shooting Judy Ignacio who suffered a
gunshot wound. Dr. Serrano, a doctor from MCU Hospital who attended to the wound of Judy, said that
the gunshot wound could have led to her death if not for the timely medical attention. Nieva pleaded
not guilty and raised the following the defenses: (a) The accounts of the prosecution witnesses are highly
questionable; (b) Nieva is exempt from criminal liability because the shooting of Judy is a mere accident;
and c. Nieva had no intent to kill Judy, thus, he should only be convicted of physical injuries.
The RTC ruled that Nieva is guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide and not frustrated murder.
For the crime was not attended by evident premeditation nor treachery. Nieva appealed to the CA but
CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.
Issue: (1) Whether or not, the CA erred in affirming the conviction of Nieva.
(2) Whether or not Nieva is eligible for the defense under Circumstances which exempt criminal
liability.

Ruling: (1) No, Nieva is guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide. All the elements attending the crime of
frustrated homicide are all met. First, Nieva intended to kill Judy for persisting to shoot the victim
continuously even when the gun was jammed. Second, Judy has sustained a gunshot wound where the
doctor who attended to her wound said it could have led to Judy’s death were if not for the timely
medical assistance. And third, there were no treachery or evident premeditation, which are qualifying
circumstances of murder.
(2) No, *Nieval is not eligible to claim the defense under Article 12 (4), Book 1 of the Revised
Penal Code. It was found by the court that Nieva was not performing a lawful act nor was the injury he
caused was an accident. It was also found by the court that Nieva had intention to kill the victim for he
did not stop shooting until he hit the victim.

People of the Philippines Vs. RamilPrudencio y Bajamonde

November 16, 2016
G. R. No. 205148
Brion, J.

Doctrine: In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be duly
established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence .On the other hand, a case of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs will prosper if the following elements are present: ( 1) the accused is in possession of an item or
object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3)
the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it is important for the prosecution
to show the chain of custody over the dangerous drug to establish the corpus delicti. This requirement

42 | P a g e
necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily
identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise.
To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must show
that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused;
otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for sale fails. The chain of custody rule performs the
function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.
Facts: Appellant was charged for the illegal sale, possession, and use of dangerous drugs.Appellant
claimed that he did not sell or possess any sachets of shabu and that he was shown sachets only after
their arrest.The RTC convicted the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale and
possession of shabu. The RTC held that the testimony of PO1 Magora was sufficient to establish the
buyer, seller, and object of the transaction. Appellant appealed to the CA but was convicted not only for
the illegal sale and possession of shabu but also for the illegal use of the dangerous drug. The CA also
appreciated the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority in imposing the appropriate penalty.
Appellant contended that the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s ruling and failed to establish his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt,
Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes charged.

Ruling: No, appellant is not guilty for the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In illegal drug cases, the prosecution must establish all offenses charged, as well as the corpus delicti. It
has been held that the chain of custody rule must be upheld, in this instant case it was not.
The chain of custody over the seized drugs had been broken, as shown by the following
circumstances: first, there was no evidence to show when, where, and how these sachets of shabu were
marked by POI Magora; second, there is an utter absence of evidence indicating the identities of the
persons who took hold of the seized drugs from the time it was seized until it was handed to the
investigator; third, the circumstances in which the investigating officer turned over the confiscated drugs
to forensic chemist were not shown; and finally, the stipulation between the prosecution and the
defense as to the forensic chemist's testimony did not establish how the confiscated drugs were
handled while in his custody and before its presentation in court.

People of the Philippines Vs. Randy Cloma y Cabana

November 16, 2016
G.R. No. 215943
Carpio, J.

Doctrine: For the successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section
5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. The
prosecution must establish proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti.
To establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving dangerous drugs, it is
important that the substance illegally possessed in the first place be the same substance offered in court
as exhibit.
Facts: Appellant was charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drug after being apprehended
during a buy-bust operation. Appellant denied the charge and contended that there was no buy- bust

43 | P a g e
operation. The trial court convicted the appellant to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
charged. The RTC also held that, in the absence of ill motive, the positive testimony of the arresting
officer is stronger than the negative self-serving denial by the appellant. The CA affirmed the RTC’s
ruling.
Issue:Whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: Yes, appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged. All the elements for the
successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs was met. In the instant case, SPO1 Ellevera, the
poseur- buyer in the buy bust operation, identified appellant as the seller of the shabu and that there
was an exchange of a five hundred peso marked money and shabu.

People of the Philippines Vs. Owen Marcelo Cagalingan and Beatriz B. Cagalingan
November 23, 2016
G.R. No. 198664
Bersamin, J.

Doctrine: Illegal recruitment is a crime committed by a person who, not having the valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers,
undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" mentioned in Article
13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated in Section 6 of Republic Act No.
8042 (Migrant Workers' Act), against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid
license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of
workers; (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and
placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under
Article 34 of the same Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and, (c) the offender committed
the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
Facts: Accused-appellant spouses, Owen Marcelo and Beatriz Cagalingan, were charged for representing
themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist, hire and transport Filipino workers for employment
in Macau, China, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement to
ReynalynCagalingan and four (4) other private complainants. This is in violation of Section 6, in relation
to section 7(b) of RA 8043 of RA 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995. Accused-
appellants contended that they turned down their request for job placements in Macau, China and that
they do not understand the charges against them. The RTC convicted the accused-appellant spouses
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling.
Issue:whether or not the accused- appellant spouses are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: Yes, accused- appellant spouses are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All the elements attending
the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are met, namely: (1) Owen and Beatriz Cagalingan do not
have a valid license or authority for the recruitment and placement of workers, (2) such recruitment is
within the meaning of the term “recruitment and placement” under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and
Article 6 of RA 8042, (3) and such illegal recruitment was done to five (5) private complainants.

44 | P a g e
Mayor Amado Corpuz, Jr. Vs. People of the Philippines
November 23, 2016
G.R. Nos. 212656-57
PEREZ, J.

