Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CRIMINAL LAW
PART I. REVISED PENAL CODE (RPC) BOOK I
A. Fundamental and General Principles in Criminal Law
Criminal Cases; Evidence - Well-settled is the rule in criminal law that the
conviction of an accused must be based on the strength of the prosecution
evidence and not on the weakness or absence of evidence of the defense.
The accused has no burden to prove his innocence and the weakness of the
defense he interposed is inconsequential. He must be acquitted and set free
as the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence in his
favor. ( PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENRICO MIRONDO Y IZON,.
G.R. No. 210841, October 14, 2015 )
Alibi; Defenses in Criminal Actions - Anent Parba's alibi, the Court finds
the same to be unavailing. It is well-settled that alibi as a defense is
inherently weak and unreliable owing to the fact that it is easy to fabricate
and difficult to disprove. To establish alibi, the accused must prove that: (a)
he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime,
and (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.
( PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. OSCAR PARBA Y SOLON, G.R. No.
214506, October 19, 2015 )
Likewise, a distance of about two (2) kilometers, three (3) kilometers,or even
five (5) kilometers were consistently held not too far to preclude the
possibility that the accused was present at the locus criminis.Surely then, a
distance of 100 meters, as in this case, is not the "physical impossibility"
contemplated to satisfy the defense of alibi.Moreover, considering its
doubtful nature, clear and convincing evidence must be submitted to support
the alibi of an accused, otherwise, it is considered negative, self-serving, and
undeserving of weight in law. Thus, alibi and denial cannot prevail over the
positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime,
especially in cases where the testimonies of the witnesses are categorical,
consistent and untainted by ill-will. ( PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
OSCAR PARBA Y SOLON G.R. No. 214506, October 19, 2015 )
Appellants alibi is also unavailing. For alibi to prosper, it does not suffice to
prove that the accused was at another place when the crime was committed,
but it must also be shown that there was physical impossibility for him to
have been at the scene of the crime. Physical imposiblity refers to the
distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime
transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of
access between the two places. Appellant Allain testified that around 7:00
p.m. to 9:00 p.m. of July 16, 1998, he was at Kits house, which was located
around 100 meters away from their own house. On the other hand, appellant
Vergel testified that he passed by Kits house at past 8:00 p.m. and saw
Allain thereat. Notably, appellant Allain testified that AAAs house is also 100
meters away from their house. Thus, it would show that Kits house is also in
the same vicinity where the crime was committed. Hence, it was not
physically impossible for the appellants to be at the locus criminis at the
time of the incident. . (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VERGEL
ANCAJAS and ALLAIN** ANCAJAS. G.R. No. 199270. October 21,
2015.)
In order for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused has
been somewhere else during the commission of the crime; it must also be
shown that it would have been impossible for him to be anywhere within the
vicinity of the crime scene. (PEOPLE VS. BIALA, G.R. No. 217975,
November 23, 2015)
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the petitioners must not only prove by
clear and convincing evidence that he was at another place at the time of
the commission of the offense but that it was physically impossible for him to
be at the scene of the crime. Emilio himself admitted that he was just one
kilometer away from the crime scene when the incident happened during the
unholy hour of 1:00 a.m. of July 15, 2001. As such, Emilio failed to prove
physical impossibility of his being at the crime scene on the date and time in
question. Just like denial, alibi is an inherently weak defense that cannot
prevail over the positive identification by the witnesses of the petitioners as
the perpetrators of the crime. In the present case, Emilio was positively
identified by the prosecution witnesses as one of the assailants. Moreover,
alibi becomes less credible if offered by the accused himself and his
immediate relatives as they are expected to make declarations in his favor,
as in this case, where Emilio, his father and brother insisted that the former
was somewhere else when the incident occurred. For these reasons, Emilio's
defense of alibi will not hold. (RONALD IBANEZ, EMILIO IBANEZ and
DANIEL BOBOT IBANEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO.
190798, JANUARY 27, 2016)
Appellants alibi fail to persuade. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the
accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of
the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for
him to be at the crime scene during its commission. Physical impossibility
refers to distance and the facility of access between the crime scene and the
location of the accused when the crime was committed. He must
demonstrate that he was so far away and could not have been physically
present at the crime scene and its immediate vicinity when the crime was
committed. In this case, appellant failed to satisfy these requirements. He
was not able to satisfactorily establish his claims that he was in Orion,
Bataan during the time of the commission of the crime and that it was
physically impossible for him to be at or near the place of the crime. Aside
from his own statement, appellant did not bother to present other witnesses
or any other proof to support his defense. His defense of alibi must
necessarily fail. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FEDERICO DE LA
CRUZ y SANTOS, G.R. NO. 207389, FEBRUARY 17, 2016)
The trial and appellate courts were right in not giving probative value to
petitioners' denial. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense that further
crumbles when it comes face-to-face with the positive identification and
straightforward narration of the prosecution witnesses.46 Between an
affirmative assertion which has a ring of truth to it and a general denial, the
former generally prevails.47 The prosecution witnesses recounted the details
of the crime in a clear, detailed and consistent manner, without any hint of
hesitation or sign of untruthfulness, which they could not have done unless
they genuinely witnessed the incident. Besides, the prosecution witnesses
could not have mistakenly identified the petitioners as Rodolfo's perpetrators
considering there is so much familiarity among them. The records are also
bereft of any indication that the prosecution witnesses were actuated by ill
motives when they testified against the petitioners. Thus, their testimonies
are entitled to full faith and credit. (RONALD IBANEZ, EMILIO IBANEZ and
DANIEL BOBOT IBANEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO.
190798, JANUARY 27, 2016)
The lower courts correctly rejected petitioner's defense of denial for being
self-serving and uncorroborated. Denial is inherently a weak defense which
cannot outweigh positive testimony of a prosecution witness. "A defense of
denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and
cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward
and probable testimony on affirmative matters." In the instant case, the
defense of denial fails even more when the petitioner's co-accused,
Daguman, confirmed that the petitioner had every intent to possess and was
caught in actual possession of shabu. (ROBERTO PALO y DE GULA vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 192075, FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
Where there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of the
prosecution witness to testify falsely against an accused, the logical
conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that the testimony is
worthy of full faith and credence. (PEOPLE VS. ZABALA G.R. No. 203087.
November 23, 2015)
The settled rule is that both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses
which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the
prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. Thus, as
between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and
a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.
