SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 192150

October 1, 2014

FEDERICO SABAY, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We review in this petition for review on
certiorari1 the decision2 dated October 23,
2009 and the resolution3 dated March 22, 2010
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR
No. 31532.

Godofredos face, breaking the latters

eyeglasses. Godofredo claimed that as a result,
he felt dizzy.5 The petitioner and Erlinda then
shouted at Godofredo and threatened to kill
him.
Immediately thereafter, Jervie Lopez (Jervie)
came and pacified the three. But in the course
his efforts, he was hit in the hand with a bolo.6
The neighbors intervened not long after and
pacified the parties.
The Medico Legal Certificates7 dated June 12,
2001 showed that Godofredo suffered a
contusion on the left parietal area of his head
and an abrasion in his left cheek, while Jervie
sustained a wound in his right palm.

On June 13, 2001, Godofredo and Jervie filed a

complaint against the petitioner before the
barangay.8 The parties agreed to settle the
complaint based on the recommendation of the
building inspector and reflected their agreement
in their Kasunduang Pag-aayos9 (Kasunduan)
dated June 20, 2001. The Kasunduan, however,
was not implemented because the building
inspector failed to make the promised
The Antecedent Facts
recommendation to resolve the boundary
dispute between the parties.10 Thus, the Office
At around three oclock to four oclock in the
of the Barangay Captain issued a Certificate to
afternoon of June 12, 2001, while the petitioner
File an Action.
and his daughter Erlinda Sabay (Erlinda) were
busy laying wood and water pipes in the yard
The petitioner was accordingly charged before
of Godofredo Lopez (Godofredo), the latter
the MTC with the crime of Physical Injuries
confronted the petitioner about his (the
under two (2) Informations11 that read:
petitioners) alleged intrusion into Godofredos
property. A verbal altercation ensued between
Criminal Case No. 209934
them.
The CA affirmed the April 28, 2008 decision4
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan
City, Branch 126, finding petitioner Federico
Sabay guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two
(2) counts of Slight Physical Injuries. The RTC
decision in tum affirmed the Metropolitan Trial
Court's (MTC) judgment.

In the course of the verbal exchange, Erlinda

hit Godofredo on the head with a hard object.
The petitioner joined in by throwing a stone at

That on or about the 12th day of June 2001, in

Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-

named accused, without justifiable cause, did

then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously hit with a bolo one JERVIE
LOPEZ, thereby inflicting upon the latter
physical injuries which required and will
require medical attendance for not more than
seven (7) days or incapacitated or will
incapacitate said victim from performing his
habitual work for the same period of time.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 209935
That on or about the 12th day of June 2001, in
Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without justifiable cause, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously hit with a bolo one GODOFREDO
LOPEZ, thereby inflicting upon the latter
physical injuries which required and will
require medical attendance for not more than
seven (7) days or incapacitated or will
incapacitate said victim from performing his
habitual work for the same period of time.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

(Dina) (who both testified on the details of the

crime); Godofredo; Jervie; and Dr. Melissa
Palugod (Godofredos attending physician).
The defense, on the other hand, presented the
petitioner, Wilfredo Verdad and Caridad Sabay.
The petitioner denied the charge and claimed
that he had simply acted in self-defense. He
narrated that on the date of the incident while
he was putting a monument on his lot,
Godofredo suddenly hit him with an iron bar in
his right hand, causing him injuries. Jesus
Lopez (Jessie), Godofredos son, went out of
their house and with a .38 caliber gun, fired the
gun at him. To defend himself, he got a stone
and threw it at Godofredo.
The MTCs and the RTCs Rulings
In its decision, MTC believed the prosecution's
version of the incident and found the petitioner
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2)
counts of slight physical injuries. The MTC,
however, dismissed the light threats charged, as
this offense is deemed absorbed in the crime of
slight physical injuries. Further, it absolved
Erlinda for the crime of light threats as there
was no allegation that she uttered threatening
words against Godofredo.

The petitioner, together with his daughter

Erlinda, was also charged with Light Threats12 The MTC rejected the petitioners claim of
for allegedly uttering threatening words against self-defense for lack of clear, convincing and
the private complainant, Godofredo.
satisfactory supporting evidence. The MTC
held that the petitioner failed to prove that there
When arraigned, both accused pleadednot
had been unlawful aggression by Godofredo;
guilty to all the charges. Trial on the merits
he did not even present the medical certificate
thereafter ensued.
of his injury as evidence. The dispositive partof
its decision reads:
At the trial, the prosecution presented the
following eyewitnesses: Rodolfo Lata, Sr. y
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused
Dolping (Rodolfo) and Dina Perez y Alapaap
Federico Sabay y Bactol is found guilty beyond

reasonable doubt for two (2) counts of Slight

Physical Injuries and is meted a penalty
ofimprisonment of Eleven (11) Days for each
count as there is neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstance.

by the trial court; in the absence of any

showing that both the MTC and the RTC
overlooked weighty and substantial facts or
circumstances that could alter their conclusion,
the appellate court saw no reason to disturb
their factual ruling.

SO ORDERED.
In due course, the petitioner appealed his
judgment to the RTC, which fully affirmed the
MTCs decision.

On March 22, 2010, the CA denied the

petitioners motion for reconsideration; hence,
the present petition.
The Issues

The petitioner sought recourse with the CA,

arguing in this appeal that: (1) the MTC has no
jurisdiction over the case in view of the
prosecutions failure to offer the Certification to
File an Action in evidence; and (2) the trial
court erred in not sustaining his claim of selfdefense.
The CAs Ruling
The CA rejected the petitioners arguments and
affirmed the RTCs decision. The CA held that
even if there had been no formal offer of
exhibit pursuant to Section 34, Rule 132 of the
Rules on Evidence, the Certification to File an
Action could still be admitted against the
adverse party if, first, it has been duly
identified by testimony duly recorded and,
second, it has been incorporated into the
records of the case. Noting that the
Certification to File an Action was identified by
the complainants and is attached to the records
of the case, the CA ruled that an exception to
Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence
could be recognized.
The CA also dismissed the petitioners plea of
self-defense. The CA ruled that self-defense is
essentially a factual matter that isbest addressed

On the basis of the same arguments raised

before the CA, the petitioner questions: (1) the
jurisdiction of the MTC over the criminal cases
in view of the alleged inadmissibility ofthe
Certification to File Action; and (2) the lower
courts finding of guilt, its appreciation of the
evidence and its rejection of the claim of selfdefense.
The Courts Ruling
We find no reversible error committed by the
CA and affirm the petitioners conviction for
two counts of slight physical injuries.
On the first issue, the petitioner contends that
the lower courts erred in disregarding the
existence of the Kasunduan executed by the
parties before the Lupon. This existing
settlement between the parties rendered the
Certification to File an Action without factual
and legal basis, and is hence null and void. The
petitioner also contendsthat the CA erred in not
holding that the MTC has no jurisdiction over
the criminal cases in view of the
noncompliance (i.e., issuance of the
Certification toFile an Action despite the

existence of an agreement) with conciliation

his issuance of the disputed Certification to File
procedures under Presidential Decree No. 1508. an Action was regular and pursuant to law.14
Thus, the Barangay Captain properly issued the
We see no merit in these contentions.
Certification to File an Action.
The Office of the Barangay Captain Cannot be
Precluded From Issuing a Certification to File
an Action Where NoActual Settlement Was
Reached; the Certification to File an Action

Even granting that an irregularity had

intervened in the Barangay Captains issuance
of the Certification toFile and Action, we note
that this irregularity is not a jurisdictional flaw
that warrants the dismissal of the criminal cases
Issued by The Office of The Barangay is Valid. before the MTC. As we held in Diu v. Court of
Appeals:15
The present case was indisputably referred to
the Barangay Luponfor conciliation prior to the Also, the conciliation procedure under
institution of the criminal cases before the
Presidential Decree No. 1508 is not a
MTC. The parties in fact admitted that a
jurisdictional requirement and non-compliance
meeting before the Lupontranspired between
therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction which
them, resulting in a Kasunduan.
the lower courts had already acquired over the
Although they initially agreed to settle their
case, the Kasunduanthat embodied their
agreement was never implemented; no actual
settlement materialized as the building
inspector failed to make his promised
recommendation to settle the dispute. The
Barangay Captain was thus compelled to issue
a Certification to File an Action, indicating that
the disputing parties did not reach any
settlement.
The CA correctly observed and considered the
situation: the settlement of the case was
conditioned on the recommendation of the
building inspector; with no recommendation,
no resolution of the conflict likewise took
place.

subject matter and private respondents as

defendants therein. Similarly, in Garces v.
Court of Appeals,16 we stated that:
In fine, we have held in the past that prior
recourse to the conciliation procedure required
under P.D. 1508 is not a jurisdictional
requirement, non-compliance with which
would deprive a court of its jurisdiction either
over the subject matter or over the person of the
defendant.
Thus, the MTC has jurisdiction to try and hear
the petitioners case; the claimed irregularity in
conciliation procedure, particularly in the
issuance of the Certification to File an Action,
did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction. If at
all, the irregularity merely affected the parties
cause of action.17

Furthermore, the BarangayCaptain, as a public

official, is presumed to act regularly in the
The petitioner next contends that even if there
performance of official duty.13 In the absence was a valid Certification to File an Action, the
of contrary evidence, this presumption prevails; lower courts still erred in admitting the

Certificate into evidence as the prosecution did

not formally offer it as required by the Rules on
Evidence. He emphasizes that in Fideldia v.
Sps. Mulato,18 the Court held that a formal
offer is necessary because judges are required
to base their findings solely upon evidence
offered by the parties. In the absence of a
formal offer, the Certification is not admissible
pursuant to Section 412 of Republic Act No.
7160, and cannot be considered by the court.

been duly identified by testimony duly

recorded and, second, the evidence must have
been incorporated in the records of the case.