Doctrine: It is a fundamental rule in criminal procedure that the State carries the onus probandi in
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, as a consequence of the tenet ei
incumbit probation, qui dicit, non qui negat, which means that he who asserts, not he who denies, must
prove.

Facts: Petitioner, in his official capacity as Municipal Mayor of Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija was indicted for two
counts of Falsification of Public Document for allegedly falsifying the Certificates of Marriage of Spouses
Asuncion and Spouses Pascual. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimonies of its three witnesses
testifying that it was Thelmo Corpuz who they have seen solemnizing the marriages and considered the
photos and photocopies of the invitations presented and offered as additional proofs to establish the
aforesaid incidents. The defense presented the petitioner himself as one of the witnesses who insisted
that it was him who solemnized and that he knew that the power to solemnize marriage cannot be
delegated which was further bolstered by both spouses Asuncion and Pascual saying that the pictures
served as evidence of the prosecution was nothing but a marriage counselling conducted by Thelmo
Corpuz and it was the petitioner who solemnized the marriage ceremony.
Sandiganbayan found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, ruling that with the
prosecution's pieces of evidence taken together, all the elements of the crime of falsification of public
documents, by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts, were adequately established.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of public
documents.

Ruling: No, petitioner is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence presented by
the prosecution in this case failed to pass the test of moral certainty necessary to warrant petitioner's
conviction. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. In the instant case, petitioner was charged with
violation of Article 171. By way of reiteration, it is a fundamental rule in criminal procedure that the
State carries the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, as a
consequence of the tenet ei incumbit probation, qui dicit, non qui negat, which means that he who
asserts, not he who denies, must prove, and as a means of respecting the presumption of innocence in
favor of the man or woman on the dock for a crime. Accordingly, the State has the burden of proof to
show: (1) the correct identification of the author of a crime, and (2) the actuality of the commission of
the offense with the participation of the accused. All these facts must be proved by the State beyond
reasonable doubt on the strength of its evidence and without solace from the weakness of the defense.
That the defense the accused puts up may be weak is inconsequential if, in the first place, the State has
failed to discharge the onus of his identity and culpability. The presumption of innocence dictates that it
is for the prosecution to demonstrate the guilt and not for the accused to establish innocence. Indeed,
the accused, being presumed innocent, carries no burden of proof on his or her shoulders.
Not only that, where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations or interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not meet or hurdle the test of moral certainty
required for conviction. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to establish the elements of falsification of
public documents. With the prosecution having failed to discharge its burden of establishing petitioner's

45 | P a g e
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, this Court is constrained, as is its bounden duty when reasonable doubt
persists, to acquit him.

DECEMBER2016

Zenaida P. Maamo Vs. People of the Philippines

December 1, 2016
G.R. No. 201917
Caguioa, J.

Doctrine: To convict a person of malversation, these elements must be proved: (a) The offender is a
public officer; (b) The offender has custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his
office; (c) The funds or property involved are public funds or property for which the offender is
accountable; and (d) The offender has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has consented to, or
through abandonment or negligence, permitted the taking by another person of, such funds or property.

Facts: Office of the Ombudsman initiated nine (9) criminal cases against petitioner Zenaida Maamo,
former Mayor of Municipality of Lilo-an, Southern Leyte and petitioner Juliet Silor, then Assistant
Municipal Treasurer for Malversation thru Falsification of Public/Official document. The alleged falsified
documents are consist of time books and payrolls regarding the Municipal Tree Park and a barangay road
project. Allegedly, those documents contained fictitious laborers which enabled the petitioners to collect
sums of money and misappropriate them for personal use. Sandiganbayan convicted the Petitioners for
the crime of Malversation through Falsification of Public/Official Document. Notably, the SB also
concluded that only one (1) crime was technically committed by the Petitioners under the principle
of delito continuado, there being a plurality of acts performed during a period of time and unity of
intent.

Issue: (1) Whether or not SB erred in finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Malversation through
Falsification by feigning a signature.
(2) Whether or not there is the existence of conspiracy between Petitioners.

Ruling: (1) Yes. SB erred in finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Malversation through falsification The
crime of Malversation of Public Funds is punished under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, to
be found guilty of Malversation, the Prosecution has the burden to prove the following essential
elements: (a) The offender is a public officer; (b) The offender has custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) The funds or property involved are public funds or
property for which the offender is accountable; and (d) The offender has appropriated, taken or
misappropriated, or has consented to, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted the taking by
another person of, such funds or property.
In sum, what is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had
received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made,
and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. Here, while the records support the
presence of the first three (3) elements, we find that the Prosecution was unable to satisfactorily prove
the fourth element.

46 | P a g e
 (2) No. The Prosecution miserably failed to prove the existence of conspiracy between the
Petitioners. In countless decided cases, this Court has consistently held that conspiracy must be
established not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence and that the same degree of
proof necessary to establish the crime is required to support a finding of the presence of a criminal
conspiracy, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. Apart from petitioner's signature on the treasury
warrant, nothing else of real substance was submitted to show petitioner's alleged complicity in the
crime. A mere signature or approval appearing on a voucher, check or warrant is not enough to sustain a
finding of conspiracy among public officials and employees charged with fraud.

People of the Philippines Vs Susan M. Tamano

December 16, 2016
G. R. No. 208643
Peralta, J.

Doctrine: To convict a person for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must be
proved: (a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was not authorized by
law, and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.

With respect to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must
be sufficiently proved to sustain a conviction therefor: (1) the identity of the buyer, as well as the seller,
the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

Facts: On July 22, 2004, PO3 Gepaneca of the PDEA was informed by a confidential agent that
one alias "Susan Kana" was selling shabu in Brgy. Gustilo, Zone 6, Lapaz, Iloilo City. The following day,
PO3 Gepaneca and the agent conducted a surveillance of the said area wherein the agent pointed to a
woman identified as "Susan Kana." On July 27, 2004, after confirmation from the agent that that they
could purchase shabu from "Susan Kana," a buy-bust team was formed by P/Sr. Inspector Rapiz. A
transaction was done and appellants Susan Tamano and Gulmatico were arrested. Plastics containing
shabu and drug paraphernalias were recovered. RTC rendered a Decision convicting appellants of
Violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 to which CA affirmed in toto.