In the case at bar, the Court finds no compelling reason to depart from the
findings of the trial court that, in light of the positive and categorical
testimony of AAA that accused-appellant raped her, the mere denial of
accused-appellant, without any corroborative evidence leaves the court with
no option but to pronounce a judgment of conviction. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. RICARDO LAGBO a.k.a. RICARDO LABONG y
MENDOZA, G.R. NO. 207535, FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
As to appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, the Court agrees with the trial
and appellate courts that the same deserve scant consideration. No
jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that alibi and denial, the
most common defenses in rape cases, are inherently weak and easily
fabricated. As such, they are generally rejected. On the one hand, an
accused's bare denial, when raised against the complainant's direct, positive
and categorical testimony, cannot generally be held to prevail. On the other
hand, unless the accused establishes his presence in another place at the
time of the commission of the offense and the physical impossibility for him
to be at the scene of the crime, his acquittal cannot be properly justified.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELISEO D. VILLAMOR, G.R. NO.
202187, FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
Apart from his weak and unconvincing defenses of denial and alibi, appellant
further claimed that the courts below should have considered the fact that
AAA had a boyfriend during those times of the alleged rape. The Court,
however, finds such claim unmeritorious. It is not uncommon for appellants
accused of rape to shift the blame to another, particularly to the victim's
suitor or boyfriend. But that AAA had a boyfriend at the time of the incidents
is inconsequential and cannot be held to cast doubt on AAA's testimony. It
has been consistently held that no sane girl would concoct a story of
defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to
public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape. Youth and
immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. While the weight of
the victim's testimony may be countered by physical evidence to the
contrary or indubitable proof that the accused could not have committed the
rape, the testimony shall be accorded utmost value in the absence of such
countervailing proof. The fact that AAA had a boyfriend does not necessarily
exclude all possibilities of rape. In reality, it barely has anything to do with
the charges she had filed against appellant. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. ELISEO D. VILLAMOR, G.R. NO. 202187, FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
Denial; Alibi; All that accused-appellant had offered in defense were denial
and alibi.- As against these details and testimonies, all that accused-
appellant had offered in defense were denial and alibidefenses that
jurisprudence has long considered weak and unreliable. It is hardly a relief to
accused-appellant that two (2) witnesses have testified in his defense. Even
their testimonies failed to definitively establish that accused-appellant
neither raped nor killed AAA. Defense witness Flordeliza Baron even
admitted that during the critical time between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. of May 4,
1999, when the rape and killing most likely took place, she was never really
aware of accused-appellants whereabouts. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
VS.RUBEN BARON, G.R. NO. 213215, JANUARY 11, 2016)
i. Classifications of felonies
ii. Elements of criminal liability
Elements of Criminal Liability; Intent; Mens Rea - The case of
Villareal v. People is instructing. In that case, the Court discussed that the
RPC belongs to the classical school of thought. The criminal liability is thus
based on the free will and moral blame of the actor. The identity of mens
rea - defined as a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent
- is the predominant consideration. In order for an intentional felony to exist,
it is necessary that the act be committed by means of "dolo" or "malice".
The Court further explained that the term "dolo" or "malice" is a complex
idea involving the elements of freedom, intelligence, and intent. The element
of intent is described as the state of mind accompanying an act, especially a
forbidden act. It refers to the purpose of the mind and the resolve with which
a person proceeds. On the other hand, the term "felonious" means, inter
alia, malicious, villainous, and/or proceeding from an evil heart or purpose.
With these elements taken together, the requirement of intent in intentional
felony must refer to malicious intent, which is a vicious and malevolent state
of mind accompanying a forbidden act. (VIRGINIA JABALDE Y
JAMANDRON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 195224, June
15, 2016)
iii.Impossible crime
iv. Stages of execution
Attempted Murder; The fact that petitioner was successful in blocking the
blow with his hand does not, in and of itself, mean that respondents could
not have possibly killed him.- In Rivera v. People, this court noted that the
fact that the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and not
fatal did not negate the liability of the accused for attempted murder. The
attack on the victim in Rivera was described as follows: In the present case,
the prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of evidence to prove the
intent of petitioners to kill Ruben. Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the
victim with fist blows. Even as Ruben fell to the ground, unable to defend
himself against the sudden and sustained assault of petitioners, Edgardo hit
him three times with a hollow block. Edgardo tried to hit Ruben on the head,
missed, but still managed to hit the victim only in the parietal area, resulting
in a lacerated wound and cerebral contusions. The circumstances in Rivera
are starkly similar with (though not entirely the same as) those in this case.
As in Rivera, several assailants took part in pummeling petitioner, and efforts
were made to hit his head with stones or pieces of hollow blocks. A
difference is that, in this case, petitioner managed to parry an attempted
blow, thereby causing a fracture in his right hand, instead of a more serious
and, possibly fatal, injury on his head. In any case, the fact that petitioner
was successful in blocking the blow with his hand does not, in and of itself,
mean that respondents could not have possibly killed him. It does not negate
any homicidal intent. It remains that respondent Fuentes attempted to hit
petitioner on the head with a hollow block while respondents Calilan and
Lindo made efforts to restrain petitioner. (MARASIGAN Y DE GUZMAN V.
FUENTES, G.R. NO. 201310, JANUARY 11, 2016)
v. Continuing crimes
vi.Complex crimes and composite crimes
b. Circumstances affecting Criminal Liability
i. Justifying circumstance
Self-Defense; Elements of. Basic is the rule that in every criminal case,
the burden of proving the guilt of the accused falls upon the prosecution
which has the duty of establishing all the essential elements of the crime.
However, in cases where the accused interposes the justifying circumstance
of self-defense, this prosecutorial burden is shifted to the accused who
himself must prove all the indispensable ingredients of such defense, to wit:
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The presence or
absence of these essential elements deals with factual matters which are
best left to the discretion of the trial court to ascertain. As the Court has
repeatedly emphasized in many cases, the trial court is in a better position to
determine the credibility of witnesses having heard and observed firsthand
their behavior and manner of testifying during trial. Thus, the reviewing court
is generally bound by the trial court's findings where no substantial reason
exists that would justify a reversal of the assessments and conclusions drawn
by the latter. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NESTOR ROXAS y
CASTRO, G.R. NO. 218396, FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
After taking into account the location and the number of stab wounds
sustained by the victim, the accused-appellant's claim of self-defense further
crumbles. To reiterate, the first stab blow hit Severino's back jibing with
Vicente's assertion that the former was stabbed from behind. Then, when the
victim was totally caught by surprise with the initial attack, the second and
third stab blows were delivered. Additionally, the number of wounds suffered
by Severino invalidates the accused-appellant's allegation that he was only
defending himself for the number of wounds inflicted are rather
demonstrative of deliberate and criminal intent to end the life of the victim.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NESTOR ROXAS y CASTRO, G.R.
