PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v DANILO FELICIANO, JR., et al.

G.R. No. 196735. May 5, 2014. THIRD DIVISION (LEONEN, J.)

Doctrine: Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender
arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

Facts:
Leandro Lachica, Amel Fortes, Derinis Venturina, Mervin Natalicio,
Cristobal Gaston, Jr., Felix Tumaneng, and Cesar Magrobang, Jr. are all
members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity. They were having lunch at the Beach
House Canteen, near the Main Library of the University of the Philippines,
Diliman when suddenly several men were charging toward them. The men were
armed with baseball bats and lead pipes, and their heads were covered with
either handkerchiefs or shirts. The men started attacking them, hitting them
with their lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries that required
hospitalization. One of them, Dennis Venturina, died from his injuries.

Issue:
Were accused-appellants correctly charged with murder, and there was
treachery in the commission of the crime?

Ruling:
Yes. According to the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
the accused-appellants were correctly charged with murder.

ART. 248. Murder.-Any person who, not falling within the provisions of
Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with
the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means
or persons to insure or afford impunity;

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery
is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and
unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim
no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must
concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons
attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of
execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
 In the case, the victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked with lead
pipes and baseball bats. The only way they could parry the blows was with their
arms. In a situation where they were unnamed and outnumbered, it would be
impossible for them to fight back against the attackers. The attack also happened
in less than a minute, which would preclude any possibility of the bystanders
being able to help them until after the incident. The swiftness and the
suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even
to defend themselves. Treachery, therefore, was present in this case.
 NICOLAS VELASQUEZ AND VICTOR VELASQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 195021. March 15, 2017. SECOND DIVISION. (LEONEN, J.)

Doctrine: An accused who pleads a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of

the Revised Penal Code admits to the commission of acts, which would otherwise
engender criminal liability. However, he asserts that he is justified in committing
the acts. In the process of proving a justifying circumstance, the accused risks
admitting the imputed acts, which may justify the existence of an offense were
it not for the exculpating facts. Conviction follows if the evidence for the accused
fails to prove the existence of justifying circumstances.

Facts:
Spouses Jesus and Ana Del Mundo left their home to sleep in their nipa
hut. Arriving at the nipa hut, the Del Mundo Spouses saw Ampong and Nora
Castillo in the midst of having sex. Jesus decided to pursue Ampong. Jesus went
to the house of Ampong's aunt, but neither Ampong nor Nora was there.He began
making his way back home when he was blocked by Ampong and his fellow
accused. Petitioner Nicolas hit the left side of Jesus' forehead with a stone.
Petitioner Victor also hit Jesus' left eyebrow with a stone. Accused Felix did the
same, hitting Jesus above his left ear. Accused Sonny struck Jesus with a
bamboo, hitting him at the back, below his right shoulder. Ampong punched
Jesus on his left cheek. The accused then left Jesus on the ground, bloodied.
Jesus crawled and hid behind blades of grass, fearing that the accused might
return. He then got up and staggered his way back to their house.

Ana and Maria Teresita then brought Jesus to Barangay Captain Pilita
Villanueva, who assisted them in bringing Jesus to the hospital. After
undergoing an x-ray examination, Jesus was found to have sustained a crack in
his skull. Dr. De Guzman noted that Jesus' injuries required medical attention
for four (4) to six (6) weeks. Jesus was also advised to undergo surgery.
Petitioners Nicolas Velasquez (Nicolas) and Victor Velasquez (Victor), along with
four (4) others - Felix Caballeda (Felix), Jojo Del Mundo (Jojo), Sonny Boy
Velasquez (Sonny), and Ampong Ocumen (Ampong) - were charged with
attempted murder under Article 248, 6 in relation to Article 6,7 of the Revised
Penal Code.

Issue:
Was there sufficient evidence to prove that justifying circumstances
existed?