Issue:Whether or not accused-appellants are guilty of violating Republic Act No. 9165

Ruling: Yes. In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu in this case, the following
elements must be sufficiently proved to sustain a conviction therefor: (1) the identity of the buyer, as
well as the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with
the presentation in court of the dangerous drugs seized as evidence. The commission of the offense of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which
happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the
police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the
dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the
goods. In Criminal Case No. 04-59517 We agree with the lower courts that the aforesaid elements of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs were adequately and satisfactorily established by the prosecution.

47 | P a g e
 With respect to the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts
must be proved: (a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was not
authorized by law, and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of
dangerous drugs.

People of the Philippines vs. Samson Berk

December 7, 2016
G.R No. 204896
Perez, J.

Doctrine: The shooting of the unsuspecting victim was sudden and unexpected which effectively
deprived her of the chance to defend herself or to repel the aggression, insuring the commission of the
crime without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim. Once there is
a qualifying circumstance, the suspect is guilty of murder and not homicide.

Facts: That on or about 10:45 o'clock in the morning of December 16. 2007, in Poblacion East, Sual,
Pangasinan, Samson Berk, the accused, conspiring and confederating with each other with treachery and
with intent to kill, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, and shot Clarita Disu
several times, inflicting upon her several gunshot wounds which caused her instantaneous death. As
stated by the eyewitnesses presented by the prosecution, in the morning of 16 December 2007, the
victim Clarita Disu and her daughter Marbie were tending their neighborhood variety store in Sual,
Pangasinan with Loreto, when two (2) men on board a motorcycle arrived. One dismounted the vehicle
and bought a cigarette from Marbie while the other stayed on the vehicle. The man who bought the
cigarette suddenly pulled a gun and pointed it to Clarita and shot her four (4) times.

Issue: Whether or not Berk is guilty of a qualifying circumstance.

Ruling: Yes, Samson Berk is guilty of murder because of a qualifying circumstance. The prosecution ably
established the presence of the element of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The shooting of the
unsuspecting victim was sudden and unexpected which effectively deprived her of the chance to defend
herself or to repel the aggression, insuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor
and without any provocation on the part of the victim.

People of the Philippines vs. Orlando Fernandez

December 7, 2016
G.R No. 210617
Perez, J.

Doctrine: In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements should first be
established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment. Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved

48 | P a g e
to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti which
means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. The corpus delicti in cases
involving dangerous drugs is the presentation of the dangerous drug itself.

Facts: On November 18, 2009, Orlando Fernandez, the accused, wilfully, criminally and unlawfully sold
and deliver shabu (methamphetamine hydrocholoride) to a certain customer. PO3 Baruelo purposely
scratched his head, which was their pre-arranged signal that the sale transaction has already been
consummated, giving cue to PO3 Domalanta to make the necessary arrest. The appellant tried to escape
but PO3 Domalanta chased him and successfully caught him and placed him under arrest. Afterwards the
appellant and the seized items were brought to PCP6 Bonuan, Tondaligan, Dagupan City, Pangasinan. It
was PO3 Baruelo who was in possession of the seized items during this period. Upon reaching the said
place, PO3 Baruelo marked the seized items with his initials "CFB." In particular, the drug paraphernalias.

Issue: Whether or not Orlando Fernandez, the accused, is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling
illegal drugs.

Ruling: Yes. Orlando Fernandez is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling illegal drugs. It was ruled
that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were clearly established. It explained that what is
material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place coupled with the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti. In the case at bar, the prosecution established that the illegal drug was sold to
the poseur-buyer PO3 Baruelo who, in exchange of the drugs contained in a plastic sachet, gave a
marked P500.00-peso bill to the appellant, which was, upon apprehension, retrieved from his pocket.
The defense of the appellant that the police officers failed to mark, photograph and inventory the seized
items immediately after the arrest was bereft of merit. Such failure does not automatically impair the
reliability of the chain of custody of the seized items as long as their integrity and evidentiary value are
preserved by the apprehending team.

People of the Philippines vs. Rosario Mahinay

December 7, 2016
G.R No. 210656
Perez, J.

Doctrine: The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical
inventory and take photograph of the objects confiscated does not ipso facto render inadmissible in
evidence the items seized. There is a proviso in the implementing rules stating that when it is shown that
there exist justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have
been preserved, the seized items can still be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Facts: Rosario Mahinay, the accused was caught selling or giving away 10 sticks of marijuana to a poseur
buyer without license or prescription from any competent authority. The prosecution presented as
witnesses SPO4 Vitualia, the buy-bust operation head, PSI Patriana, the Forensic Chemist who examined
the subject specimen, and PO3 Navarro who was in the buy-bust operation team. The accused, however,
protested that the police officers who executed the buy-bust operation failed to make an inventory of
the seized marijuana cigarette sticks as well as to take photographs of the same immediately after
confiscation, thereby, failing to establish the unbroken links in the chain of custody of the seized articles.

49 | P a g e
Issue: Whether or not Rosario Bayot Mahinay is guilty beyond reasonable doubt given the fact that the
police officers failed to make an inventory of seized marijuana cigarettes.

Ruling: Yes, Rosario Mahinay, the accused, is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The apprehending
officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel;
Provided further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items .In other
words, the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical
inventory and take photograph of the objects confiscated does not ipso facto render inadmissible in
evidence the items seized. There is a proviso in the implementing rules stating that when it is shown that
there exist justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have
been preserved, the seized items can still be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Jose Rizal Remo vs. Secretary of Justice Agnes Devanadera

December 9, 2016
G.R No. 192925
Perez, J.

Doctrine: Syndicated estafa is but the commission of any kind of estafa under Article 315 of the RPC (or
other forms of swindling under Article 316) with two (2) additional conditions: one, the estafa or
swindling was perpetrated by a "syndicate"and two, the estafa or swindling resulted in
the "misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative,
samahangnayon(s), or farmers association, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the
general public.