NO., FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
i.Exempting circumstances
Indeed, the grant of absolution on the basis of insanity should be done with
utmost care and circumspection as the State must keep its guard against
murderers seeking to escape punishment through a general plea of insanity.
The circumstances in the case at bench, however, do not indicate that the
defense of insanity was merely used as a convenient tool to evade
culpability. The Court notes that at the very first opportunity, Verdadero
already raised the defense of insanity and remained steadfast in asserting
that he was deprived of intelligence at the time of the commission of the
offense. He no longer offered any denial or alibi and, instead, consistently
harped on his mental incapacity. Unlike in previous cases 32 where the Court
denied the defense of insanity as it was raised only when the initial defense
of alibi failed to prosper, Verdadero's alleged insanity was not a mere
afterthought. (SOLOMON VERDADERO y GALERA vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 216021, MARCH 2, 2016)
ii.Mitigating circumstances
iii.Aggravating circumstances
To establish evident premeditation, there must be proof of (1) the time when
the offender determined to commit the crime, (2) an act manifestly
indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination, and (3) a sufficient
lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to
overcome the resolution of his will had he desired to hearken to its warnings.
The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the act was preceded
by reflection during a period of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
When it is not shown as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or
what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation
cannot be considered. It must be based on external acts and must not be
merely suspected. There must be a demonstration of outward acts of a
criminal intent that is notorious and manifest. The prosecution failed to
satisfy the requisites of evident premeditation. The records contain no
evidence regarding the planning and preparation of the killing of Janjoy. It
was likewise not shown that accused-appellant clung to his detemiination to
kill Janjoy. In fact, the only thing established by the prosecution witness'
testimony was accused-appellant's plan to kill Rovic Vasquez, not Janjoy
Vasquez. Thus, it cannot be said that accused-appellant had a preconceived
plan to kill Janjoy. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,v. APOLONIO
"TOTONG" AVILA Y ALECANTE, G.R. No. 201584, June 15, 2016)
Treachery - There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution
thereof, which tend directly and (specially to ensure its execution, without
risk to himself arising from the I defense which the offended party might
make. The requisites of treachery are: (1) The employment of means,
method, or manner of execution which will ensure the safety of the
malefactor from defensive or retaliating acts on the part of the victim, no
opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2)
deliberate or conscious adoption of such means, method or manner of
execution. A finding of existence of treachery should be based on "clear and
convincing evidence". The first shot was fired from behind a closed door,
catching the victim by surprise. The second shot to the victim's head was
fired immediately after the door was forced open by the accused-appellant.
Such manner of execution of the crime ensured the safety of accused-
appellant from retaliation and afforded the victim no opportunity to defend
herself. Thus, We hold that the circumstance of treachery should be
appreciated, qualifying the crime to Murder. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,v. APOLONIO "TOTONG" AVILA Y ALECANTE, G.R. No.
201584, June 15, 2016)
The fact that the shooting of the three victims had occurred in quick
succession fully called for a finding of the attendance of treachery in the
attacks against all the victims. Montegrico, Tamanu and Paleg were drinking
together outside their bunkhouse prior to the shooting when the accused
suddenly appeared from the rear of the dump truck, walked towards their
table and shot Montegrico without any warning. That first shot was quickly
followed by more shots. In that situation, none of the three victims was
aware of the imminent deadly assault by the accused, for they were just
enjoying their drinks outside their bunkhouse. They were unarmed, and did
not expect to be shot, when the accused came and shot them. (PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, v. MARIANO OANDASAN, JR., G.R. No. 194605, June
14, 2016)
The attack was mounted with treachery because the two conditions in order
for this circumstance to be appreciated concurred, namely: (a) that the
means, methods and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked
no opportunity to defend themselves or to retaliate; and (b) that such
means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously
adopted by the accused without danger to his person. The essence of
treachery lay in the attack that came without warning, and was swift,
deliberate and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting victims no chance to resist, or retaliate, or escape, thereby
ensuring the accomplishment of the deadly design without risk to the
aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. MARIANO OANDASAN, JR., G.R. No.
194605, June 14, 2016)
What was decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for
the victims to defend themselves or to retaliate. Jurisprudence has been
illustrative of this proposition. In People v. Flora, for instance, treachery was
appreciated as an attendant circumstance in the killing of two victims, and in
the attempted killing of a third victim, warranting the conviction of the
accused for two murders and attempted murder, notwithstanding that
although the accused had first fired at his Intended victim, he had missed
and had instead hit the two other victims, with the Court observing that the
three victims were all nonetheless "helpless to defend themselves." In a
nother illustrative ruling, People v. Pinto, Jr., treachery was held to attend the
three killings and the wounding of a fourth victim because the attack was
sudden and the victims were defenseless; hence, the killings were murders,
and the wounding frustrated murder. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v.
MARIANO OANDASAN, JR., G.R. No. 194605, June 14, 2016)
As to the finding of treachery, we affirm the rulings of the RTC and the Court
of Appeals. The RPC, in Article 14(16), defines treachery as the direct
employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime
against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. "There are two (2) conditions that must concur for
treachery to exist, to wit: (a) the employment of means of execution gave
the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b)
the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.
'The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without
warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless,
unarmed and unsuspecting victim [with] no chance to resist or escape."
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODELIO LLOBERA Y OFIZA, G.R.
No. 203066, August 05, 2015)
"The mere suddenness of the attack does not amount to treachery. The
essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning and
is done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting victim with no chance to resist or escape. Thus, even frontal
attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected[,] and the
victim is unarmed. In the case at bar, treachery is evident. For one, "[t]he
use of a xxx shotgun against [an] unarmed [victim] is undoubtedly
treacherous, as it denies the [victim] the chance to fend off the offender." For
another, the fact that accused-appellant hid first and then blindsided the
victim shows his conscious effort to adopt a deliberate attack which affords
no warning to the victim. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODELIO
LLOBERA Y OFIZA, G.R. No. 203066, August 05, 2015)
Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely (a) the
employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity
to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution
was deliberately and consciously adopted. (PEOPLE VS. ZABALA G.R. No.