Ruling:
None. ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. — The following do not
incur any criminal liability: Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur: (1) Unlawful aggression; (2)
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; (3) Lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse,

ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters,
or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity
within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites
prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further
requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one
making defense had no part therein.

To successfully invoke self-defense, an accused must establish: "(1)

unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense." Defense of a
relative under Article 11 (2) of the Revised Penal Code requires the same first two
(2) requisites as self-defense and, in lieu of the third "in case the provocation was
given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part
therein."

In the case, petitioners offered nothing more than a self-serving,

uncorroborated claim that Jesus appeared out of nowhere to go berserk in the
vicinity of their homes. They failed to present independent and credible proof to
back up their assertions. The Regional Trial Court noted that it was highly
dubious that Jesus would go all the way to petitioners' residences to initiate an
attack for no apparent reason. Thus, we find petitioners' claims of self-defense
and defense of their relative, to be sorely wanting.
 RICHARD RICALDE v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 211002. January 21, 2015. SECOND DIVISION (LEONEN, J.)

Doctrine: In the crime of rape whereby the slightest penetration of the male
organ or even its slightest contact with the outer lip or the labia majora of the
vagina already consummates the crime, in like manner, if the tongue, in an act
of cunnilingus, touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act should also be
considered as already consummating the crime of rape through sexual assault,
not the crime of acts of lasciviousness.

Facts:
Petitioner Ricalde, 31 years old, is a distant relative and textmate of XXX,
then 10 years old. Ricalde went to the house of XXX to have dinner. After dinner,
XXX’s mother told Ricalde to spend the night at their house as it was late. XXX
awoke as "he felt pain in his anus and stomach and something inserted in his
anus. "He saw that Ricalde "fondled his penis." When Ricalde returned to the
sofa, XXX ran toward his mother’s room to tell her what happened. XXX’s mother
then accompanied XXX to the barangay hall where they were directed to report
the incident to the Sta. Rosa police station. The police referred them to the
municipal health center for medical examination. Dr. Roy Camarillo
examined XXX and found no signs of recent trauma in his anal orifice that was
also "NEGATIVE for [s]permatozoa." XXX and his mother executed their sworn
statements at the Sta. Rosa police station, leading to the criminal complaint filed
against Ricalde.

Issue:
Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt petitioner Richard
Ricalde’s guilt for the crime of rape through sexual assault?

Ruling:
Yes. Paragraph 2 of Article 266–A states that rape is committed by any
person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice
of another person.

Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as

"instrument or object rape," "gender-free rape," or "homosexual rape." The
gravamen of rape through sexual assault is "the insertion of the penis into
another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another
person’s genital or anal orifice."

This court has given full weight and credit to the testimonies of child
victims. Their "youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and
sincerity." XXX, then only 10 years old, had no reason to concoct lies against
petitioner. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all elements of
the crime of rape through sexual assault.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v CRISENTE PEPAÑO NUÑEZ
G.R. No. 209342. OCTOBER 4, 2017. THIRD DIVISION. (LEONEN, J.)

Doctrine: To convict an accused, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to present

a positive identification by a witness during trial due to the frailty of human
memory. It must also show that the identified person matches the original
description made by that witness when initially reporting the crime. The
unbiased character of the process of identification by witnesses must likewise be
shown.

Facts:
Accused-appellant Nunez was apprehended by the Philippine National
Police Regional Intelligence Office for the crime of robbery with homicide on the
premise that he was the same ''Paul Pobre" identified in the Information. Upon
arraignment, Nuñez moved that the case against him be dismissed as he was
not the "Paul Pobre" charged in the Information. However, prosecution witnesses
identified him as one (1) of the alleged robbers and his motion to dismiss was
denied. The information was then attended to state Nuñez's name in lieu of "Paul
Pobre."During trial, the prosecution manifested that it would be adopting the
evidence already presented in the course of Marciales and Nabia's trial. Apart
from this, it also recalled prosecution witnesses Ronalyn Cruz (Cruz) and Relen
Perez (Perez). In their testimonies, they both positively identified Nunez as
among the perpetrators of the crime. The Regional Trial Court rendered a
Decision finding Nunez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.