Facts: Batangas II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BATELEC II) is a cooperative engaged in the distribution and
transmission of electric power to certain parts of the Batangas province. In 2004, BATELEC II entered into
two (2) contracts that required it to spend a total of P81,100,000.00.The first contract was entered into
by BA TELEC II with the I-SOL V Technologies, Inc. (ITI),as represented by its president Manuel Ferdinand
Trinidad (Trinidad).The second contract, on the other hand, was with the Supertrac Motors Corporation
(Supertrac) and it was for the procurement of ten (10) boom trucks by BATELEC II.In 2005, a NEA audit
report found the ITI and Supertrac contracts as having been replete with various irregularities and
violations of NEA guidelines.The complaint accused petitioners, Trinidad and Bangayan of having
committed the crime of syndicated estafa under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1689 in relation to Article
315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Manalo et al. alleged that petitioners, Trinidad and Bangayan
acted in conspiracy, and as a syndicate, to defraud BATELEC II by way of the highly irregular and
anomalous ITI and Supertrac contracts. According to Manalo et al., the implementation of such contracts
has led to the misappropriation of millions and millions of pesos worth of funds of BA TELEC II.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa.

Ruling: No, the petitioners are not guilty of estafa. The petitioners were the directors of BA TELEC II that
approved, for the said cooperative, the contracts with ITI and Supertrac. The contracts required BATELEC
II to pay a total of P81,000,000.00 to ITI and Supertrac in exchange for the system-wide computerization

50 | P a g e
of the cooperative and for ten (10) boom trucks. It was, however, alleged that petitioners-in approving
the ITI and Supertrac contracts-have committed undue haste, violated various NEA guidelines and paid
no regard to the disadvantageous consequences of the said contracts to the interests of BA TELEC II in
general. Our review of the established facts vis-a-vis the applicable laws and jurisprudence had made it
clear that such indictment could not have been based on any valid finding of probable cause: first, as the
petitioners cannot be regarded as a "syndicate" under PD No. 1689 and second, as they could not even
be considered to have committed simple estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the RPC. Any person who
causes pecuniary damage upon another through any of the acts of abuse of confidence or of deceit, as
enumerated in Article 315 of the RPC, commits the crime of estafa or swindling.

Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices v. Court of Appeals
December 6, 2016
G.R No. 216914
Perez, J.

Doctrine: The probable cause required for the issuance of a freeze order refers to "such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet, prudent or cautious man to believe that an
unlawful activity and/or money laundering offence is about to be, is being or has been committed and
that the account or any monetary instrument or property subject thereof sought to be frozen is in any
way related to said unlawful activity and/or money laundering offense."

Facts: In this petition the constitutionality of Section 11 of R.A No. 9160, the Anti-Money Laundering Act,
as amended, specifically the Anti-Money Laundering Council's authority to file with the Court of Appeals
(CA) in this case is challenged. In 2015, a year before the 2016 presidential elections, reports abounded
on the supposed disproportionate wealth of then Vice President Jejomar Binay. The Office of the
Ombudsman and the Senate conducted investigations and inquiries thereon. From various news reports
announcing the inquiry into then Vice President Binay's bank accounts, including accounts of members
of his family, petitioner Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza &Binay Law Firm (SPCMB) was most concerned
with the article published in the Manila Times on 25 February 2015 entitled "Inspect Binay Bank
Accounts". By 8 March 2015, the Manila Time reported that the appellate court had issued a Resolution
granting the ex-parte application of the AMLC to examine the bank accounts of SPCMB. Forestalled in the
CA thus alleging that it had no ordinary, plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to protect its rights and
interests in the purported ongoing unconstitutional examination of its bank accounts by public
respondent Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), SPCMB undertook direct resort to this Court via this
petition for certiorari and prohibition on the following grounds that the he Anti-Money Laundering Act is
unconstitutional insofar as it allows the examination of a bank account without any notice to the
affected party: (1) It violates the person's right to due process; and (2) It violates the person's right to
privacy.

Issue: Whether or not Section 11 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act is constitutional.

Ruling: Yes. Section 11 of RA 9160 is constitutional. The AMLC functions solely as an investigative body in
the instances mentioned in Rule 5.b.26 Thereafter, the next step is for the AMLC to file a Complaint with
either the DOJ or the Ombudsman pursuant to Rule 6b. Even in the case of Estrada v. Office of the
Ombudsman, where the conflict arose at the preliminary investigation stage by the Ombudsman, we
ruled that the Ombudsman's denial of Senator Estrada's Request to be furnished copies of the counter-
affidavits of his co-respondents did not violate Estrada's constitutional right to due process where the
sole issue is the existence of probable cause for the purpose of determining whether an information

51 | P a g e
should be filed and does not prevent Estrada from requesting a copy of the counter-affidavits of his co-
respondents during the pre-trial or even during trial. Plainly, the AMLC's investigation of money
laundering offenses and its determination of possible money laundering offenses, specifically its inquiry
into certain bank accounts allowed by court order, does not transform it into an investigative body
exercising quasi-judicial powers. Hence, Section 11 of the AMLA, authorizing a bank inquiry court order,
cannot be said to violate SPCMB's constitutional right to due process.

FEBRUARY 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUAN RICHARD TIONLOC MARQUEZ
February 15, 2017
G.R. 212193
Del Castillo, J.

Facts: AAA, 24 years old, testified that she had a drinking session with her assailants that night. Feeling
dizzy, she took a nap. She woke up with 14 year old Elvin James Meneses raping her. She did not resist
for fear that she would be killed with the knife lying in a table nearby. When Meneses left the room,
herein respondent came in and asked her if he could have sex with her too. When she did not answer
because she was still shivering, Marquez mounted her. Thereafter, respondent left the room and AAA
went home.
The trial court and later the CA found Juan Richard Marquez guilty of rape. Meneses could not
be prosecuted due to his minority.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in finding Juan Richard Marquez guilty of rape.