203087. November 23, 2015)
Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods or forms in its execution which tend
directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from any defense which the offended party might make. At this point, it bears
to emphasize that the stabbing was not preceded by any argument between
the victim and the accused-appellant. So, when the accused-appellant
surreptitiously approached the victim from behind, the latter had no inkling
nor reason to believe that his life was in danger. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. NESTOR ROXAS y CASTRO, G.R. NO. 218396,
FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
On account of the fact that Severino was just casually conversing with
Vicente at that time, his defenses were down. Naturally, Severino was too
stunned by the suddenness of the first stab blow at his back. As a result, the
victim could no longer recover from the initial attack and the other two stab
blows inflicted made it more difficult for Severino to defend himself or
retaliate. This is precisely the essence of treachery wherein the attack must
be deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner,
affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist
or escape. Further, the strategy employed by the accused-appellant in
carrying out the attack guaranteed that he will not be exposed to any risk
which may arise from the defense the victim might make. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. NESTOR ROXAS y CASTRO, G.R. NO. 218396,
FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
We are likewise convinced that the killing was qualified by treachery. "There
is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make." "The
essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a
swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed,
and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape." In this case,
appellants sudden attack on Corazon inside her apartment amply
demonstrates that treachery was employed in the commission of the crime.
Corazon could not have been aware that her life was in imminent danger
inside the comforts of her own home. When appellant barged in, Corazon
was having coffee with Joan totally unaware that she would be attacked
inside the confines of her own house. When appellant grabbed her neck and
stabbed her in the back, Corazon was afforded no chance to defend herself
and retaliate or repel the attack. Although she struggled, such was not
enough to protect or extricate her from the harm posed by appellant.
Undoubtedly, the CA correctly held that the crime committed was murder
under Article 248 of the RPC in view of the qualifying circumstance of
treachery. All told, Corazon was unaware of the imminent danger on her life,
and was not in a position to defend herself. Verily, treachery attended the
commission of the crime. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FEDERICO
DE LA CRUZ y SANTOS, G.R. NO. 207389, FEBRUARY 17, 2016)
Treachery - In this case, the trial court correctly ruled that the fatal shooting
of Atty. Segundo was attended by treachery because appellant shot the said
victim suddenly and without any warning with a deadly weapon, thus: x x x
Atty. Segundo G. Sotto, Jr., who was driving his jeep with his teenage niece as
passenger sitting on his right side on the front seat, was totally unaware that
he will be treacherously shot just 200 meters away from his residence. He
was unarmed and was not given any opportunity to defend himself or to
escape from the deadly assault. After he was hit when the gunman fired the
first two shots at him and his niece and after he lost control of his jeep which
bumped an interlink wire fence and stopped, he was again shot three times
by the gunman. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ZALDY SALAHUDDIN,
G.R. No. 206291, January 18, 2016)
Proof of the actual agreement to commit the crime need not be direct
because conspiracy may be implied or inferred from their acts. (PEOPLE VS.
ZABALA G.R. No. 203087. November 23, 2015)
B. Penalties
Penalties - Arresto menor is prescribed in its minimum period (i.e. one [1]
day to ten [10] days) when only mitigating circumstance is present in the
case. Accordingly, with the Indeterminate Sentence Law being inapplicable
due to the penalty imposed not exceeding one year, Jabalde shall suffer a
penalty of one (1) day to ten (10) days of arresto menor. (VIRGINIA
JABALDE Y JAMANDRON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
195224, June 15, 2016)
In a catena of similar cases where the accused failed to perfect their appeal
on their respective judgments of conviction, the Court corrected the
penalties imposed, notwithstanding the finality of the decisions because they
were outside the range of penalty prescribed by law. There is thus, no reason
to deprive herein petitioner of the relief afforded the accused in the aforesaid
similar cases. Verily, a sentence which imposes upon the defendant in a
criminal prosecution a penalty in excess of the maximum which the court is
authorized by law to impose for the offense for which the defendant was
convicted, is void for want or excess of jurisdiction as to the excess. (ROGER
ALLEN BIGLER vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and LINDA SUSAN
PATRICIA E. BARRETO, G.R. NO. 210972, MARCH 2, 2016)
Although suspension of sentence still applies even if the child in conflict with
the law is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the judgment of
conviction was rendered, however, such suspension is only until the minor
reaches the maximum age of 21 as provided under Section 40 of RA No.
9344, to wit: SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court.
If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed
upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in
conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of
his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law
shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment. If said child in
conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under
suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the
child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend
the suspended sentence for a specified period or until the child reaches the
maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. VERGEL ANCAJAS and ALLAIN** ANCAJAS. G.R. No. 199270.
October 21, 2015.)
Turning now to the awards for civil indemnity, and for actual, exemplary and
moral damages made by the CA, we believe that certain modifications are in
order. Based on prevailing jurisprudence, the awards for civil indemnity and
for moral damages in favor of Corazons heirs should be increased from
P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.20 The CA also correctly upgraded the award of
exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. FEDERICO DE LA CRUZ y SANTOS, G.R. NO. 207389,
FEBRUARY 17, 2016)
The mere sale of the illicit copies of the software programs was enough by
itself to show the existence of probable cause for copyright infringement.
There was no need for the petitioner to still prove who copied, replicated, or
reproduced the software programs. Indeed, the public prosecutor and the
DOJ gravely abused their discretion in dismissing the petitioners charge for
copyright infringement against the respondents for lack of evidence. There
was grave abuse of discretion because the public prosecutor and the DOJ
acted whimsically or arbitrarily in disregarding the settled jurisprudential
rules on finding the existence of probable cause to charge the offender in
court. Accordingly, the CA erred in upholding the dismissal by the DOJ of the
petitioners petition for review. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION VS
ROLANDO MANANSALA and/or MEL MANANSALA, October 21,
2015. )
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term should be that
which could be properly imposed in view of the attending circumstances, and
the minimum should be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the RPC. When neither aggravating nor mitigating are present,
the penalty prescribed by law shall be in its medium period. (PEOPLE VS.
CUESTA, G.R. No. 217380, November 23, 2015)
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes for the crime of homicide
the penalty of reclusion temporal, the range of which is twelve (12) years
and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Under Article 69 of the Revised Penal
Code, the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense
reduces the penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law.