Issue:
Is accused-appellant Crisente Pepaño Nuñez the same person, earlier
identified as Paul Pobre, who acted in conspiracy with Marciales and Nabia?

Ruling:
No. This Court now emphasizes the need for courts to appreciate the
totality of circumstances in the identification of perpetrators of crimes. Apart
from the witness' opportunity to view the perpetrator during the commission of
the crime and the witness' degree of attention at that time, the accuracy of any
prior description given by the witness is equally vital. Logically, a witness'
credibility is enhanced by the extent to which his or her initial description of the
perpetrator matches the actual appearance of the person ultimately prosecuted
for the offense.

The totality of circumstances test also requires a consideration of the

degree of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the moment of identification.
What is most critical here is the initial identification made by the witness during
investigation and case build-up, not identification during trial.

The totality of circumstances test also requires a consideration of the

length of time between the crime and the identification made by the witness. "It
is by now a well-established fact that people are less accurate and complete in
their eyewitness accounts after a long retention interval than after a short one."
Ideally then, a prosecution witness must identify the suspect immediately after
the incident. This Court has considered acceptable an identification made
two (2) days after the commission of a crime, not so one that had an interval of
five and a half (5 1/2) months. Thus, the totality of circumstances test also
requires a consideration of the suggestiveness of the identification procedure
undergone by a witness. Both verbal and non-verbal information might become
inappropriate cues or suggestions to a witness.

The greatest care should be taken in considering the identification of the

accused especially, when this identification is made by a sole witness and the
judgment in the case totally depends on the reliability of the identification. This
level of care and circumspection applies with greater vigor when, as in the
present case, the issue goes beyond pure credibility into constitutional
dimensions arising from the due process rights of the accused.

In the case, the identification made during Nunez's trial, where

eyewitnesses vaunted certainty, was but an offshoot of tainted processes that
preceded his trial. This Court finds Nunez's identification prior to trial
bothersome and his subsequent and contingent identification on the stand more
problematic. Nunez's identification, therefore, fails to withstand the rigors of the
totality of circumstances test. First, the witnesses failed to even give any prior
description of him. Second, a prosecution witness failed to exhibit even the
slightest degree of certainty when originally given the chance to identify him as
the supposed fourth robber. Third, a significantly long amount of time had
lapsed since the criminal incident; the original witness' statement that none of
his features were seen as to enable his identification; and the positive
identification made of him when the case was re-opened. And finally, his
presentation for identification before and during trial was peculiarly, even
worrisomely, suggestive as to practically induce in prosecution witnesses the
belief that he, to the exclusion of any other person, must have been the supposed
fourth robber.
 MIGUEL D. ESCOBAR, EUGENE L. ALZATE, PERLA C. MAGLINTE, CESAR
M. CAGANG, AND VIVENCIA S. TELESFORO v PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 205576. November 20, 2017. THIRD DIVISION (LEONEN, J.)

Doctrine: Where there are circumstances that should have alerted heads of
offices to exercise more diligence in the performance of their duties, they cannot
escape liability by claiming that they relied on good faith on the submissions of
their subordinates.

Facts:
Commission on Audit State Auditor IV Helen M. Cailing discovered
irregularities in Sarangani Province's grant of financial assistance. An Audit and
Observation containing the team's findings was sent to then Sarangani Governor
Escobar, Provincial Accountant Maria D. Camanay, Provincial Treasurer
Cagang, Provincial Engineer Mahmod Panayaman, and Provincial Agriculturist
Romeo Miole. Cagang replied that the transaction was treated as a cash advance.
The team found that the supporting documents for financial assistance to the
Malungon Market Vendors Association lacked the approval of Governor Escobar.
However, Governor Escobar certified on the disbursement voucher that the
expense was "necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision."Also
on the disbursement voucher was a certification from Telesforo that the
supporting documents were complete, and from Provincial Treasurer Cagang
that there were available funds. The team also found that the disbursement
voucher was not received by the Malungon Market Vendors Association. Further,
Auditor Cailing testified that upon verification with the bank, she was told that
the check had been deposited to the account of the beneficiary but that the
amount was withdrawn the next day. The funds for the financial assistance were
sourced from the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF), which was intended for
livelihood projects of Sarangani Province.