Ruling: The SC reversed and set aside the ruling of the lower court. All the elements of rape must be
present to overcome the presumption of appellant’s innocence, to wit: (1) that the offender is a man;
(2) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (3) that such act was accomplished by
using force, threat or intimidation.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the presence of force, threat, or intimidation. There
was no evidence that the knife nearby was intended to threaten or intimidate AAA. Appellant did not
even utter any word to such effect and AAA did not show any hint of rejecting him. Marquez immediately
desisted when the alleged victim tried to move after feeling a slight pain during their sexual congress.
Prosecution also failed to establish the absence of will power due to drunkenness. AAA was even able to
stand up and go home immediately after the alleged rape.
The SC reiterated that in criminal litigation, the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defence. The burden of proof rests
on the State. Thus, failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden of evidence in this case entitles
appellant to an acquittal.

MARCH2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ENRILE DONIO y UNTALAN

March 1, 2017

52 | P a g e
G.R. No. 212815

Facts: Six police officers conducted a checkpoint along the junction of MacArthur Highway in relation to
the campaign of the Philippine National Police against hijacking, camapping, and kidnapping, hailing
cargo trucks and closed vans, and issuing cards to southbound vehicles.
A speeding tricycle abruptly stopped a few meters from the checkpoint and caught the attention
of the police officers. The driver, later identified as Donio, was noticeably agitated while repeatedly
kicking the starter of the tricycle. When asked for his identity, he introduced himself as Raul Layug (Raul)
and then handed to SP04 Taberdo a temporary license bearing the said name. The police officers asked
the driver and his companions, co-accused Paulino and Ryan, to bring the vehicle, a Honda TMX 155
tricycle with Body No. 817, to the checkpoint when they failed to produce its certificate of registration
and the official receipt.
Upon visual search of the vehicle, they discovered a bloodstained mini jungle bolo inside. They
seized the tricycle and the bolo, and then brought the three to the police station. Donio asked
permission to leave in order to get the registration papers. The officers allowed him, however, he did not
return.
The RTC convicted Donio of the crime of carnapping with homicide.

ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution has successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that Donio is
guilty of the crime of carnapping with homicide.

RULING: Yes. The elements of carnapping as defined and penalized under the R.A. No. 6539, as amended
are the following: 1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle; 2. That the vehicle belongs to a person
other than the offender himself; 3. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that
the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force
upon things; and 4. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle.

In this case, records show that all the elements of camapping in the instant case are present and
proven during the trial. The presumption that a person found in possession of the personal effects
belonging to the person robbed and killed is considered the author of the aggression, the death of the
person, as well as the robbery committed, has been invariably limited to cases where such possession is
either unexplained or that the proffered explanation is rendered implausible in view of independent
evidence inconsistent thereto. The said principle may be applied in this case as the concept of unlawful
taking in theft, robbery and carnapping being the same. Here, Donio failed to produce the vehicle's
papers at the checkpoint. He impersonated the victim before the police officers when his identity was
asked, and left under the guise of getting the said documents. It was also established that he and the
others were strangers to Rodrigo. Donio's unexplained possession, coupled with the circumstances
proven in the trial, therefore, raises the presumption that he was one of the perpetrators responsible for
the unlawful taking of the vehicle and Raul's death.

People of the Philippines vs. Pala Toukyo y Padep

March 20, 2017
G.R. No. 225593
Perlas-Bernabe, J.

53 | P a g e
Doctrine: Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well
as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the
accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising
from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in sensostrictiore."

Facts: On November 22, 2010,received information from a civilian informant regarding the illegal drug
selling activities of Toukyo.Toukyo was arrested by PDEA-CAR Agents namely Peralta, Kay-an and Santino
through a buy-bust operation. During the arrest, Kay-an andSantino immediately marked the
seized marijuana at the place of arrest, and thereafter, Peralta took the marijuana as well as the
backpack where it is placed. Upon reaching the PDEA-CAR field office, Agent Peralta turned over the
backpack containing the seized marijuana to Agent Dick Dayao (Agent Dayao), who in tum, executed the
proper documentation and delivered the seized item to the Crime Laboratory. A qualitative examination
reveals that the backpack indeed contains one (1) kilogram/1,000 grams of marijuana.Toukyo invoked
the defenses of denial and frame-up. Thereat, Toukyoalleged that he was mauled to force him to admit
ownership of the contents of the bag but he refused. After taking the cash from his wallet, Toukyo was
fingerprinted, taken to the hospital for a "check-up," and returned to the PDEA-CAR office. After he again
denied ownership of the contents of the backpack, he was brought to the detention cell and was told to
wait for his transfer to the Baguio City Jail.

Issue:Whether or not accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Sec.11 of RA 9165.

Ruling: At the outset, it appears from the records that in a letterdated January 26, 2017, the Director of
the Bureau of Corrections informed the Court that Toukyo had already died on October 15, 2014.
Therefore, the criminal case against Toukyo, including the instant appeal, is hereby dismissed.Under
Paragraph 1, Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, the consequences of Toukyo's death are as
follows:Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally extinguished:1.
By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore
is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
Thus, upon Toukyo's death pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is extinguished
inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. Notably, there is no civil liability that
arose from this case, there being no private complainant to begin with.

Martin Villamor y Tayson vs. People of the Philippines

March 22, 2017
G.R. No. 200396
Del Castillo, J.

Doctrine:Under the said RA 9287, a collector or agent is "any person who collects, solicits or produces
bets in behalf of his/her principal for any illegal numbers game who is usually in possession of gambling
paraphernalia." On the other hand, a coordinator, controller, or supervisor is defined as, ''any person
who exercises control and supervision over the collector or agent."

