PEOPLE vs.

OCDEN [650 SCRA 124, 2011]

Criminal Law
DOCTRINE: : It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants
the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter
were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. Illegal recruitment can be committed by any
person, even by a licensed recruiter.
FACTS: Under consideration by the Court is an appeal to the decision of the RTC which found accused-appellant
guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, as defined and penalized under Art. 13(b), in relation to Arts. 38(b), 34, and
39 of P.D. 442 (Labor Code) and estafa under Par. 2(a) Art. 315 of the RPC. The information stated that the accused
willfully, and feloniously, for a fee, recruited 3 persons without the necessary license or authority from DOLE.
Accused was originally charged with 6 counts of estafa, all of which were consolidated. All of the victims were asked to
pay a fee purporting to be for the processing of their documents for their flight to Italy, none of the victims however,
were able to leave the country and upon demand for the return of their money, Ocden was nowhere to be found.
ISSUE:

1.
2.

WON defendant is guilty of illegal recruitment notwithstanding the absence of a certification that he is a
non-licensee or non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.
YES.
WON defendant may be held liable for estafa independent of her conviction for illegal recruitment.
YES.

HELD:
1. It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the
distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the
latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. It is not necessary for the
prosecution to present a certification that Ocden is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to lawfully
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 enumerates
particular acts which would constitute illegal recruitment "whether committed by any person, whether a
non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority." Among such acts, under Section 6(m) of
Republic Act No. 8042, is the "failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually
take place without the worker's fault."
2. It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act
No. 8042 in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal
Code. In the case of People v. Yabut, the Court reiterated that, in this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person
who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the
Labor Code and estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The offense of illegal
recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction,
while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction for
offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws. Conversely,
conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for
illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows that one's acquittal of the crime of estafa will not
necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa.
PEOPLE vs. ASIS [624 SCRA 509, 2010]
Criminal Law
DOCTRINE: Defenses of denial and alibi are inherently weak and have always been viewed with disfavor by the
courts due to the facility with which they can be concocted. An alibi of the accused deserves scant consideration in the
absence of evidence that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was
committed. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the
time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or
within its immediate vicinity.
FACTS: Assailed in the instant case is the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the RTC
finding Roberto Asis and Julius Penaranda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing
them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The crime was allegedly committed by the two accused by assaulting
the victim, Donald Pais and inflicting upon him multiple stab wounds that immediately caused his death. Two
witnesses had conflicting recollections of the incident with regard to the position of the victim during and after the

assault, although both positively identified that the accused were indeed, the assailants. The accused, on their part,
denied all the allegations and stated alibis that they did not participate in the commission of the crime.
ISSUE:
1. WON the denials and alibis of the accused may be considered by the Court. NO.
2. WON treachery is correctly appreciated by the Court. YES.
HELD:
1. The established doctrine is that, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he
was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible
for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.cralawFrom the aforequoted findings of the
trial court, accused-appellants failed to demonstrate satisfactorily that it was physically impossible for them
to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. The crime of murder happened in San Juan
Evangelista St., Payatas, Quezon City or exactly the same area where accused-appellants' houses were
located and claimed to be sleeping when the crime occurred. Weak as it is, alibi becomes weaker in the face
of the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses as in this case.
2. Treachery was correctly appreciated in the killing of Donald Pais. The victim was caught defenseless when
accused-appellant Pearanda suddenly put his arms on the shoulder of the victim and thereafter, accusedappellant Asis and his group punched and stabbed him several times. The attack was so swift and
unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or defend
himself. As explained by the RTC:
The act of accused Julius Pearanda in putting his arms on the shoulder of the victim, Donald Pais,
after which said accused, alongside with accused Roberto Asis and other men, suddenly boxed, stabbed and
hit him on different parts of his body constitute treachery as the attack was sudden and rapid and did not
afford the victim any chance at all to put up any defense. Regardless of whether the attack was frontal or at
the back considering that there were several wounds both at the front and back of the victim's body, "an
unexpected and sudden attack under circumstances which render the victim unable and unprepared to
defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack constitutes alevosia, and the fact that
the attack was frontal does not preclude the presence of treachery." (People vs. Dinglasan, 267 SCRA 26).
The number and location of the wounds inflicted on the victim is a strong indication that the accused made
sure of the success of their effort to kill the victim without risk to themselves.
PEOPLE vs. BANZUELA [712 SCRA 735, 2013]
Criminal Law
DOCTRINE1: Sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age, whether she consented to it or not, is
punishable as rape under our laws. As such, proof of force, threat, or intimidation is unnecessary in cases of statutory
rape, they, not being elements of the crime. When the complainant is below 12 years old, the absence of free consent is
conclusively presumed as the law supposes that a woman below this age does not possess discernment and is
incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.
DOCTRINE2: It has not escaped this Court that rape and acts of lasciviousness are crimes of the same nature.
However, the intent to lie with the woman is the fundamental difference between the two, as it is present in rape or
attempt of it, and absent in acts of lasciviousness. Attempted rape is committed when the touching of the vagina by
the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate; otherwise, there can only be acts of lasciviousness.
FACTS: Accused appellant Ferdinand Banzuela challenges the present appeal on the Decision of the CA wherein he
was convicted of Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness. Accused was charged in the RTC of Mandaluyong City when he
allegedly consummated the rape of a 6 year old and an attempted rape of a 7 year old in a cemetery. Notwithstanding
that the hymen of the 6 year old was still intact, he was convicted of Rape by the RTC, ratiocinating that mere
touching of the labia consummates rape. Attempted rape was also proved since the RTC found that the same would
have been consummated if not for the timely arrival of a bystander, which caused the accused to desist. Upon appeal,
the Court affirmed and modified the decision regarding the rape of the 6 year old victim in terms of damages while
the attempted rape was not appreciated by the CA in that it only constituted Acts of Lasciviousness.
ISSUE:
1. WON the crime of statutory rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt. YES.
2. WON the crime of attempted rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt. NO.
HELD:
1. Sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age, whether she consented to it or not, is punishable as
rape under our laws. As such, proof of force, threat, or intimidation is unnecessary in cases of statutory rape,
they, not being elements of the crime. When the complainant is below 12 years old, the absence of free