There being an incomplete self-defense, the penalty should be one (1)
degree lower or from reclusion temporal to prision mayor to be imposed in its
minimum period considering the presence of one ordinary mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender pursuant to Article 64(2). (RAFAEL
NADYAHAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 193134,
MARCH 2, 2016)
To wit: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed that person; (c) that the
killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in
Article 248; and (d) the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide. (PEOPLE
VS. ZABALA G.R. No. 203087. November 23, 2015)
The elements of murder that the prosecution must establish are: (1) that a
person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing
was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or
infanticide. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT CABALLERO Y
GARSOLA, G.R. No. 210673, June 29, 2016)
"The elements of murder that the prosecution must establish are[:] (1) that a
person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing
was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article
248 of the [RPC]; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide."
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODELIO LLOBERA Y OFIZA, G.R.
No. 203066, August 05, 2015)
Rape; Elements of Rape is committed: 1.) By a man who shall have carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force,
threat or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
The prosecution must prove that (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the
complainant and (2) that the same was accomplished under any of the above
enumerated circumstances. Inasmuch as the crime of rape is essentially committed
in relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually only the victim who can testify with
regard to the fact of the forced sexual intercourse. Therefore, in a prosecution for
rape, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single most important issue to
deal with. Thus, if the victims testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused
can justifiably be convicted on the basis of this testimony; otherwise, the accused
should be acquitted of the crime. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VERGEL
ANCAJAS and ALLAIN** ANCAJAS. G.R. No. 199270. October 21, 2015.)
Appellants argument that AAAs conduct after the alleged sexual assault,
i.e., washing her bloodied panty and maong pants, and washing her private
part, are not the normal behavior of a woman who had just been raped
deserves scant consideration. It is not accurate to say that there is a typical
reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims. On the contrary, people
react differently to emotional stress and no standard form of behavior can be
anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement. What is notable in the
records was the fact that after she had regained consciousness at 1 oclock
in the morning of July 17, 1998, she immediately went back to her
employers house and narrated to them what the appellants had done to her,
later reported the rape incident to the police and underwent a physical
examination of her private parts. Her actions indeed showed her desire to
obtain justice for what appellants did to her. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. VERGEL ANCAJAS and ALLAIN** ANCAJAS. G.R. No.
199270. October 21, 2015.)
To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts
are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can
be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even
more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering
that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the
crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with
great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of
the evidence for the defense. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. QUIRINO
BALMES Y CLEOFE, G.R. No. 203458, June 06, 2016)
Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape. In this type of
rape, force and intimidation are immaterial; the only subject of inquiry is the
age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law
presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on
account of her tender years; the child's consent is immaterial because of her
presumed incapacity to discern evil from good. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. RENATO B. SUEDAD, G.R. No. 211026, June 27, 2016)
To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts
are guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can
be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even
more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering
that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the
crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with
great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of
the evidence for the defense. Accordingly, in resolving rape cases, the
primordial or single most important consideration is almost always given to
the credibility of the victim's testimony. When the victim's testimony is
credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused person's conviction since,
owing to the nature of the offense, in many cases, the only evidence that can
be given regarding the matter is the testimony of the offended party. A rape
victim's testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close
relative of having raped her, as in the case of a daughter against her father.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROGER GALAGATI, G.R. No. 207231,
June 29, 2016)
The statutory provisions relevant to the case are Article 266-A and Article
266-B of the Revised Penal Code, which provide: Article 266-A. Rape, When
and How Committed. - Rape is committed - 1. By a man who shall have
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation; b. When the offended party is
deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; c. By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of authority; d. When the offended party is
under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present. Xxx Article 266-B. Penalties. -
Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua. Xxx The death penalty shall also be imposed if the
crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances: 1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and
the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-
spouse of the parent of the victim. x x x The elements of the offense charged
are that: (a) the victim is a female over 12 years but under 18 years of age;
(b) the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim; and (c) the offender has carnal knowledge
of the victim either through force, threat or intimidation; or when she is
deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; or by means of fraudulent
machinations or grave abuse of authority. Neither the presence nor use of a
deadly weapon nor the employment of physical violence by the accused
upon the victim are essential to a finding that force or intimidation existed at
the time the rape was committed. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
ROGER GALAGATI y GARDOCE, G.R. No. 207231, June 29, 2016)
For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution has the burden to prove
that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he
accomplished the act through force, threat or intimidation, or when she was
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12
years of age or was demented. In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's ruling on the veracity of AAA's testimony. The Court
finds no reason to overturn the factual findings of the lower courts. AAA
consistently identified the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the sexual
abuse against her and she unequivocally testified on the manner with which
the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her. (PEOPLE vs.
REMEDIOS, G.R. No. 211056, November 10, 2015)
AAA, who was then four years old at the time of the molestation, was not
expected to be knowledgeable about sexual intercourse and every stage
thereof. The fact that she claimed that accused-appellant rubbed his penis
against her vagina did not mean that there was no penetration. Carnal
knowledge is defined as the act of a man having sexual bodily connections
with a woman. This explains why the slightest penetration of the female
genitalia consummates the rape. As such, a mere touching of the external
genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act already
constitutes consummated rape. In the present case, AAA testified that she
felt pain when accused-appellant "rubbed his penis [against her] vagina."
This Court has held that rape is committed on the victim's testimony that she
felt pain. In fact, AAA still felt severe pain in her vagina when she was being
given a bath by her mother after her molestation. This kind of pain could not
have been the result of mere superficial rubbing of accused-appellant's sex
organ with that of the victim. Such pain could be nothing but the result of
penile penetration sufficient to constitute rape. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. VICTOR P. PADIT, G.R. NO. 202978, FEBRUARY 1,
2016)
This Court has held that it takes much more for a young lass to fabricate a
story of rape, have her private parts examined, subject herself to the
indignity of a public trial and endure a lifetime of ridicule. Even when
consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity
for a young woman, like AAA, to concoct a story which would put her own
father for the most of his remaining life to jail and drag herself and the rest
of her family to a lifetime of shame. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
RICARDO LAGBO , G.R. NO. 207535, FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
The elements of Rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) are: (a) the offender had
carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) said carnal knowledge was
accomplished through force, threat or intimidation. The gravamen of Rape is
sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. On the other hand,
Statutory Rape under Article 266-A (1) (d) is committed by having sexual
intercourse with a woman below twelve (12) years of age regardless of her
consent, or lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, threat, or intimidation,
or consent of the offended party is unnecessary as these are not elements of
statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively
presumed when the victim is below the age of twelve (12). The law presumes
that the offended party does not possess discernment and is incapable of
giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, to sustain a conviction for
statutory rape, the prosecution must establish the following: (a) the age of
the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual
intercourse between the accused and the complainant. The foregoing acts of
Rape shall be qualified pursuant to Article 266-B (1) of the RPC if: (a) the
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age; and (b) the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GODOFREDO COMBOY y CRONICO,
G.R. NO. 218399, MARCH 2, 2016)
In this regard, it has been long settled that "a young girl would not concoct a
sordid tale of a crime as serious as rape at the hands of her very own father,
allow the examination of her private part, and subject herself to the stigma
and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than a fervent
desire to seek justice. Hence, there is no plausible reason why AAA would
testify against her own father, imputing to him the grave crime of rape, if
this crime did not happen," as in this case. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. GODOFREDO COMBOY y CRONICO, G.R. NO. 218399, MARCH 2,
2016.)