Facts: Villamorand Bonaobra was charged respectively with violation of Section 3(c) of RA 9287 for
collecting and soliciting bets and as a manager or operator for an illegal numbers game locally known
as "lotteng' and possessing a list of various numbers, a calculator, a cellphone, and cash. On June 17,
2005, at around 9:00 a.m., PD Peñaflor received a call from an infonnant regarding an ongoing illegal

54 | P a g e
numbers game atthe residence of Bonaobra. According to the police officers, they saw petitioners in the
act of counting bets, described by the Bicol term "revisar," which means collating and examining
numbers placed in "papelitos," which are slips of paper containing bet numbers, and counting money
bets. When they entered the gate of the compound, they introduced themselves as police officers and
confiscated the items found on the table consisting of cash amounting to ₱l,500.00 in different
denominations, the "papelitos," a calculator, a cellular phone, and a pen. Petitioners were then brought
to Camp Francisco Camacho where they were investigated for illegal gambling.

Issue: Whether the petitioners' conviction for violation of RA 9287 as collector or agent under Section
3(c) for Villamor, and as coordinator, controller, or supervisor m1der Section 3(d) for Bonaobra, should
be upheld.

Ruling: The Court finds that the right of the petitioners against unreasonable searches and seizures was
violated by the arresting officers when they barged into Bonaobra's compound without a valid warrant of
arrest or a search warrant. While there are exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant for a valid search
and seizure, none applies in the case at bar. Consequently, the evidence obtained by the police officers is
inadmissible against the petitioners, the same having been obtained in violation of the said right.
Considering that 15 to 20 meters is a significant distance between the police officers and the
petitioners, the Court finds it doubtful that the police officers were able to determine that a cRiminal
activity was ongoing to allow them to validly effect an in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest and a search
incidental to a warrantless arrest thereafter. The police officers even admitted that the compound was
surrounded by a bamboo fence 5'7" to 5'9" in height, which made it harder to see what was happening
inside the compound. It appears that the police officers acted based solely on the information received
from PD Peñaflor's informant and not on personal knowledge that a crime had just been committed, was
actually being committed, or was about to be committed in their presence. The Court finds it doubtful
that the police officers witnessed any overt act before entering the private home of Bonaobra
immediately preceding the arrest. PO1 Saraspi even admitted that from his position outside the
compound, he could not read the contents of the so-called "papelitos;" yet, upon seeing the calculator,
phone, papers and money on the table, he readily concluded the same to be gambling paraphernalias.
In this case, the prosecution failed to clearly establish the acts that constitute the offense of
illegal gambling as a collector or an agent under Section 3(c), and as a coordinator, controller, or
supervisor under Section 3(d), of RA 9287. The prosecution merely relied on the alleged illegal gambling
paraphernalia found and confiscated inside the house of Bonaobra and not on the specific overt acts
that constitute the offense.Verily, the warrantless arrest conducted by PD Peñaflor and his team was
unlawful as the same does not satisfy the requirements of an in flagrante delicto arrest. Consequently,
the search and seizure of the effects found inside the house of Bonaobra are likewise illegal since there
could be no valid search incident to an illegal warrantless arrest. Thus, evidence seized from Bonaobra's
house is inadmissible for being a fruit of the poisonous tree.

People of the Philippines vs. Anastacio Hementiza y Dela Cruz

March 22, 2017
G.R. No. 227398
Mendoza, J.

Doctrine: Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs
or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from
the time of seizure/ confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity

55 | P a g e
and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the
final disposition.

Facts: On May 25, 2003, accused was apprehended through a buy-bust operation conducted at Antipolo
City. Palconit approached accused-appellant and asked if he could buy shabu. After receiving the marked
money, accused-appellant handed to Palconit one (1) small heat-sealed plastic sachet
containing shabu. At that point, Palconit scratched his head to signal that the sale was consummated,
and the rest of the team rushed to the scene. Abalos introduced themselves as police officers and
immediately frisked accused-appellant. Abalos recovered the marked money and two (2) other plastic
sachets containing shabu from the left pocket of accused-appellant's pants. Thereafter, accused-
appellant and the seized items were brought to the PDEA Office. The seized items were turned over to
the case investigator who prepared the corresponding request for laboratory examination. Thereafter,
Palconit brought the seized items to the crime laboratory. After examination, Fabros issued a report
confirming that the crystalline substance in the sachets was positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu. As defense, accused-appellant alleged that he was playing billiards when three
(3) armed men suddenly arrived and pointed a gun at him. Without saying anything, the men frisked and
handcuffed him but found nothing illegal on him. He was arrested and brought to an office in Lores
where he was detained, interrogated, and forced to admit a wrongdoing. He was also asked to point to
other persons so that he could be released.

Issue: Whether the guilt of the accused for the crime charged has been beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: The elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs are: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment. Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have actually
taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti which means the actual
commission by someone of the particular crime charged. On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a
case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
In the case at bench, the prosecution failed to demonstrate substantial compliance by the
apprehending officers with the safeguards provided by R.A. No. 9165 as regards the rule on chain of
custody. To begin with, the records are bereft of any showing that an inventory of the seized items was
made. Neither does it appear on record that the apprehending team photographed the contraband in
accordance with law. Moreover, it has been ruled that the prosecution must establish in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover
and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.

APRIL 2017

Roberto P. Fuentes vs. People of the Philippines

April 17, 2017

56 | P a g e
G.R. No. 186421
Perlas-Bernabe, J.

Doctrine: The elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 are as follows: (a) that the accused must
be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private individual acting
in conspiracy with such public officers); (b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or
inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the
government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge
of his functions.

Facts: This case stemmed from an information charging Fuentes, being the Mayor of Isabel Leyte, of
violation of Article 3 (e) of RA 3019 stating that he allegedly refused for unreasonable length of time, to
renew private complainant Valenzuela’s Business Permit to engage in Ship Chandling Services in the port
of Isabel without any legal basis despite the fact that the complainant has complied with all the
requirements and has been operating the Ship Chandling Services in the Port of Isabel since 1993, which
act caused damage to the perishable ship provisions of Fe N. Valenzuela for MN Ace Dragon and a denial
of her right to engage in a legitimate business thereby causing damage and prejudice to Fe N.
Valenzuela. In his defense, Fuentes averred that as early as 1999, 2000, and 2001, he has been hearing
rumors that Valenzuela was engaged in illegal activities such as smuggling and drug trading, but he did
not act on the same. However, in 2002, he received written reports from the Prime Movers for Peace
and Progress and Isabel Chief of Police Tamse allegedly confirming the said rumors, which prompted him
to hold the approval of Valenzuela's Business Permit for Triple A, and to issue the unnumbered
Memorandum addressed to port officials and the BOC. Fuentes maintained that if he went on with the
approval of such permit and the rumors turned out to be true, many will suffer and will be victimized; on
the other hand, if the rumors were false, then only one stands to suffer. The Sandiganbayan found
Fuentes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted Fuentes of the crime of violation of Section
3 (e) of RA 3019.