We do not find this argument sufficiently

persuasive.

Q: And Im referring to you thisCertification

from the Office of the Brgy. docketed as 18101, is this the one you are referring to?

The Certification to File an Action is

Admissible.
Section 34 of Rule 132 of our Rules on
Evidence provides that the court cannot
consider any evidence that has not been
formally offered.19 Formal offer means that the
offering party shall inform the court of the
purpose of introducing its exhibits into
evidence, to assist the court in ruling on their
admissibility in case the adverse party
objects.20 Without a formal offer of evidence,
courts cannot take notice of this evidence even
if this has been previously marked and
identified.

In the present case, we find that the requisites

for the relaxation of the formal-offer rule are
present.1wphi1 As the lower courts correctly
observed, Godofredo identified the
Certification to File an Action during his
crossexamination, to wit:24

A: This is with respect to the hitting of my

head.
Atty. Bihag: At this juncture, your Honor, we
would like to request that this particular
certification referring to the case 181-01
entitled Mr. Godofredo Lopez, Mr. Jervie
Lopez versus Mr. Federico Sabay and Mrs.
Erlinda Castro, be marked as Exh. "1" for the
defense. [TSN, Godofredo Lopez, page 119;
emphasis ours.]

Although the Certification was not formally

offered in evidence, it was marked as Exhibit
"1" and attached to the records of the case.25
This rule, however, admits of anexception. The Significantly, the petitioner never objected to
Court, in the appropriate cases, has relaxed the Godofredos testimony, particularly with the
identification and marking of the Certification.
formal-offer rule and allowed evidence not
In these lights, the Court sees no reason why
formally offered to be admitted.
the Certification should not be admitted.
The cases of People v. Napat-a,21 People v.
The Claim of Self-Defense
Mate,22 and The Heirs of Romana Saves, et al.
v. The Heirs of Escolastico Saves, et al.,23 to
cite a few, enumerated the requirements so that On the claim of self-defense, we recognize that
the factual findings and conclusions of the
evidence, not previously offered, can be
admitted, namely: first, the evidence must have RTC, especially when affirmed by the CA as in

this case, are entitled to great weight and

evidence is immaterial after he admitted the
respect and are deemed final and conclusive on commission of the act charged.31
this Court when supported by the evidence on
In this case, the petitioner admitted the acts
record.26
attributed to him, and only pleads that he acted
In the absence of any indication thatthe trial
in self-defense. His case essentially rests on the
and the appellate courts overlooked facts or
existence of unlawful aggression that
circumstances that would result in a different
Godofredo hit him with an iron bar on his right
ruling in this case, we will not disturb their
hand.
factual findings.27
As the RTC and the CA pointed out, the
We thus uphold the rulings of the RTC and the petitioner failed to substantiate his claimed
CA which found the elements of the crime of
self-defense because he did not even present
slight physical injuries fully established during any medical certificate as supporting evidence,
the trial. The RTC and the CA correctly
notwithstanding his claim that he consulted a
rejected the petitioners claim of selfdefense
doctor. Nor did he everpresent the doctor he
because he did not substantiate it with clear and allegedly consulted. His contention, too, that he
convincing proof.
was attacked by Godofredo and was shot with a
.38 caliber gun by Jessie was refuted by the
Self-defense as a justifying circumstance under prosecution eyewitnesses Rodolfo and Dina
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as
who both testified that it was the petitioner who
amended, implies the admission by the accused had attacked Godofredo.
that he committed the acts that would have
been criminal in character had it not been for
The prosecution eyewitnesses' testimonies were
the presence of circumstances whose legal
supported by the medico legal certificates
consequences negate the commission of a
showing that Godofredo sustained a contusion
crime.28 The plea of self-defense in order to
on the left parietal area of his head and an
exculpate the accused must be duly proven. The abrasion on his left cheek. These medico legal
most basic rule is that no self-defense can be
findings are consistent with Godofredo' s claim
recognized until unlawful aggression is
that the petitioner hit him and inflicted physical
established.29
injuries.
Since the accused alleges self-defense, he
carries the burden of evidence to prove that he
satisfied the elements required by law;30 he
who alleges must prove. By admitting the
commission of the act charged and pleading
avoidance based on the law, he must rely on the
strength of his own evidence to prove that the
facts that the legal avoidance requires are
present; the weakness of the prosecutions

In sum, we are fully satisfied that the petitioner

is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2)
counts of slight physical injuries, as the lower
courts found. His claim of self-defense fails for
lack of supporting evidence; he failed to
present any evidence of unlawful aggression
and cannot thus be said to have hit Godofredo
as a measure to defend himself.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we

DENY the appeal and AFFIRM the decision
dated October 23, 2009 and the resolution
dated March 22, 2010 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR No. 31532.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

drugs in two separate informations,2 as

follows:
Criminal Case No. 5450 (20920)
VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, A[R]TICLE
(sic) II K OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002
(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165)

WE CONCUR:
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 205821

October 1, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiffappellee,

vs.
GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN,
Accused-appellant.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:

That on or about September 14, 2004, in the

City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, not being authorized by law to
sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away
to another any dangerous drugs, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
SELL AND DELIVER to PO1 WILFREDO
BOBON y TARROZA, a member of the PNP,
who acted as buyer, one (1) small heat-sealed
transparent plastic pack containing white
crystalline substance having a total weight of
0.0120 gram which when subjected to
qualitative examination gave positive result to
the tests for the presence of
METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE
(shabu) knowing the same to be a dangerous
drug.

"Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal

requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of
custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug
paraphernalia. This is especially true when only
a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is
CONTRARY TO LAW.
alleged to have been taken from the accused."1
This resolves an appeal from a conviction for
violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act
No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On September 15, 2004, accused-appellant
Garry dela Cruz (dela Cruz) was charged with
illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous

Criminal Case No. 5451 (20921)

VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II
OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002
(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165)

That on or about September 14, 2004, in the

City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, not being authorized by law,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, have in his possession and under
his custody and control six (6) pieces heatsealed transparent plastic sachets each
containing white crystalline substance, each
weighing as follows: 1) 0.0135 gram; 2) 0.0183
gram; 3) 0.0542 gram; 4) 0.0197 gram; 5)
0.0100 [gram]; and 6) 0.0128 gram or a total of
0.1285 gram; which when subjected to
qualitative examination gave positive result to
the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
(shabu) knowing same to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3 (Citations omitted)
As alleged by the prosecution, dela Cruz was
arrested in a buy-bust operation. The buy-bust
operation was allegedly conducted after a
civilian informant (the informant) tipped the
Zamboanga City Police Office that a certain
"Gary" was selling illegal drugs at the parking
area for buses behind Food Mart, Governor
Lim Street, Sangali, Bunguioa, Zamboanga
City (the target area).4
The buy-bust operation team included PO1
Wilfredo Bobon (PO1 Bobon), as poseur-buyer,
and SPO1 Roberto Roca (SPO1 Roca), as backup arresting officer. It was agreed that "PO1
Bobon would remove his bull cap once the sale
of illegal drugs was [consummated]." The buybust team prepared a _100.00 bill with serial
number KM 776896 as marked money.5
At around 11:00 a.m. of September 14, 2004,
the buy-bust operation team, accompanied by
the informant, went to the target area. The