In the case at bar, the Court agrees with the finding of the courts a quo that
the prosecution was able to prove that Comboy: (a) had carnal knowledge of
her without her consent on two (2) separate occasions, the first occurring
sometime in 2006 and the second in February 2008; and (b) attempted to
have carnal knowledge of her on May 17, 2009, but was stopped by a reason
other than his own desistance, i.e., BBB's intervention. Suffice it to say that
Comboy's flimsy defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive
and categorical testimony of AAA identifying him as the perpetrator of the
crimes. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GODOFREDO COMBOY y
CRONICO, G.R. NO. 218399, MARCH 2, 2016)
Simple Rape ; Penalty The trial court properly appreciated minority,
which was pleaded in the Information, as an aggravating circumstance.
According to MMM's birth certificate, she was 12 years and 8 months old at
the time of the rape. Said document was offered and presented in evidence
by the prosecution. Nevertheless, "the presence of an aggravating
circumstance cannot serve to raise the penalty to be imposed [because]
simple rape is punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion
perpetua, that penalty shall, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 63 of
the Revised Penal Code, be imposed regardless of any modifying
circumstance that might have attended the commission of the crime.
(PEOPLE vs. ARCEO, G.R. No. 208842, November 10, 2015)
This Court has consistently held that "rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, is termed statutory rape as it departs from
the usual modes of committing rape." What the law punishes in statutory
rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus,
force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant
considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and
whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim
does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years;
the child's consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to
discern good from evil. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAIME BRIOSO
ALIAS TALAP-TALAP, G.R. No. 209344, June 27, 2016)
Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below
twelve (12) years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it to the
sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary. These are
not elements of statutory rape as the absence of free consent is conclusively
presumed when the victim is below the age of twelve. At that age, the law
presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of
giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. To convict an accused of the
crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of proving; (1) the
age of the complainant; (2) the identity of the accused; and (3) the sexual
intercourse between the accused and the complainant. Full penile
penetration of the female genitalia is likewise not required because carnal
knowledge is simply the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with
a woman. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LORETO SONIDO Y
CORONEL, G.R. No. 208646, June 15, 2016)
When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age, the crime
committed is termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of
committing rape.33 What the law punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman
below twelve years of age.34 In the instant case, there is no dispute that
AAA was four years of age when the crime was committed. Resultantly,
accused-appellant was charged and proven guilty of statutory rape.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VICTOR P. PADIT, G.R. NO. 202978,
FEBRUARY 1, 2016)
Statutory rape, penalized under Article 266 A (1), paragraph (d) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of
1997, carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua unless attended by
qualifying circumstances defined under Article 266-B. The prosecution only
gave proof of AAA's age at the time of the crime but did not substantiate the
allegation of kinship between AAA and appellant. There being no qualifying
circumstance, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for
parole, imposed by the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is proper.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LORETO SONIDO Y CORONEL, G.R.
No. 208646, June 15, 2016)
As to the penalty, Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, provides that the
death penalty shall be imposed if the victim is a child below seven years old.
However, following Republic Act No. 9346,35 the RTC, as affirmed by the CA,
correctly imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua
in lieu of death, but it should be specified that it is without eligibility for
parole, as the RTC did not state it in the dispositive portion of its Decision.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VICTOR P. PADIT, G.R. NO. 202978,
FEBRUARY 1, 2016)
Incestuous Rape As the Court ruled in People v. Oriliosa, 433 SCRA 689
(2004)in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be
employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would
suffice. The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the
victim into submission to his beastly desires. (PEOPLE vs. REMEDIOS, G.R.
No. 211056, November 10, 2015)
Qualified Rape - For one to be convicted of qualified rape, at least one (1)
of the aggravating / qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 266-B of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, must be alleged in the
information and duly proved during trial. (PEOPLE VS. BIALA, G.R. No.
217975, November 23, 2015)
Article 266-B of the same Code provides that rape is qualified when certain
circumstances are present in its commission, such as when the victim is
under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.24 Hence,
for a conviction of qualified rape, the prosecution must allege and prove the
ordinary elements of (1) sexual congress, (2) with a woman, (3) by force and
without consent; and in order to warrant the imposition of the death penalty,
the additional elements that (4) the victim is under eighteen years of age at
the time of the rape, and (5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate,
illegitimate or adopted) of the victim. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
ELISEO D. VILLAMOR, G.R. NO. 202187, FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
Qualified Rape; Minority and Relationship AAA was 16 years old when
she was raped in March 2004. The fact of the victims age was duly
substantiated by her Birth Certificate which was formally offered in evidence
and marked as Exhibit A. Further, the offender, herein accused-appellant
Bacus is AAAs father. Such fact of relationship between the offender and the
offended party was likewise supported by the Birth Certificate of the latter
and corroborated by the testimonies of the former. Therefore, as aptly held
by the RTC and correctly affirmed by the appellate court, accused-appellant
is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, for which he
is to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in view of the abolition of the
death penalty under Section 2 of R.A. No. 9346. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs RICARDO BACUS, G.R. NO. 208354, AUGUST 26,
2015)
The age of AAA and her relationship to the accused-appellant qualify the
rape committed against her. Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code
provides: Art. 266-B. Penalties. - x x x The death penalty shall also be
imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 1. When the victim is under eighteen
(18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or
the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. In this case, the
qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were specifically
alleged in the information against the accused-appellant. Thereafter, the
prosecution offered in evidence the birth certificate of AAA, which proved
that she was born on September 25, 1988. Thus, AAA was only 14 years old
when the rape incident took place on March 2, 2003. The birth certificate
likewise stated that the accused-appellant Bienvenido Saramosing Remedios
is the biological father of AAA, which fact he likewise admitted during the
trial of the case. (PEOPLE vs. REMEDIOS, G.R. No. 211056, November
10, 2015)
Article 266-B of the RPC provides that rape is qualified when certain
circumstances are present in its commission, such as when the victim is
under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Hence, in
a conviction for qualified rape, the prosecution must prove that (1) the victim
is under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape, and (2) the offender is