Ruling: Yes. The elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 are present in the case at bar namely:
(1) it is undisputed that Fuentes was a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Isabel, Leyte at the
time he committed the acts complained of; (2) Fuentes's acts were not only committed with manifest
partiality, but also with bad faith; and (3) Fuentes's acts of refusing to issue a Business Permit in
Valenzuela's favor, coupled with his issuance of the unnumbered Memorandum which effectively barred
Triple A from engaging in its ship chandling operations without such Business Permit, caused some sort
of undue injury on the part of Valenzuela.

JUNE 2017

Estate of Honorio Poblador, Jr., represented by Rafael Poblador vs. Rosario Manzano
G.R. No. 19239, June 19, 2017
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Doctrine: The concept of civil liability ex delicto in Estafa under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the RPC
states that when the element of misappropriation or conversion is absent, there can be no estafa and
concomitantly, the civil liability ex delicto does not exist. In this kind of estafa, the fraud which the law

57 | P a g e
considers as criminal is the act of misappropriation or conversion. When the element of
misappropriation or conversion is missing, there can be no estafa. In such case, applying the foregoing
discussions on civil liability ex delicto, there can be no civil liability as there is no act or omission from
which any civil liability may be sourced.
Facts: On May 996, the Probate Court authorized Elsa Poblador as the administratrix of certain
properties of petitioner including his shares in Wack-Wack golf course. Elsa instructed Rafael, heir of
Honorio Poblador to look for potential buyers. Subsequently, Rafael engaged the services of Rosario
Manzano, a broker of Metroland Holdings Incorporated (Metroland). The property was sold to
Metroland for the amount of P18,000,000 which it paid P15,200,000 through a check and the balance of
P2,800,000 was allegedly given to Manzano for the payment of the taxes.
However, on October 1996, the sale of the shares were annulled by the Probate Court. Thus, Elsa
returned to Moreland the P18,000,000 which the latter paid for the Wack-Wack Share, plus interest, and
applied with the BIR for the refund of the taxes paid for the annulled sale. Meanwhile, Rafael, through
an accountant allegedly requested Manzano for an accounting of the P2,800,000 she received on behalf
of petitioner. In response, Manzano faxed documents requested by petitioner but when examined, there
was a discrepancy in said documents as it was found that the amount paid was only P80,000 instead of
P1,480,000. This led to the filing of an Information for the crime of estafa against Manzano.
Issue: Whether or not Manzano is guilty of Estafa.
Ruling: No. Manzano is not guilty of estafa. Our laws penalize criminal fraud which causes damage
capable of pecuniary estimation through estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. In general,
the elements of estafa are: that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by
means of deceit; and that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the
offended party or third person.
In this case, the Court agrees with the findings of both the RTC and the CA that the prosecution
failed to prove all the elements of estafa through misappropriation as defined in, and penalized under,
paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the RPC. Petitioner failed to show that Manzano personally received the
P2,800,000 from petitioner with the duty to hold it in trust for or to make delivery to the latter. In fact,
Rafael admitted that he did not even know who actually paid the taxes to the BIR, and that Manzano’s
name did not appear in the documents pertaining to the payment of the capital gains tax and
documentary stamp tax.

People of the Philippines vs. Jeffrey Macaranas y Fernandez

G.R. No. 226846, June 21, 2017
Peralta, J.
Doctrine: The Anti-Carnapping Law is a special law, different from the crime of robbery and theft
included in the Revised Penal Code. It particularly addresses the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor
vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. But a careful comparison of this special law with
the crimes of robbery and theft readily reveals their common features and characteristics, to wit:
unlawful taking, intent to gain, and that personal property belonging to another is taken without the
latter’s consent. However, the Anti-Carnapping Law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of
motor vehicles. Hence, a motor vehicle is said to have been carnapped when it has been taken, with
intent to gain, without the owner’s consent, whether the taking was done with or without the use of
force upon things. Without the Anti-Carnapping law, such unlawful taking of a motor vehicle would fall

58 | P a g e
within the purview of either theft or robbery which was certainly the case before the enactment of said
statute.
Facts: Frank Karim Langaman and his girlfriend Kathlyn Irish Mae Cervantes were aboard Frank’s
motorcycle, a green Honda Wave 125. When they were about to leave the place, two (2) men, both
wearing jackets and bonnets suddenly approached them, followed by a third man who was earlier
standing at a post. One of the three men held Frank by the neck and shot Frank causing the latter to fall
down. The same man pointed his gun at Kathlyn and demanded to give him her cell phone. After Kathlyn
gave her cell phone, the same man hit her on the back. Kathlyn pretended to be unconscious and saw
that the men searched the body of Frank for any valuables. While the incident was taking place, the
second man took Frank’s motorcycle, while the third man, herein appellant, just stood to guard them
and acted as the look-out. Afterwards, the three men left together riding Frank’s motorcycle.
Thus, an Information was filed against appellant, Richard Lalata and a certain John Doe charging
them of violation of R.A. No. 6539. Appellant denied the charges against him. The RTC found appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the
RTC with modification. Hence, the present appeal.
Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping.
Ruling: Yes. Accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of carnapping.The elements of carnapping as
defined and penalized under R.A. No. 6539, as amended are the following: that there is an actual taking
of the vehicle; that the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself; that the taking is
without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was committed by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; and that the offender intends to gain
from the taking of the vehicle.
Under the last clause of Section 14 of the R.A. No. 6539, as amended, the prosecution has to
prove the essential requisites of carnapping and of the homicide or murder of the victim, and more
importantly, it must show that the original criminal design of the culprit was carnapping and that the
killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion
thereof."In other words, to prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must be
proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original criminal design of
the culprit and the killing was perpetrated in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the
occasion thereof.