informant initially brokered the sale of shabu. It

was PO1 Bobon who handed the marked
money to dela Cruz in exchange for one (1)
heat-sealed plastic sachet of suspected shabu.
After which, he removed his bull cap. SPO1
Roca then arrested dela Cruz.6
Upon frisking dela Cruz, PO1 Bobon
supposedly recovered six (6) more heat-sealed
sachets of suspected shabu. PO1 Bobon placed
the sachet he purchased from dela Cruz in his
right pocket and the six (6) other sachets in his
left pocket. SPO1 Roca recovered the marked
_100.00 bill.7
Dela Cruz and the seven (7) sachets seized
from him were then brought to the Zamboanga
City Police Station.8 There, PO1 Bobon taped
the sachets. He then marked the sachet from his
right pocket with his initials, "WB."9 He
marked the sachets from his left pocket as
"WB-1," "WB-2," "WB-3," "WB-4," "WB-5,"
and "WB-6."10
On the same day, the seven (7) sachets were
turned over to SPO1 Federico Lindo, Jr., the
investigating officer, who prepared the request
for laboratory examination. Subsequently, the
tests yielded positive results for shabu.11
During trial, the prosecution presented as
witnesses PO1 Bobon, SPO1 Roca, and
forensic chemist Police Inspector Melvin L.
Manuel. The sole witness presented for the
defense was dela Cruz himself.12
For his part, dela Cruz acknowledged that on
the morning of September 14, 2004, he was in
the target area. As he was leaving the comfort
room, someone embraced him from behind,
while another poked a gun at him. He was then

handcuffed and brought to an L-300 van which

YEARS of imprisonment and pay a fine
was parked in front of Food Mart. Inside the
of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND
van, he was asked if he was Jing-Jong, alias
PESOS (P300,000) without subsidiary
Jong-Jong. Despite his denials, he was brought
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
to the police station. It was when he was
The methamphetamine hydrochloride used as
already detained that he learned that he was
evidence in these cases are hereby ordered
charged for violation of the Comprehensive
confiscated to be turned over to the proper
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.13
authorities for disposition.
On August 19, 2010, the Regional Trial Court,
SO ORDERED.14
Branch 13, Zamboanga City, convicted dela
Cruz for violating Article II, Section 5 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 On appeal to the Court of Appeals, dela Cruz
assailed the prosecutions failure to establish
and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a
fine of _500,000.00. He was also convicted for the chain of custody of the seized sachets of
shabu. He also assailed the validity of the buyviolating Article II, Section 11 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 bust operation and the prosecutions failure to
and sentenced to 12 years and one day up to 14 present the informant in court.15
years imprisonment and a fine of _300,000.00.
On May 31, 2012, the Court of Appeals
The dispositive portion of this decision reads:
rendered a decision16 affirming dela Cruz
conviction in toto. Thereafter, dela Cruz filed
WHEREFORE, this Court finds:
his notice of appeal.17
1. In Criminal Case No. 5450 (20920),
In the resolution18 dated April 15, 2013, this
accused GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE
court noted the records forwarded by the Court
GUZMAN guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for violating Section 5, Article II of Appeals and informed the parties that they
may file their supplemental briefs.
of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to
suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of On June 6, 2013, the Office of the Solicitor
General filed a manifestation and motion,19 on
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (P500,000) without subsidiary behalf of the People of the Philippines, noting
that it would no longer file a supplemental brief
imprisonment in case of insolvency;
as the brief it filed with the Court of Appeals
2. In Criminal Case No. 5451 (20921), had adequately addressed the arguments and
issues raised by dela Cruz.
accused GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE
GUZMAN guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for violating Section 11, Article II
of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to
suffer the penalty of TWELVE YEARS
AND ONE DAY to FOURTEEN

On August 7, 2013, dela Cruz filed a

manifestation20 indicating that he, too, would
no longer file a supplemental brief and that he
was instead re-pleading, adopting, and

reiterating the defenses and arguments in the

brief he filed before the Court of Appeals.
For resolution is the issue of whether dela
Cruzs guilt beyond reasonable doubt for
violating Sections 5 and 11 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
was established. Subsumed in the resolution of
this issue are the issues raised by dela Cruz in
the brief he filed with the Court of Appeals,
foremost of which is whether the prosecution
was able to establish compliance with the chain
of custody requirements under Section 21 of
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.
The elements that must be established to
sustain convictions for illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs are settled:
In actions involving the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the following elements must
first be 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, in prosecutions for illegal
possession of a dangerous drug, it must be
shown 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. Similarly, in
this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti
must be established beyond reasonable
doubt.21
With respect to the element of corpus delicti,
Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous

Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by Republic

Act No. 10640 provides for the custody and
disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or
surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia.
Particularly on the matter of custody before a
criminal case is filed, Section 21, as amended,
provides:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of
Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take
charge and have custody of all dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having
initial custody and control of the
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall,
immediately after seizure and
confiscation, conduct a physical
inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official
and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media who
shall be required to sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: Provided, That the physical

inventory and photograph shall be

conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures: Provided, finally,
That noncompliance of 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 and custody over
said items.
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon
confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment, the same shall be
submitted to the PDEA Forensic
Laboratory for a qualitative and
quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic
laboratory examination results, which
shall be done by the forensic laboratory
examiner, shall be issued immediately
upon the receipt of the subject item/s:
Provided, That when the volume of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled
precursors and essential chemicals does
not allow the completion of testing
within the time frame, a partial
laboratory examination report shall be
provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be

examined by the forensic laboratory:

Provided, however, That a final
certification shall be issued immediately
upon completion of the said
examination and certification;
....
The significance of complying with Section
21s requirements cannot be overemphasized.
Non-compliance is tantamount to failure in
establishing identity of corpus delicti, an
essential element of the offenses of illegal sale
and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By
failing to establish an element of these offenses,
non-compliance will, thus, engender the
acquittal of an accused.
We reiterate the extensive discussion on this
matter from our recent decision in People v.
Holgado:22
As this court declared in People v. Morales,
"failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section
21, Article II of RA 9165 implie[s] a
concomitant failure on the part of the
prosecution to establish the identity of the
corpus delicti."23 It "produce[s] doubts as to
the origins of the [seized paraphernalia]."24
The significance of ensuring the integrity of
drugs and drug paraphernalia in prosecutions
under Republic Act No. 9165 is discussed in
People v. Belocura:25
Worse, the Prosecution failed to establish the
identity of the prohibited drug that constituted
the corpus delicti itself. The omission naturally
raises grave doubt about any search being
actually conducted and warrants the suspicion

that the prohibited drugs were planted

evidence.

ruled that unless the state can show by records

or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the
exhibit at least between the time it came into
In every criminal prosecution for possession of the possession of police officers until it was
illegal drugs, the Prosecution must account for tested in the laboratory to determine its
the custody of the incriminating evidence from composition, testimony of the state as to the
the moment of seizure and confiscation until
laboratorys findings is inadmissible.
the moment it is offered in evidence. That
account goes to the weight of evidence. It is not A unique characteristic of narcotic substances
enough that the evidence offered has probative is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact
value on the issues, for the evidence must also they are subject to scientific analysis to
be sufficiently connected to and tied with the
determine their composition and nature. The
facts in issue. The evidence is not relevant
Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the
merely because it is available but that it has an likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any
actual connection with the transaction involved of the links in the chain of custody over the
and with the parties thereto. This is the reason same there could have been tampering,
why authentication and laying a foundation for alteration or substitution of substances from
the introduction of evidence are important.26
other casesby accident or otherwisein
(Emphasis supplied)
which similar evidence was seized or in which
similar evidence was submitted for laboratory
In Malilin v. People,27 this court explained that testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a
the exactitude required by Section 21 goes into standard more stringent than that applied to
the very nature of narcotics as the subject of
cases involving objects which are readily
prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165:
identifiable must be applied, a more exacting
standard that entails a chain of custody of the
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or
item with sufficient completeness if only to
mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest
render it improbable that the original item has
when the exhibit is small and is one that has
either been exchanged with another or been
physical characteristics fungible in nature and contaminated or tampered with.28 (Emphasis
similar in form to substances familiar to people supplied)
in their daily lives. Graham vs. State positively
acknowledged this danger. In that case where a Compliance with the chain of custody
substance later analyzed as heroinwas
requirement provided by Section 21, therefore,
handled by two police officers prior to
ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized,
examination who however did not testify in
and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug
court on the condition and whereabouts of the paraphernalia in four (4) respects: first, the
exhibit at the time it was in their possession nature of the substances or items seized;
was excluded from the prosecution evidence,
second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the
the court pointing out that the white powder
substances or items seized; third, the relation of
seized could have been indeed heroin or it
the substances or items seized to the incident
could have been sugar or baking powder. It
allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the

relation of the substances or items seized to the

person/s alleged to have been in possession of
or peddling them. Compliance with this
requirement forecloses opportunities for
planting, contaminating, or tampering of
evidence in any manner.