a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim. In other
words, it is the concurrence of both the minority of the victim and her
relationship with the offender that will be considered as a special qualifying
circumstance, raising the penalty to the supreme penalty of death. Thus, it is
imperative that the circumstance of minority and relationship be proved
conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself; otherwise, the crime shall be
considered simple rape warranting the imposition of the lower penalty of
reclusion perpetual. If, at trial, both the age of the victim and her relationship
with the offender are not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the death penalty
cannot be imposed. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. REMAN SARIEGO,
G.R. NO. 203322, FEBRUARY 24, 2016)
In this case, while it is undisputed that AAA is the daughter of appellant, her
minority was not conclusively established. In People v. Prunaa, the Court laid
down the following controlling guidelines in appreciating age, either as an
element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance: In order to remove any
confusion that may be engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set the
following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or
as a qualifying circumstance. 1. The best evidence to prove the age of the
offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live
birth of such party. 2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar
authentic documents, such as baptismal certificate and school records which
show the date of birth of the victim, would suffice to prove age. 3. If the
certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or
destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of
the victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or
consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such
as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section
40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following
circumstances: a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what
is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; b. If the victim is
alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that
she is less than 12 years old; c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years
of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the
testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age, the
complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused. 5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of
proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to
the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. REMAN SARIEGO, G.R. NO. 203322,
FEBRUARY 24, 2016)
In this case, We find that the prosecution was able to prove that Tuando had
sexual intercourse with AAA, the then 13 year old daughter of his common-
law wife, against her will. The prosecution was able to present the evidence
to support conviction for qualified rape: that (1) the accused had carnal
knowledge of the victim under 18 years of age at the time of rape; (2) said
act was accomplished (a) through the use of force, when he boxed her hand
while inserting his penis into AAA's private organ, (b) through the threat of
killing AAA's family and (c) through intimidation being the common-law
spouse of the victim's mother. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAUL
YAMON TUANDO, G.R NO. 207816, FEBRUARY 24, 2016)
The concurrence of both the minority of the victim, as proven by her birth
certificate, and her relationship with her offender, qualified the rape raising
the penalty to death. In People v. Floro Barcela, 723 SCRA 647 (2014), it is
essential, as in this case, that both circumstances must be alleged in the
criminal complaint or information and proven as the crime itself. We find
credibility with AAA's narration that she was raped by Tuando. It was when
the victim's senses were weakened by dizziness that the accused laid her on
top of the bed. He undressed the victim, kissed her and inserted his penis
inside the victim's private organ despite appeals and struggle against the
act. Not just the victim but her entire family was threatened with death if she
would expose the commission of the offense. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. RAUL YAMON TUANDO, G.R NO. 207816, FEBRUARY
24, 2016)
No young girl such as AAA would concoct a sordid tale, on her own or
through the influence of her mother BBB or even his brother CCC, and
undergo the ordeal of having her private parts examined by a medical
doctor, of being questioned by NBI operatives about the details of how she
was raped by Tuando, then eventually being subjected to the stigma and
embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive was other than a fervent desire
to seek justice. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAUL YAMON
TUANDO, G.R NO. 207816, FEBRUARY 24, 2016)
There is ample basis to conclude that AAA's resumption to normal life after
the commission of rape cannot be taken against her. A victim's reaction after
a harrowing experience, especially in a crime of rape, is subjective and not
everyone responds in the same way. There is no standard form of behavior
that can be anticipated of a rape victim following her sexual abuse. People
respond differently to emotional stress, particularly minor children subjected
to such level of emotional trauma. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
RAUL YAMON TUANDO, G.R NO. 207816, FEBRUARY 24, 2016)
Qualified Rape ; Penalty - Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), as amended, the imposable penalty for qualified rape is death. With
the effectivity, however, of Republic Act (RA) No. 9346, the imposition of the
supreme penalty of death has been prohibited. (PEOPLE VS. BIALA, G.R.
No. 217975, November 23, 2015)
As to the penalty, Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, provides that the
death penalty shall be imposed if the victim is under eighteen (18) years of
age and the offender, among others, is the victim's parent. However,
following Republic Act No. 9346, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly
imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of
death, without eligibility for parole. Likewise, the RTC correctly awarded in
AAA's favor the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as
moral damages. An award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a
finding of the fact of rape, and moral damages may be automatically
awarded in rape cases without need of proof of mental and physical
suffering. The CA, in turn, correctly modified the RTC ruling by increasing the
award of exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. Exemplary
damages are also called for, by way of public example, and to protect the
young from sexual abuse. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RICARDO
LAGBO a.k.a. RICARDO LABONG, G.R. NO. 207535, FEBRUARY 10,
2016)
Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of death shall be
imposed when the victim of rape is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim. However, upon the effectivity of Republic
Act No. 934630 prohibiting the imposition of death penalty in the Philippines,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in lieu of death
penalty, shall be imposed on Tuando. Hence, the Court affirms the imposition
of penalty meted by the Court of Appeals. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. RAUL YAMON TUANDO, G.R NO. 207816, FEBRUARY 24, 2016)
The Court has held in a long line of cases that if the mental age of a woman
above twelve years is that of a child below twelve years, even if she
voluntarily submitted to the bestial desires of the accused, or even absent
the circumstances of force or intimidation or the fact that the victim was
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, the accused would still be
liable for rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. The rationale is that if sexual
intercourse with a victim under twelve years of age is rape, then it should
follow that carnal knowledge of a woman whose mental age is that of a child
below twelve years would also constitute rape.(PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN DELA ROSA, G.R. No. 206419, June 01, 2016)
Hymenal Laceration; Not an Element of the Crime - The healed
laceration on the victim's hymen does not serve to acquit appellant either.
Hymenal laceration is not an element of statutory rape, as long as there is
enough proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of
the female organ of the offended party who is below 12 years of age.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL REBANUEL Y NADERA, G.R.