In this particular case, all the elements are present as the pieces of evidence show that there were two
(2) men both wearing jackets and bonnets, together with the appellant who approached the victim and
the witness Kathlyn and employed force and intimidation upon them and thereafter forcibly took the
victim’s motorcycle and then shot the victim on the neck causing his death. There was indeed a positive
and unequivocal identification of the accused. It has long been settled that where the witnesses of the
prosecution were not actuated by ill motive, it is presumed that they were not so actuated and their
testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.

People of the Philippines vs. Michelle Dela Cruz

G.R. No. 214500, June 28, 2017
Peralta, J.

59 | P a g e
Doctrine: It is well-settled in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal
recruitment and estafa. Illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is mala in se. In the first,
the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent is
imperative.
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who
defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.
Facts: Appellant was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and three (3) counts of estafa under
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant claimed that prior to her arrest, she has
worked in South Korea as an OFW for five years and three months. She alleged that private complainants
were introduced to her by a certain Alma Palomares. Thereafter, private complainants asked her the
necessary requirements for them to be able to work in South Korea. Appellant denied that she promised
private complainants any deployment abroad. She averred that she introduced the complainants to her
agent Rosa who assisted her in going to Korea. However, appellant claimed to be unaware anymore as to
what happened next after introducing the complainants to Rosa.
Appellant likewise admitted that the documents which she produced from private complainants were all
fake. However, she averred that she merely referred private complainant to the person who faked all her
papers but she has no hand in the preparation of the fake documents.
The RTC found the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.
Appellant appealed before the CA which denied appellant’s appeal for lack of merit. Hence, this appeal.
Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of estafa.
Ruling: Yes. The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following: (a) that there must be a false
pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business of imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made
or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party
relief on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money
or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
In the instant case, the prosecution has established that appellant defrauded private
complainants by leading them to believe that she has the capacity to send them to South Korea for work.
Such misrepresentation came before private complainants delivered various amounts for purportedly
travel expenses and visa assistance to appellant. As a consequence of appellant’s false pretenses, the
private complainants suffered damages as the promised employment abroad never materialized and the
money they paid were never recovered. All there representations were actually false and fraudulent and
thus, the appellant must be made liable under paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

SEPTEMBER 2017
People vs Melchor Panes y Magsanop
September 11, 2017
G.R. No. 215730
J. Del Castillo

60 | P a g e
Doctrine: The rule is well-settled that youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity. It is highly
improbable for an innocent girl such as private complainant, who is very naïve in the ways of this world,
to fabricate a charge so humiliating not only to herself but to her family.

Facts: Melchor Panes y Magsanop was charged of three counts of qualified rape when he was accused of
raping his thirteen (13) year old daughter. During the trial, the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales
found the daughter’s testimony to be candid an straightforward, even during cross-examination. Hence,
the said court held the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The accused, dissatisfied with the RTC’s
verdict, went up to the CA but his appeal was denied. Accused then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court
contending that his daughter’s testimony is unconvincing, speculative, and incredible.

Issue: (1) Whether or not the accused was correctly held guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
(2) Whether or not the testimony of the daughter is convincing and credible?

Ruling: (1) The CA's verdict is in full accord with the evidence on record. It is beyond cavil that appellant
had carnal knowledge of his daughter on three separate occasions and the same were committed
through force, threat, or intimidation. Appellant also used his moral ascendancy to cow his daughter to
submit to his bestial desires. It is also undisputed that it was properly alleged in the three Informations
and proved during trial that appellant is the father of the victim, a 13-year-old minor at the time of the
rape incidents. Undoubtedly, appellant committed the crime of qualified rape (three counts). Both the
trial court and the CA therefore properly sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
each count of qualified rape but without eligibility of parole.

(2) The rule is well-settled that youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity. It is
highly improbable for an innocent girl such as private complainant, who is very naïve in the ways of this
world, to fabricate a charge so humiliating not only to herself but to her family. With that in mind, the
Court finds no cogent reason to discredit the above-quoted testimony of private complainant. The fact
remains that there was a categorical declaration from the victim that she was ravished by her father
several times. It should be emphasized that this alone is already enough to sustain the charges against
accused-appellant Panes.

People vs. Jonas Geronimo

September 11, 2017
G.R. No. 225500
J. Perlas-Bernabe

Doctrine: It is well-settled that the “chain of custody” procedure in Section 21 of RA 9165 is a matter of
substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as
an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects.

Facts: Jonas Geronimo was charged of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA)
9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." It was alleged that the
accused sold and delivered to a PDEA officer certain grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride
(Shabu) and Meferonex, as well as a plastic bag of Marijuana during a buy-bust operation organized
against him. For his part, Geronimo interposed the defenses of denial and frame-up.

61 | P a g e
 After trial, the RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It declared that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized drugs were shown to have been preserved from the time of seizure to
receipt by the forensic chemist up to presentation in court. It added that the requisite marking of seized
items immediately upon their confiscation at the place of arrest is not absolute and can thus be done at
the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, given that there is no exact definition of
the phrase "immediately upon confiscation in Philippine Jurisprudence.
Aggrieved, accused elevated his conviction to the CA which affirmed in toto the decision of the
RTC. Hence, an appeal was field to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not the conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs against the
accused should be upheld?

Issue: Whether or not police apprehenders complied with the chain of custody rule procedure provided
in Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165?

Ruling: No. In cases involving sale of dangerous drugs, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited
drug be established with moral certainty. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody
rule, outlining the procedure that police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to
preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. Under this section, the apprehending team shall, among
others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the
seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the
same; and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from
confiscation for examination.
In this case, the subject drug was not marked upon its confiscation by the apprehending officer.
Thus, there is a clear violation of the chain of custody rule.

62 | P a g e