Even the doing of acts which ostensibly

approximate compliance but do not actually
comply with the requirements of Section 21
does not suffice. In People v. Magat,32 for
instance, this court had occasion to emphasize
the inadequacy of merely marking the items
supposedly seized: "Marking of the seized
By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, drugs alone by the law enforcers is not enough
non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a
to comply with the clear and unequivocal
failure to establish an element of the offense of procedures prescribed in Section 21 of R.A.
illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that No. 9165."33
this non-compliance suffices as a ground for
acquittal. As this court stated in People v.
The exactitude which the state requires in
Lorenzo:29
handling seized narcotics and drug
paraphernalia is bolstered by the amendments
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of
made to Section 21 by Republic Act No. 10640.
prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be
Section 21(1), as amended, now includes the
sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the
following proviso, thereby making it even more
identity of the drug. The identity of the
stringent than as originally worded:
prohibited drug must be established with moral
certainty. Apart from showing that the elements Provided, That the physical inventory and
of possession or sale are present, the fact that
photograph shall be conducted at the place
the substance illegally possessed and sold in the where the search warrant is served; or at the
first place is the same substance offered in
nearest police station or at the nearest office of
court as exhibit must likewise be established
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
with the same degree of certitude as that
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures:
needed to sustain a guilty verdict.30 (Emphasis
In People v. Nandi,34 this court explained that
supplied)
four (4) links "should be established in the
The prosecutions sweeping guarantees as to
chain of custody of the confiscated item: first,
the identity and integrity of seized drugs and
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
drug paraphernalia will not secure a conviction. illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
Not even the presumption of regularity in the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of
performance of official duties will suffice. In
the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
fact, whatever presumption there is as to the
officer to the investigating officer; third, the
regularity of the manner by which officers took turnover by the investigating officer of the
and maintained custody of the seized items is
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
"negated."31 Republic Act No. 9165 requires
laboratory examination; and fourth, the
compliance with Section 21.
turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court."35

In Nandi, where the prosecution failed to show

how the seized items were handled following
the actual seizure and, thereafter, turned over
for examination, this court held that the
accused must be acquitted:

Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police

committed in handling the seized shabu and the
obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its
custody, a presumption of regularity in the
performance of duties cannot be made in this
case. A presumption of regularity in the
After a closer look, the Court finds that the
performance of official duty is made in the
linkages in the chain of custody of the subject context of an existing rule of law or statute
item were not clearly established. As can be
authorizing the performance of an act or duty
gleaned from his forequoted testimony, PO1
or prescribing a procedure in the performance
Collado failed to provide informative details on thereof. The presumption applies when nothing
how the subject shabu was handled
in the record suggests that the law enforcers
immediately after the seizure. He just claimed deviated from the standard conduct of official
that the item was handed to him by the accused duty required by law; where the official act is
in the course of the transaction and, thereafter, irregular on its face, the presumption cannot
he handed it to the investigator.
arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted,
the lower courts were obviously wrong when
There is no evidence either on how the item
they relied on the presumption of regularity in
was stored, preserved, labeled, and recorded.
the performance of official duty.
PO1 Collado could not even provide the court
with the name of the investigator. He admitted With the chain of custody in serious question,
that he was not present when it was delivered to the Court cannot gloss over the argument of the
the crime laboratory. It was Forensic Chemist
accused regarding the weight of the seized
Bernardino M. Banac, Jr. who identified the
drug. The standard procedure is that after the
person who delivered the specimen to the crime confiscation of the dangerous substance, it is
laboratory. He disclosed that he received the
brought to the crime laboratory for a series of
specimen from one PO1 Cuadra, who was not tests. The result thereof becomes one of the
even a member of the buy-bust team. Per their bases of the charge to be filed.36 (Citations
record, PO1 Cuadra delivered the letter-request omitted)
with the attached seized item to the CPD Crime
Laboratory Office where a certain PO2
As Holgado emphasized, "[e]ven the doing of
Semacio recorded it and turned it over to the
acts which ostensibly approximate compliance
Chemistry Section.
but do not actually comply with the
requirements of Section 21 does not suffice."37
In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the
In People v. Garcia,38 this court noted that the
considered view that chain of custody of the
mere marking of seized paraphernalia,
illicit drug seized was compromised. Hence,
unsupported by a physical inventory and taking
the presumption of regularity in the
of photographs, and in the absence of the
performance of duties cannot be applied in this persons required by Section 21 to be present,
case.
does not suffice:

Thus, other than the markings made by PO1

Garcia and the police investigator (whose
identity was not disclosed), no physical
inventory was ever made, and no photograph of
the seized items was taken under the
circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and
its implementing rules. We observe that while
there was testimony with respect to the marking
of the seized items at the police station, no
mention whatsoever was made on whether the
marking had been done in the presence of Ruiz
or his representatives. There was likewise no
mention that any representative from the media
and the Department of Justice, or any elected
official had been present during this inventory,
or that any of these people had been required to
sign the copies of the inventory.39 (Citations
omitted)

We found no gap in the prosecutions

presentation of the chain of custody. There was
a seizure of seven (7) heat-sealed sachets of
shabu as a result of a valid buy-bust operation.
PO1 Bobon and SPO1 Roca testified how the
seizure was conducted. PO1 Bobon was able to
identify the shabu which were involved in the
illegal sale vis-a-vis the one involved in illegal
possession because he knowingly put them in
different pockets. The seized drugs were
marked at the police station which was only
200 meters away from the area where the arrest
was made. The identity of these seized items
were secured as PO1 Bobon placed tapes on the
respective heat-sealed sachets of shabu and
marked them with his initials which he later
identified in court.42 (Citation omitted)

The circumstance of PO1 Bobon keeping

In this case, the Regional Trial Court
narcotics in his own pockets precisely
acknowledged that no physical inventory of the underscores the importance of strictly
seized items was conducted.40 Similarly, there complying with Section 21. His subsequent
is nothing in the records to show that the seized identification in open court of the items coming
items were photographed in the manner
out of his own pockets is self-serving.
required by Section 21. Likewise, none of the
persons required by Section 21 to be present (or The prosecution effectively admits that from
their possible substitutes) have been shown to the moment of the supposed buy-bust operation
until the seized items turnover for
be present.
examination, these items had been in the sole
The Regional Trial Court and the Court of
possession of a police officer. In fact, not only
Appeals assert that dela Cruz must nevertheless had they been in his possession, they had been
be convicted as "it had been clearly established in such close proximity to him that they had
that the identity of the items were [sic] properly been nowhere else but in his own pockets.
preserved."41 They anchor this conclusion on
Keeping one of the seized items in his right
PO1 Bobons having supposedly kept the
pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a
seized sachets in his own pockets: one (1)
sachet in his right pocket and six (6) sachets in doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the
integrity of the items. Contrary to the Court of
his left pocket.
Appeals finding that PO1 Bobon took the
The Court of Appeals reasons:
necessary precautions, we find his actions
reckless, if not dubious.

Even without referring to the strict

requirements of Section 21, common sense
dictates that a single police officers act of
bodily-keeping the item(s) which is at the crux
of offenses penalized under the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is fraught with
dangers. One need not engage in a meticulous
counter-checking with the requirements of
Section 21 to view with distrust the items
coming out of PO1 Bobons pockets. That the
Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals
both failed to see through this and fell hook,
line, and sinker for PO1 Bobons avowals is
mind-boggling.

of photographs in the presence of dela Cruz or

of any of the other persons specified by Section
21 were conducted.43
As in People v. Garcia, the mere marking of
seized paraphernalia, will not suffice to sustain
a conviction in this case.
The miniscule amount of narcotics supposedly
seized from dela Cruz amplifies the doubts on
their integrity.1wphi1 In total, the seven (7)
sachets supposedly contained all of 0.1405
gram of shabu. This quantity is so miniscule it
amounts to little more than 7% of the weight of
a five-centavo coin (1.9 grams) or a onecentavo coin (2.0 grams).