2.

consent is conclusively presumed as the law supposes that a woman below this age does not possess
discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. In order to successfully convict
an accused of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove the following: the age of the complainant; the
identity of the accused; and the carnal knowledge between the accused and the complainant. Significantly, as
this Court has held before, the pain that AAA (6 year old victim) suffered is, in itself, an indicator of the
commission of rape. Moreover, AAAs ordeal was witnessed by BBB, who in fact was the one who told AAAs
mother about the incident. Thus, contrary to Banzuelas assertions, this Court is convinced that the
prosecution was able to establish that he had carnal knowledge of AAA, making him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
In the crime of rape, penetration, however slight, is an essential act of execution that produces such felony.
Thus, for Banzuela to be convicted of the crime of attempted rape, he must have already commenced the act
of inserting his sexual organ in the vagina of BBB (7 year old victim), but due to some cause or accident,
excluding his own spontaneous desistance, he wasnt able to even slightly penetrate BBB. It has not escaped
this Court that rape and acts of lasciviousness are crimes of the same nature. However, the intent to lie with
the woman is the fundamental difference between the two, as it is present in rape or attempt of it, and absent
in acts of lasciviousness. Attempted rape is committed when the touching of the vagina by the penis is
coupled with the intent to penetrate; otherwise, there can only be acts of lasciviousness. In this case,
Banzuelas acts of laying BBB on the ground, undressing her, and kissing her, do not constitute the crime of
attempted rape, absent any showing that (Banzuela) actually commenced to force his penis into (BBBs)
sexual organ.
PEOPLE vs. AMANSEC [662 SCRA 574, 2011]
Criminal Law

DOCTRINE: In prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.
FACTS: Amansec was charged before the Quezon City RTC of the violation of Secs. 11 and 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165
or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. He allegedly engaged in the sale of 0.09 gram of SHABU to a
poseur-buyer in the person of PO1 Alfredo Mabutol who led the buy-bust operation. He was convicted in the RTC
which ratiocinated that the prosecution was able to prove the elements in the sale of illegal drugs it likewise found
that there was no ill motive on the part of the police to indict him only at the time of accuseds arrest. However, the
RTC acquitted Amansec of illegal possession of dangerous drugs charge.
ISSUE:
WON the conviction of the Sale of Dangerous Drugs Case was correct. YES.
HELD: The successful prosecution of the sale of dangerous drugs case depends on the satisfaction of the following
elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor. To elucidate on the foregoing elements, this Court has said that "in prosecutions
for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence."Amansec was positively identified by the prosecution
witnesses, as the person who sold to the poseur-buyer a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance. He had been caught red-handed in the entrapment operation conducted by the SDEU of the La Loma
Police. Such positive identification must prevail over Amansec's uncorroborated and weak defense of denial, and
unsubstantiated defense of frame-up. The corpus delicti of the crime was also established with certainty and
conclusiveness. Amansec gave one of the two remaining plastic sachets to Mabutol after receiving the P100.00 buybust money.
PEOPLE vs. BALUNSAT [626 SCRA 77, 2010]
Criminal Law
DOCTRINE: The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape, as provided for in Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, is the carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years old. Sexual congress then with a
girl under 12 years of age is always rape. Thus, force, intimidation or physical evidence of injury are immaterial. To
convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove: first, the age of the complainant;
second, the identity of the accused; and last but not the least, the carnal knowledge between the accused and the
complainant. In the crime of rape, complete or full penetration of the complainant's private part is not at all
necessary.
FACTS: Balunsat was charged with three counts of statutory rape with the alleged rape of his committed against his
first cousin AAA in two cases and for attempted rape committed against his other first cousin BBB in another criminal
case. AAA was then 10 years old when the crime was committed. It was alleged that the accused succeeded in having

sexual intercourse with AAA in one case and did not succeed in another case where he merely attempted to rape BBB,
and in frustration thereof, committed rape against AAA instead. The RTC found that the accused is guilty of two
counts of statutory rape and for the attempted rape of BBB. Which was later affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: WON the crime of statutory rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt. YES.
HELD: The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape, as provided for in Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, is the carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years old. Sexual congress then with a girl
under 12 years of age is always rape. Thus, force, intimidation or physical evidence of injury are immaterial. To
convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove: first, the age of the complainant;
second, the identity of the accused; and last but not the least, the carnal knowledge between the accused and the
complainant. In the crime of rape, complete or full penetration of the complainant's private part is not at all
necessary. Neither is the rupture of the hymen essential. What is fundamental is that the entry or at least the
introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum is proved. The mere introduction of the male organ
into the labia majora of the victim's genitalia, even without the full penetration of the complainant's vagina,
consummates the crime. Hence, the "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the
pudendum of the victim's genitalia consummates rape. It is settled that when the victim's testimony is corroborated
by the physician's finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential
requisite of carnal knowledge. Laceration, whether healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible
defloration.