Issue:
Are petitioners Eugene L. Alzate and Perla C. Maglinte guilty of estafa?

Ruling:
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) provides that estafa may be committed by
means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious
name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar
deceits.

Thus, the elements of estafa by means of deceit are: (1) That there must
be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. (2) That such false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. (3) That the offended party
must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that
is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means. (4) That as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damage.

The elements of the crime were proved. That the documents were falsified
was amply established by the evidence. The documents were falsified before the
disbursement, which was allowed based on the falsified documents.

The Local Government Code provides that local officials, other than those
considered accountable officers by reason of their duties, may be held
accountable for local government funds: Section 340. Persons Accountable for
Local Government Funds. — Any officer of the local government unit whose duty
permits or requires the possession or custody of local government funds shall be
accountable and responsible for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with the
provisions of this Title. Other local officers who, though not accountable by the
nature of their duties, may likewise be similarly held accountable and
responsible for local government funds through their participation in the use or
application thereof.

Thus, local government officials, such as petitioners Escobar and

Telesforo, may become accountable officers by reason of their participation in
the application of public funds. In Zoleta v. Sandiganbayan, this Court applied
Section 340 of the Local Government Code and held officials whose signatures
were necessary for disbursement of funds as accountable officers. Local
government officials become accountable public officers either (1) because of the
nature of their functions; or (2) on account of their participation in the use or
application of public funds.

As a required standard procedure, any disbursement and release of public

funds require their approval. Thus, Constantino and Camanay, in their
capacities as Vice-Governor and Provincial Accountant, had control and
responsibility over the subject funds. In this case, as in Zoleta, as part of
standard procedure, it was required that petitioner Telesforo certify that the
supporting documents were complete, and that petitioner Escobar sign them
before a check could be approved for disbursement. Thus, as in Zoleta,
petitioners Escobar and Telesforo are accountable officers.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v FLORIANO TAYABAN
GR. NO. 207666. November 22, 2017. THIRD DIVISION. (LEONEN, J.)

Doctrine: If a woman above 12 years old has a mental age of a child below 12,
the accused remains liable for rape even if the victim acceded to the sordid acts.
Thus, if sexual intercourse with a victim under 12 years old is rape, it must
thereby follow that carnal knowledge of a woman whose mental age is that of a
child below 12 years old should likewise be constitutive of rape.

Facts:
AAA had been previously assessed to have moderate mental retardation,
an intellectual disability. AAA went to the house of her uncle, accused-appellant
Floriano Tayaban. Accused-appellant undressed her and had sexual intercourse
with her. Three months later, Dr. Diaz examined AAA and found a healed
laceration on her hymen. A complaint was filed against accused-appellant. The
Regional trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape.

Issue:
Is accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape?

Ruling:
Yes. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code states that rape is committed
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 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.

The prosecution was able to prove carnal knowledge, AAA testified that
accused-appellant raped her. Dr. Diaz testimony corroborated that there had
been carnal knowledge of AAA. The prosecution also proved that due to her
intellectual disability, AAA’s mental age was equivalent to someone under 12
years old. AAA’s intellectual disability was established by the testimony of her
teacher and was found by the regional trial court.

However, it is noted that although it was proven that accused-appellant

was AAA’s uncle, this aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the
information to be considered. Similarly, it could not consider the minority of the
victim, as her age was not properly established during trial.