Moreover, PO1 Bobon did so without even

offering the slightest justification for
dispensing with the requirements of Section 21. As we have discussed in People v. Holgado:
Section 21, paragraph 1, of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, includes a
proviso to the effect that "noncompliance of
(sic) 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 and custody over said items."
Plainly, the prosecution has not shown that on
September 14, 2004, when dela Cruz was
arrested and the sachets supposedly seized and
marked there were "justifiable grounds" for
dispensing with compliance with Section 21.
All that the prosecution has done is insist on its
self-serving assertion that the integrity of the
seized sachets has, despite all its lapses,
nevertheless been preserved.
Apart from the blatantly irregular handling by
PO1 Bobon of the seven (7) sachets, it is also
admitted that no physical inventory and taking

While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized

is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this
circumstance underscores the need for more
exacting compliance with Section 21. In
Malilin v. People, this court said that "the
likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with
respect to an exhibit is greatest when the
exhibit is small and is one that has physical
characteristics fungible in nature and similar in
form to substances familiar to people in their
daily lives."
....
Trial courts should meticulously consider the
factual intricacies of cases involving violations
of Republic Act No. 9165. All details that
factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and
barefaced narrative must be scrupulously
considered. Courts must employ heightened
scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of
proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating

cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs.

is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. AccusedThese can be readily planted and tampered. . . . appellant Garry dela Cruz y de Guzman is
44 (Citations omitted)
hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
As the integrity of the corpus delicti of the
reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately
crimes for which dela Cruz is charged has not RELEASED from detention, unless he is
been established, it follows that there is no
confined for any other lawful cause.
basis for finding him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. It is proper that dela Cruz be acquitted. Let a copy of this decision be furnished the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
We close by hearkening to the same words with Muntinlupa City, for immediate
which we ended in Holgado:
implementation. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is directed to report to this court
It is lamentable that while our dockets are
within five days from receipt of this decision
clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act the action he has taken. Copies shall also be
No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and furnished the Director General of the Philippine
retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions National Police and the Director General of the
involving the proverbial "big fish." We are
Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency for their
swamped with cases involving small fry who
information.
have been arrested for miniscule amounts.
While they are certainly a bane to our society, The Regional Trial Court is directed to tum
small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an
over the seized sachets of shabu to the
exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in
law enforcers and prosecutors should realize
accordance with law.
that the more effective and efficient strategy is
to focus resources more on the source and true SO ORDERED.
leadership of these nefarious organizations.
MARVIC M.V. LEONEN
Otherwise, all these executive and judicial
Associate Justice
resources expended to attempt to convict an
accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful
custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent WE CONCUR:
in the overall picture. It might in fact be
SECOND DIVISION
distracting our law enforcers from their more
challenging task: to uproot the causes of this
G.R. No. 196005
October 1, 2014
drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases
involving greater amounts of drugs and the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
leadership of these cartels.45
vs.
CHARLIE FIELDAD, RYAN CORNISTA,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
and EDGAR PIMENTEL, Appellants.
decision dated May 31, 2012 of the Court of
DECISION
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00869-MIN

CARPIO, Acting C.J.:

detention, to the damage and prejudice of the

heirs of said JO2 Reynaldo Gamboa.

The Case
On appeal is the Decision1 dated 22 October
2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CRH.C. No. 03943, affirming with modification
the Joint Decision2 dated 3 November 2008 of
the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan (trial court) in Criminal Case Nos.
U-10053, U-10054, and U-10055.
The Facts

CONTRARY to Article 248, Revised Penal

Code, as amended by R.A. 7956 and R.A.
8294.3 The Information in Criminal Case No.
U-10054 reads:
The undersigned accuses JULIUS CHAN,
CHARLIE FIELDAD, MIGUEL BUCCAT,
JESUS GELIDO, FLORANTE LEAL, RYAN
CORNISTA, EDGAR PIMENTEL,
FEDERICO DELIM, JEFFREY ADVIENTO,
GIL ESPEJO, RUBEN a.k.a. Joven, and
ELMO MEJIA of the crime of Murder with the
use of unlicensed firearm committed as
follows:

Appellants Charlie Fieldad (Fieldad), Ryan

Comista (Comista) and Edgar Pimentel
(Pimentel) were charged in conspiracy with
others for the murder of two jail guards and for
That on or about March 9, 1999 in the morning
camapping.
inside the BJMP Compound, Anonas, Urdaneta
The Information in Criminal Case No. U-10053 City, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused
reads:
being detention prisoners armed with an
unlicensed firearm, with intent to kill,
The undersigned accuses JULIUS CHAN,
treachery, evident premeditation and taking
CHARLIE FIELDAD, MIGUEL BUCCAT,
JESUS GELIDO, FLORANTE LEAL, RYAN advantage of superior strength, conspiring with
one another did then and there willfully,
CORNISTA, EDGAR PIMENTEL,
FEDERICO DELIM, JEFFREY ADVIENTO, unlawfully and feloniously shoot with said
GIL ESPEJO, RUBEN PASCUA, and ELMO unlicensed firearm JO1 JUAN BACOLOR, Jr.
MEJIA of the crime of Murder with the use of inflicting upon him multiple fatal gunshot
wounds which caused his instant death,
unlicensed firearm committed as follows:
thereafter, accused escaped from their
That on or about March 9, 1999 in the morning detention, to the damage and prejudice of the
inside the BJMP Compound, Anonas, Urdaneta heirs of said JO1 Juan Bacolor, Jr.
City, and within the jurisdiction of this
CONTRARY to Article 248, Revised Penal
Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused
Code, as amended by R.A. 7956 and R.A.
being detention prisoners armed with an
unlicensed firearm, with intentto kill, treachery, 8294.4
evident premeditation and taking advantage of
superior strength, conspiring with one another The Information in Criminal Case No. U-10055
reads:
did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and
feloniously grab, hold and shoot with said
The undersigned accuses JULIUS CHAN,
unlicensed firearm JO2 Reynaldo Gamboa
CHARLIE FIELDAD, FLORANTE LEAL,
inflicting upon him multiple fatal gunshot
RYAN CORNISTA, EDGAR PIMENTEL, and
wounds which caused his instant death,
thereafter, accused escaped from their

FEDERICO DELIM of the crime of carnapping The prosecution established that at around 7:00
committed as follows:
a.m. on 9 March 1999, JO2 Reynaldo Gamboa
(JO2 Gamboa), JO1 Juan Bacolor, Jr. (JO1
Bacolor) and JO2 Marlon Niturada (JO2
That on or about March 9, 1999 at Brgy.
Niturada) were inside the nipa hut searching
Anonas, Urdaneta City and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- area near the main gate of the district jail. JO2
Gamboa summoned inmate Dionisio Badua
named accused, having just escaped from the
(Badua). JO2 Gamboa gave Badua the keys to
BJMP Compound, Anonas Urdaneta, in order
to expedite their escape armed with unlicensed the prison cells and instructed the latter to open
firearm with intent to gain, conspiring with one all the cells for the routine headcount.
another, did then and there wil[l]fully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and
Julius Chan (Chan) went to the nipa hut to ask
carry away one (1) Tamaraw Jeep with Plate
JO2 Gamboa regarding the time of his hearing
No. CDY-255 belonging to Benjamin J.
scheduled for that day. While JO2 Gamboa and
Bau[z]on without the latters knowledge and
Chan were conversing, the telephone in the
consent, which accused used as a get away
administration building rang. JO2 Niturada ran
vehicle. CONTRARY to R.A. 6539, as
from the nipa hut to the administration building
amended.5
to answer the phone.
Upon arraignment, appellants pled not guilty.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the testimonies of
Jail Officer (JO) 2 Marlon Niturada, Dr.
Constante Parayno, Dr. Ramon Gonzales, Jr.,
Senior Police Officer (SPO) 4 Ernesto
Gancea, Dionisio Badua, Police Senior
Inspector Philip Campti Pucay, PO3 Jimmy
Garcia, PO3 Roberto Reyes, SPO1 Joselito
Sagles, Pitz Dela Cruz, PO2 Danny Torres,
Police Inspector Pamfilo Regis, Police
Inspector Reyland Malenab, Theresa Bacolor,
Julie Gamboa, Benjamin Bauzon, JO1 Victor
A. Sidayen, Warden Romeo Jacaban, SPO4
Cirilo Lagmay and Col. Theresa Ann B. Cid.

After the phone call, JO2 Niturada proceeded

towards the basketball court. On his way there,
he turned his head towards the nipa hut and saw
Chan place an arm on the shoulder of JO2
Gamboa, who was seated, and shoot the latter
with a short firearm. JO2 Gamboa fell.
Meanwhile, Fieldad and Cornista grappled with
JO1 Bacolor for the possession of an armalite.
Cornista struck JO1 Bacolor at the back of the
head, which caused the latter to fall down.
Fieldad, armed with JO2 Gamboas gun, shot
JO1 Bacolor twice. Florante Leal (Leal) took
the armalite from JO1 Bacolor and shot at JO2
Niturada. JO2 Niturada returned fire with his .
38 caliber handgun.
Cornista opened the main gate with keys taken
from JO2 Gamboa. Twelve inmates went out
the main gate. After seeing the inmates run out,
Badua padlocked the main gateand returned to
his cell.
Once outside the jail compound, Fieldad, Leal,
Cornista, and Pimentel boarded a parked
Tamaraw jeep with plate number CDY-255
belonging to Benjamin Bauzon, without the

lattersknowledge and consent. They picked up

Federico Delim (Delim) and Chan along the
way. Before they reached Asingan, Pangasinan,
the group alighted from the Tamaraw jeep and
transferred to a Mazda pick-up truck. When
they reached San Miguel, Tarlac, the Mazda
pick-up truck turned turtle. The group
abandoned the vehicle and ran towards a cane
field. Police authorities surrounded the cane
field and arrested appellants and their
companions.
Dr. Constante Parayno conducted anautopsy on
the body of JO1 Bacolor, and concluded that
the death was caused by shock and hemorrhage
due to gunshot wound of the right lung. Dr.
Parayno also testified that based on the injuries
sustained by JO1 Bacolor, it was possible that
the shooting was preceded by a fight between
the shooter and the victim.
Dr. Ramon Gonzales, Jr. conducted an autopsy
on the body of JO2 Gamboa, and concluded
that the death was caused by cardiac tamponade
due to the gunshot wound that damaged the
heart.
Versions of Appellants
Appellants denied any criminal liability.
Fieldads Testimony
At around 6:00 in the morning on 9 March
1999, JO2 Gamboa brought Fieldad out of his
cell and ordered him to clean the administrative
offices. After cleaning the offices, he was told
to fix a vehicle parked inside the jail
compound. He needed to prop the vehicle on a
jack, but he could not find the jack handle. He
went back toJO2 Gamboa, who was in the nipa
hut with JO2 Niturada and JO1 Bacolor. JO2
Gamboa told him to look for Badua. When he
came back with Badua, JO2 Gamboa handed
Badua the key of the jail compound. Badua

went out of the compound, while Fieldad

continued to look for the jack handle.
While JO2 Niturada talked to him regarding the
vehicle, Fieldad noticed Elmo Mejia (Mejia)
and the other inmates playing basketball. The
ball rolled towards the nipa hut and Mejia went
to retrieve it.
Then Fieldad heard gunshots from the direction
of the nipa hut. JO2 Niturada got his gun and
fired towards the nipa hut. Fieldad got nervous
and took cover in the outpost. He peeped
through the windows and saw Mejia pointing a
firearm toward JO2 Niturada. He hid again
when he heard the exchange of fire between
Mejia and JO2 Niturada. He went out of the
outpost when he heard people calling for help
to push the parked vehicle. The vehicle did not
start, and the people pushing it dispersed.
Intending to return to his cell, he followed JO2
Niturada, who was proceeding towards the
main building. However, JO2 Niturada pointed
a gun towards him, so Fieldad ran away and
took cover.
While still inside the jail compound, Leal told
Fieldad that he needed the latter to go with him.
Fieldad, along with other inmates, left the jail
compound. He followed Leal to a Tamaraw
jeep parked outside. Leal pointed a long
firearm toward Fieldad,and ordered the latter to
drive the vehicle. Frightened, Fieldad drove the
vehicle. On their way, they picked up Delim
and Chan.
Pimentels Testimony
At around 7:30 in the morning of 9 March
1999, Pimentel was allowed to go out of his
cell. He proceeded to the basketball court for
the headcount. He heard two or three gunshots,
but did not immediately mind it because he was
used to the guards firing their guns in the
morning. When he saw Leal with an armalite,
running after and shooting at JO2 Niturada,

Pimentel ran to a house outside the

jailcompound. He was afraid to go back to his
cell because of the exchange of fire. Inmates
were running in different directions.
Leal arrived at the place where Pimentel was
hiding, and motioned to the latter by pointing
his armalite downward several times. Pimentel
approached Leal, who ordered him to remove
the stone blocking the tire of the jeep parked
near the house. Pimentel obliged. Pimentel
boarded the jeep because Leal told him at gun
point to do so. Fieldad drove the jeep. He did
not notice who their other companions were.
Along the way, they passed a parked vehicle.
Leal ordered everyone to alight from the jeep,
and to board the other vehicle. The vehicle
turned turtle in Tarlac.
Cornistas Testimony
Cornista was 17 years old on 9 March 1999.
Between 6:00 and 6:45 that morning, he was
cleaning the jail compound. He was shocked
and confused when he heard three rapid
gunfires followed by consecutive gunfires
coming from the direction of the nipa hut. JO2
Gamboa, JO1 Bacolor, Leal and Mejia were at
the nipa hut. Leal was chasing JO2 Niturada,
both of them armed. Then he saw the jail
guards lying down. Out of fear, he ran towards
the already opened main gate.
Cornista hid in a Tamaraw jeep parked behind
the jail compound. Then he saw Leal, Fieldad
and Pimentel board the jeep. He tried to alight
but Leal threatened to shoot him if he did.
Fieldad drove the Tamaraw jeep. Delim flagged
the jeep down and boarded.Chan also joined
them along the way. Upon seeing a parked
Mazda pick up, Leal ordered Fieldad to stop the
jeep and the inmates to transfer to the other
vehicle. Fieldad also drove the Mazda pick up
until it turned turtle in Tarlac.
The Ruling of the Trial Court

The dispositive portion of the trial courts Joint

Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the
foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. U-10053,
accused Julius Chan, Charlie Fieldad
and Ryan Cornista are declared
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of MURDER and each is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA. They are
also ordered to pay the heirs of the
deceased the amounts of Php75,000.00
as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as
moral damages, Php25,000.00 as
exemplary damages, Php47,845.00 as
actual damages and Php153,028.00 for
loss of earning capacity.
Accused Jesus Gelido, Edgar Pimentel,
Federico Delim, Jeffrey Adviento,
Miguel Buccat and Ruben Pascua are
ACQUITTED for failure of the
prosecution to prove their guilt.
2. In Criminal Case No. U-10054,
accused Julius Chan, Charlie Fieldad
and Ryan Cornista are declared
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of MURDER and each is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA. They are
also ordered to pay the heirs of the
deceased the amounts of Php75,000.00
as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as
moral damages, Php25,000.00 as
exemplary damages, Php87,349.45 for
the actual damages, and Php178,500.00
for the loss of earning capacity.
Accused Jesus Gelido, Edgar Pimentel,
Federico Delim, Jeffrey Adviento,
Miguel Buccat and Ruben Pascua are

ACQUITTED for failure of the

prosecution to prove their guilt.
3. In Criminal Case No. U-10055,
accused Charlie Fieldad, Edgar
Pimentel and Ryan Cornista are
declared GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of CARNAPPING
and each is sentenced to suffer
imprisonment from FOURTEEN
YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS to
SIXTEEN YEARS AND TWO
MONTHS, and to pay nominal damages
of Php15,000.00 and moral damages of
Php25,000.00.
For insufficiency of evidence, accused
Julius Chan and Federico Delim are
ACQUITTED.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN

FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE MINORITY
OF THE ACCUSED RYAN CORNISTA AT
THE TIME THE ALLEGED CRIMES WERE
COMMITTED.
IV
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED IN
DISREGARDING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS TESTIMONIES.8
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals modified the decision of
the trial court only with respect to the penalties
imposed upon Cornista in Criminal Case Nos.
U-10053 and U-10054, taking into account the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
The dispositive portion reads:

xxxx
SO ORDERED.6
Appeal was interposed only by Fieldad,
Cornista and Pimentel since Chan had died.7
They assigned the following errors:
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS DESPITE THE
PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE
THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
II

WHEREFORE, the Joint Decision of the trial

court is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION
as to the penalties of imprisonment imposed on
Ryan Cornista in Criminal Case Nos. U-10053
and U-10054. Accordingly the penalties of
reclusion perpetua imposed on him are reduced
to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayoras minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight
(8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, per each information.
IT IS SO ORDERED.9
The appellate court held that "it ismanifest that
Cornista acted with discernment, being able to
distinguish between right and wrong and
knowing fully well the consequences of his
acts."10 The Court of Appeals enumerated the
following acts of Cornista that clearly establish
discernment:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN

APPRECIATING CONSPIRACY AND
TREACHERY IN THE ALLEGED KILLINGS
x x x. His act of grappling for possession of an
OF JO2 REYNALDO GAMBOA AND JO1
armalite with Bacolor and hitting the latters
JUAN BACOLOR, JR.
head clearly demonstrated his discernment. He
took advantage of the situation where Fieldad
III

was also grappling with JO1 Bacolor by

striking the head of JO1 Bacolor which he
obviously knew would weaken the latters
defenses. Moreover, his act of getting the keys
from JO2 Gamboa which he usedin opening the
main gate clearly demonstrates the idea of
escape and thus established discernment on his
part. Cornista, having acted with discernment
may not be excused from criminal liability.11

In People v. Escote, Jr.,19 where an armed offduty police officer was killed, we held:

x x x. There is treachery when the following

essential elements are present, viz: (a) at the
time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself; and (b) the accused
consciously and deliberately adopted the
particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him. The essence of treachery is
Fieldad, Cornista and Pimentel appealed from the sudden and unexpected attack by an
the Court of Appeals decision. In the interim, aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving
Cornistafiled a Motion to Withdraw Appeal12 the latter of any chance to defend himself and
dated 15 June 2011, which the Court granted in thereby ensuring its commission withour risk of
a Resolution13 dated 15 August 2011. The case himself. Treachery may also be appreciated
became final and executory as to Cornista on 5 even if the victim was warned of the danger to
October 2011.14 The instant appeal thus
his life where he was defenseless and unable to
pertainsto Fieldad and Pimentel only.
flee at the time of the infliction of the coup de
grace. In the case at bar, the victim suffered six
wounds, one on the mouth, another on the right
Appellants and appellee adopted their
ear, one on the shoulder, another on the right
respective briefs15 filed before the Court of
breast, one on the upper right cornea of the
Appeals as their supplemental briefs in this
sternum and one above the right iliac crest.
case.16
Juan and Victor were armed with handguns.
They first disarmed SPO1 Manio, Jr. and then
The Courts Ruling
shot him even as hepleaded for dear life. When
the victim was shot, he was defenseless. He
The appeal is unmeritorious.
was shot at close range, thus insuring his
death.20 (Boldfacing and underscoring
Nature of the Killings
supplied)
Fieldad argues that there can be
notreachery since "the jail guards were In the case of People v. Tabaco,21 treachery
was appreciated in the killing of three peace
all issued with firearms to protect themselves officers, one of whom was armed and assigned
from danger and to maintain peace and order
to maintain the peace and order. They were
within the compound."17 This argument is
attending an event where many armed peace
untenable.
officers were present to maintain peace and
order. In that case, the victims were completely
There is treachery when the offender commits taken by surprise and had no means of
any of the crimes against the person, employing defending themselves against the sudden
means, methods, or forms in the execution
attack.
thereof which tend directly and speciallyto
insure its execution, without risk to himself
In the instant case, despite being armed, the jail
arising from the defense which the offended
officers were not afforded any chance of
party might take.18
defending themselves. Without warning,
Fieldad and his cohorts disabled the defenses of

the jail officers. Chan held the shoulder of JO2

Gamboa as he shot the latter. Meanwhile,
Fieldad teamed-up with Cornista to divest JO1
Bacolor of his armalite, and to knock him
down. Then Fieldad took JO2 Gamboas gun
and shot JO1 Bacolor.

Q Is this Charlie inside the courtroom right

now?

Fieldads Identity was Established

A This one, sir. (Witness pointed (sic) and

shaked (sic) hand (sic) with accused and who
when asked his name he answered Felmer
Fieldad).

According to Fieldad, since JO2 Niturada did

not identify him as a participant in the killings
of JO1 Bacolor and JO2 Gamboa, his identity
and complicity in the killings were not
established. However, contrary to his
contention, Fieldads identity in Criminal Case
Nos. U-10053 and U-10054 was proven by the
prosecution. Fieldad disregarded the testimony
of Badua, who categorically identified Fieldad
and recounted in detail his participation in the
incident:
Q What happened when you bring (sic) water
to the kubo?

A Yes, sir.
Q Will you please point to him, you step down?

Q Is he the same Charlie you are referring to?

A Yes, sir.
COURT
Do you know Charlie?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is he in the courtroom?

A At the time when I brought water to the place A Yes, sir.

where (sic) the guards used to take a bath there
were persons grappling possession of the
Q You go to him, where is Charlie there?
armalite, sir.
A This one, sir. (Witness is pointing to the
Q With whom?
accused, Charlie Fieldad).
A Charlie and Cornista, sir.

COURT

Q You were told to fetch water, then you

returned and brought the water to the place
where (sic) the guards used to take a bath and
you saw Charlie and Cornista grappling with
whom?

Warden what is the name?

A Bacolor, sir.
PROSECUTOR AMBROSIO
You are referring to Jail Guard Bacolor?
A Yes, sir.

BJMP WARDEN JACABAN

Felmer Fieldad and the nickname is Charlie,
Your Honor.
PROSECUTOR AMBROSIO
How about Cornista is he inside the courtroom?
A Yes, sir.

Q Will you please point to him?

What did Charlie do with the gun taken from

Gamboa?

A (The witness is pointing to one ofthe accused

who when asked his name he answered Ryan
A Charlie shot Bacolor, sir.
Cornista).
Q How many times did Charlie shoot Bacolor?
Q What happened next when you saw Charlie
and Cornista grappling possession of the
A Two (2) times, sir.22 (Emphasis supplied)
armalite of Jail Guard Bacolor?
It is a settled rule that the evaluation of the
A They struck the back of the head of Bacolor, credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is
sir.
a matter best undertaken by the trial court
because of its unique opportunity to observe the
Q Who struck the back head (sic) of Bacolor?
witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor,
conduct and attitude under grilling
examination.23 Positive identification of the
A Cornista, sir.
accused is entitled to greater weight than the
bare denial and explanation by the accused.24
Q What happened to Bacolor when Cornista
struck the back of his head?
In light of the positive testimony of Badua,
Fieldads self-serving defense of denial and
A Bacolor fell down, sir.
alibi must fail. Alibi is the weakest of all
defenses, as it is easy to contrive and difficult
xxxx
to disprove.25 True, the conviction of an
accused must rest not on the weakness of the
Q What happened when Gamboa was shot by
defense but on the strength of the prosecution
Julius?
evidence. Hence, whenthe prosecution
evidence has firmly established the guilt of
A He fell down, sir.
accused beyondreasonable doubt, conviction is
in order.
Q What else happened when Gamboa fell
down?
Sufficiency of the Prosecution Evidence
A They got his gun, sir.
Moreover, the positive identification of Fieldad
by Badua is corroborated by circumstantial
Q Who got the gun of Gamboa?
evidence. A careful examination of the record
reveals that the following evidence establish
A Charlie, sir.
Fieldads active participation in the conspiracy
to kill the jail guards:
COURT
What kind of firearm?
A 9 MM, sir.
PROSECUTOR AMBROSIO

1. Badua testified that Fieldad, together

with Cornista, grappled with JO1
Bacolor for the possession of the latters
armalite gun, and JO1 Bacolor finally
fell when Cornista struck him at back of
the head;26

2. Badua also testified that after Chan

shot JO2 Gamboa, Fieldad took JO2
Gamboas gun and usedit to shoot JO1
Bacolor;27

As to the paraffin test to which the appellant

was subjected to he raises the question, under
the sixth assigned error, that it was not
conducted in the presence of his lawyer. This
right is afforded to any person under
3. Dr. Constante F. Parayno, the medical investigation for the commission of an offense
whose confession or admission may not be
doctor who conducted the autopsy on
taken unless he is informed of his right to
JO1 Bacolor, testified that because of
the abrasions, the shooting of the victim remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel of his own choice. His
may have been preceded by a fight
right against self incrimination is not violated
between the victim and the shooter;28
by the taking of the paraffin test of his hands.
This constitutional right extends only to
4. JO2 Niturada testified that he saw
Fieldad confederating with Leal and
testimonial compulsion and not when
Chan by the nipa hut before heading out the body of the accused is proposed to
the main gate;29
be examined as in this case. Indeed, the
paraffin test proved positively thathe just
5. JO Sidayen testified that he saw
recently fired a gun. Again, this kind of
Fieldad with Leal, Chan and Cornista at
evidence buttresses the case of the
the nipa hut but moments before the gun
prosecution.38 (Emphasis supplied)
shots rang;30

Conspiracy in the Killings

6. P/Insp. Pamfilo Regis testified that he
took the paraffin casts31 of the hands of
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
Fieldad;32 and
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit
7. Forensic chemist Theresa Ann
Bugayong-Cid testified that the paraffin it.39 Conspiracy can be inferred from and
established by the acts of the accused
test done on Fieldads hands was
positive for the presence of gun powder themselves when said acts point to a joint
nitrates,33 as contained in her report.34 purpose and design, concerted action and
In addition, Fieldad failed to controvert community of interest.40 Once conspiracy is
shown the act of one is the act of all the
the paraffin evidence. We note that
Fieldads counsel manifested duringtrial conspirators.
that the paraffin casting was performed
without the assistance of counsel,
contrary to the right of the accused.35
However, all the exhibits offered by the
prosecution, including the paraffin casts
and test results, wereadmitted in the
Order dated 3 March 2000.36 To be
sure, the taking of paraffin casts does
not violate the right of the accused
against self incrimination. In People v.
Gamboa,37 we held:

Contrary to his contentions, the acts of Fieldad

before, during and after the attacks on JOs
Bacolor, Jr. and Gamboa disclose his agreement
with the joint purpose and design in the
commission of the felonies. The positive
testimony of Badua is corroborated by a web of
circumstantial evidence that points to no other
conclusion than that Fieldad was complicit in
the conspiracy to murder the jail guards.

Penalty and Damages for Murder

Since treachery qualified the killingsto murder

and there being no aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua was properly imposed. However, it

However, instead of using the annual income,

the trial court computed the net earning
capacity using the monthlyincome. Hence, we
multiply the amounts by twelve in order to
must be stated that Fieldad is not eligible arrive at the amounts of P1,836,336.00 for JO2
Gamboa and P2,142,000.00 for JO1 Bacolor.

for parole pursuant to Section 3 of

Republic Act No. 9346 or the Act
Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty.

Elements of Carnapping

Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of

a motor vehicle belonging to another without
Consistent with prevailing
consent, or by means of violence against or
jurisprudence, the trial court correctly
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things.44 The elements of the crime of
ordered appellant to pay to the heirs of
carnapping are that: (1) there is an actual taking
each deceased the amounts of
of the vehicle; (2) the offender intends to gain
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and
from the taking of the vehicle; (3) the vehicle
P50,000.00 as moral damages; however, belongs to a person other than the offender
the amount of exemplary damages himself; and (4) the taking is without the
consent of the owner thereof, or it was
must be increased to
committed by means of violence against or
P30,000.00.41 Exemplary damages intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things.45
are recoverable due to the presence of

the qualifying aggravating

circumstance of treachery in the
commission of the crimes.42

All the elements of carnapping are present in

this case. Both appellants admitted that they
boarded the Tamaraw jeep and drove away in
it. The owner of the vehicle, BenjaminBauzon,
testified that he did not consent to the taking of
his vehicle by appellants.

The award of actual damages for the expenses

incurred in connection with the funerals of JO2
Gamboa and JO1 Bacolor in the amounts of
Appellants argue that the testimony of the
P47,845.00 and P87,349.45, respectively, are
vehicle owner, Benjamin Bauzon, cannot be
supported by receipts and are in order.
considered for being hearsay because he was
merely informed that his Tamaraw jeep was
The trial court awarded the amounts of
missing.
P153,028.00 and P178,500.00 to the heirs of
JO2 Gamboa and JO1 Bacolor, respectively, for
Appellants argument is misplaced. Bauzon had
loss of earning capacity, applying the formula
personal knowledge that when he arrived home,
his Tamaraw jeep was no longer at the place
Net earning
{2/3 x [80 age at the time
where he parked it, and that he had to retrieve it
capacity =
of death] x [gross
from Bactad:
annual income reasonable
and necessary living
PROSECUTOR AMBROSIO
expenses]}43

When you arrived in your house where a

tamaraw jeep was parked what did you do?

COURT
Did you find your tamaraw jeep at Bactad?

A The tamaraw is no longer there, sir.

A Yes, sir.46 (Emphasis supplied)
xxxx
As for intent to gain, we held in People v.
Bustinera:47

COURT
What is the description of your tamaraw?
A Old fashioned tamaraw, sir.
PROSECUTOR AMBROSIO
What is the color of your tamaraw jeep?
A Red, sir.
Q Plate number?

Intent to gain or animus lucrandiis an internal

act, presumed from the unlawful taking of the
motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as the
important consideration is the intent to gain.
The term "gain" is not merely limited to
pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit
which in any other sense may be derived
orexpected from the act which is performed.
Thus, the mere use of the thing which was
taken without the owners consent constitutes
gain.48

Defense of Uncontrollable Fear

A CDY 255, sir.

Q In whose name was that tamaraw jeep
registered?
A In my name, sir.

To escape liability for the crime of carnapping,

appellants claim that Leal forced them to take
the Tamaraw jeep to facilitate his flight from
jail.

Q What did you do when you learned that your Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a
tamaraw jeep was in Bactad?
person is exempt from criminal liability if he
acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
A Somebody told me that the tank was emptied of an equal or greater injury.49 For such
so I went to buy gas and then I went to Bactad, defense to prosper the duress, force, fear or
sir.
intimidation must be present, imminent and
impending, and of such a nature as to induce a
COURT
well-grounded apprehension of death or serious
bodily harm if the act be done.50 A person
Did you leave the key?
invoking uncontrollable fear must show that the
compulsion was such that it reduced him to a
A Yes, sir, at the ignition.
mere instrument acting not only without will
but against his will as well.51 It is necessary
Q Is it visible?
that the compulsion be of such a character asto
leave no opportunity to escape or self-defense
A Yes, sir.
in equal combat.52
xxxx

In this case, appellants had ample opportunity

to escape. In the first place, Leal was already
armed when Fieldad voluntarilyfollowed him to
the place where the Tamaraw jeep was parked.
The vehicle stopped three times: to board
Delim; to board Chan; and when they stopped
to transfer vehicles. In addition, according to
appellants testimonies, only Leal was armed.
The following discussion of the Court
ofAppeals is quoted with approval:

taken, be punished by imprisonment for not

less than fourteen years and eight months and
not more than seventeen years and four months,
when the carnapping is committed without
violence or intimidation of persons, or force
upon things; and by imprisonment for not less
than seventeen years and four months and not
more than thirty years, when the carnapping is
committed by means of violence against or
intimidation of any person, or force upon
things; and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death shall be imposed when the owner, driver
x x x. Considering, however, that there were
or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is
five of them who boarded the Tamaraw jeep,
they could have easily overpowered Leal, who killed or raped in the course of the commission
was then alone, had they wanted to. Thus, there of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.
could not have been any appreciable imminent (Emphasis supplied)
danger to their lives. In fact, they had every
opportunity to escape individually. Bynot
In this case, the imposable penalty is
availing of this chance to escape, accusedimprisonment for not less than fourteen years
appellants allegation of fear or duress becomes and eight months and not more than seventeen
untenable.53
years and four months. Under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as applied to an offense
punishable by a special law, the court shall
To be believed, testimony must not only
proceed from the mouth of a credible witness; sentence the accused to an indeterminate
it must be credible in itself such as the common sentence expressed at a range whose maximum
term shall not exceed the maximum fixed by
experience and observation of mankind can
approve as probable under the circumstance.54 the special law, and the minimum term not be
less than the minimum prescribed.55 Hence,
The circumstances under which appellants
the penalty imposed by the trial court of
participated in the commission of the
imprisonment from fourteen years and eight
carnapping would notjustify in any way their
months to sixteen years and two months is in
claim that they acted under an uncontrollable
order.
fear of being killed by their fellow carnapper.
Rather, the circumstances establish the fact that
appellants, in their flight from jail, consciously The trial court awarded nominal damages in the
concurred with the other malefactors to take the amount of P15,000.00 and moral damages in
Tamaraw jeep without the consent of its owner. the amount of P25,000.00 to the owner of the
vehicle.

Penalty and Damages for Carnapping

The penalty for carnapping is provided in
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6539:

No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary

in order that nominal or moral damages
may be adjudicated.56 Nominal
damages are adjudicated in order that a

SECTION 14.Penalty for Carnapping. Any

right of the plaintiff, which has
person who is found guilty of carnapping, as
this term is defined in Section Two of this Act, been violated or invaded by the
shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle defendant, may be vindicated or recognized,

and not for the purpose of indemnifying the

plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.57 Moral
damages include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation, and similar injury.58
The trial court's award of nominal damages is
in order.1wphi1 However, we delete the

award of moral damages since there

was no showing that Benjamin Bauzon
experienced any physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation, or any similar injury.
Finally, in addition to the damages awarded in
the murder cases and in the carnapping case,
we also impose on all the amounts of damages
an interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum

from the date of finality of this judgment

until fully paid.59

2. The award of exemplary damages in

Criminal Case No. U-10053 is
increased to P30,000.00; 3. The award
of exemplary damages in Criminal Case
No. U-10054 is increased to
P30,000.00; 4. The amount of Pl
53,028.00 for loss of earning capacity
awarded to the heirs of JO2 Gamboa in
Criminal Case No. U-10053 is
increased to P1,836,336.00;
5. The amount of Pl 78,500.00 for loss
of earning capacity awarded to the heirs
of JO1 Bacolor in Criminal Case No. U10054 is increased to P2,142,000.00;
6. The award of moral damages in
Criminal Case No. U-10055 is deleted;
and
7. Interest is imposed on all the
damages awarded at the legal rate of 6%
per annum from the finality of this
judgment until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal. The

Decision dated 22 October 2010 of the Court of SO ORDERED.
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03943,
affirming with modification the 3 November
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
2008 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court Acting Chief Justice
of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan is AFFIRMED
with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. Fieldad is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole in Criminal Case
Nos. U-10053 and U-10054;