No. 208475, June 08, 2016)
This Court, in a number of cases, has affirmed the conviction of the accused
for rape despite the absence of laceration on the victim's hymen, since
medical findings suggest that it is possible for the victim's hymen to remain
intact despite repeated sexual intercourse.29 It has been elucidated that the
strength and dilatability of the hymen varies from one woman to another,
such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during
intercourse. In any case, this Court has previously stated that a medical
examination and a medical certificate, albeit corroborative of the commission
of rape, are not indispensable to a successful prosecution for rape.30
Moreover, it is settled that the absence of physical injuries or fresh
lacerations does not negate rape, and although medical results may not
indicate physical abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be established
since medical findings or proof of injuries are not among the essential
elements in the prosecution for rape.31 In the present case, the credible
disclosure of AAA that accused-appellant raped her is the most important
proof of the commission of the crime. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
RICARDO LAGBO a.k.a. RICARDO LABONG, G.R. NO. 207535,
FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
AAA positively identified appellant as the person who raped her. She testified
in a straightforward and clear manner that appellant, whose house was just
located at the back of their house, called her to babysit his one year old son.
When AAA entered appellant's house, he closed the door, kissed her,
removed her clothing and then his own clothes and then inserted his penis
into her vagina, and it was painful. AAA's claim of sexual intercourse was
corroborated by the medical report of Dr. Camarillo which showed the
presence of a deep healed laceration at 7 o'clock position which was
assessed to be three weeks to two months old which was caused by an
insertion of an erected penis or a hard or blunt object. Hymenal lacerations,
whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible
defloration. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALLAN RODRIGUEZ y
GRAJO, G.R. NO. 208406, FEBRUARY 29, 2016)
Testimony of Victim - Time and again, this Court has held that when the
offended party is young and an immature girl, as in this case, who has lived
her whole life in a faraway island wherein almost all residents know
everybody, courts are inclined to lend credence to her version of what
transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the
shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed, if the matter
about which they testified were not true. No young girl would usually concoct
a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor
tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the
trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a
public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect
and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the
wicked acts committed against her. Indeed in a rural setting the shame of
rape is on the victim, not on the accused. And it will haunt the family of the
victim for a long time. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DIONE
BARBERAN AND DIONE DELOS SANTOS, G.R. No. 208759, June 22,
2016)
Lack of Resistance - From the direct testimony of AAA, she explained that
she was not able to resist or cry help from her relatives since Barberan held
her hands and covered her mouth while De los Santos was raping her. After
De los Santos, Barberan took his turn and raped her. She did not have
sufficient energy to resist the physical restraint employed by two men as she
was immobilized by fear and shock. Lack of physical resistance, to
emphasize, is not an essential element of the crime of rape. A victim should
never be faulted for her lack of resistance to any forms of crime particularly
as grievous as rape. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not
make voluntary the victim's submission to the perpetrator's lust. Besides,
physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman
involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused; it is not an essential
element of rape. Rape victims react differently when confronted with sexual
abuse. Thus, the law does not impose upon the private complainant the
burden of proving resistance. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DIONE
BARBERAN AND DIONE DELOS SANTOS, G.R. No. 208759, June 22,
2016)
Evidence. - Neither does AAA's silence on the incident nor failure to shout or
wake up her siblings affect her credibility. The Court had consistently found
that there is no uniform behavior that can be expected from those who had
the misfortune of being sexually molested. While there are some who may
have found the courage early on to reveal the abuse they experienced, there
are those who have opted to initially keep the harrowing ordeal to
themselves and attempted to move on with their lives. This is because a
rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by
reason. The perpetrator of the rape hopes to build a climate of extreme
psychological terror, which would numb his victim into silence and
submissiveness. In fact, incestuous rape further magnifies this terror for the
perpetrator in these cases, such as the victim's father, is a person normally
expected to give solace and protection to the victim. Moreover, in incest,
access to the victim is guaranteed by the blood relationship, magnifying the
sense of helplessness and the degree of fear. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. ELISEO D. VILLAMOR, G.R. NO. 202187, FEBRUARY
10, 2016)
In resolving rape cases, the Court has always given primordial consideration
to the credibility of the victim's testimony. In fact, since rape is a crime that
is almost always committed in isolation, usually leaving only the victims to
testify on the commission of the crime, for as long as the victim's testimony
is logical, credible, consistent and convincing, the accused may be convicted
solely on the basis thereof. In this case, the courts below expressly found
that AAA testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank
manner, evincing her credibility. As reproduced in the CA Decision, AAA's
testimony during her direct examination clearly recounted, in detail, the
series of events that transpired during the alleged incidents. Indeed, unless
there appears certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the
lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered,
would alter the result of the case, the trial court's conclusions on the
credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight
and respect, and at times even finality. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
REMAN SARIEGO, G.R. NO. 203322, FEBRUARY 24, 2016)
The best evidence to prove the age of a person is the original birth certificate
or certified true copy thereof, and in their absence, similar authentic
documents may be presented such as baptismal certificates and school
records. If the original or certified true copy of the birth certificate is not
available, credible testimonies of the victim's mother or a member of the
family may be sufficient under certain circumstances. In the event that both
the birth certificate or other authentic documents and the testimonies of the
victim's mother or other qualified relative are unavailable, the testimony of
the victim may be admitted in evidence provided that it is expressly and
clearly admitted by the accused. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
REMAN SARIEGO, G.R. NO. 203322, FEBRUARY 24, 2016)
Rape can be established by the sole testimony of the victim that is credible
and untainted with serious uncertainty. With more reason is this true when
the medical findings supported the testimony of the victim, as in this case.
When the victim's testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physical
evidence of penetration, there is sufficient foundation for concluding that
there was carnal knowledge. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALLAN
RODRIGUEZ y GRAJO, G.R NO. 208406, FEBRUARY 29, 2016)
Acts of Lasciviousness; Penalties Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty must be taken from the full
range of the penalty next lower in degree, that is arresto mayor, which
ranges from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months. Absent any
modifying circumstance attendant to the crime, the maximum of the
indeterminate penalty is to be taken from the medium period of prision
correccional, ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to
four (4) years and two (2) months. (PEOPLE VS. BIALA, G.R. No. 217975,
November 23, 2015)
Qualified Rape, Damages. In People vs. Gambao, 706 SCRA 508 (2013),
the Supreme Court (SC) set the minimum indemnity and damages where
facts warranted the imposition of death penalty, if not for prohibition thereof
by Republic Act (RA) No. 9346, as follows: (1) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;
(2) P100,000.00 as moral damages which the victim is assumed to have
suffered and thus need no proof; and (3) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages
to set an example for the public good. We thus increase the awared civil
indemnity from P75,000.00 to P100,000.00; moral damages from P75,000.00
to P100,000.00; and the exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to
P100,000.00. (PEOPLE vs. ALEXANDER BANGSOY, GR No. 204047,
January 13, 2016)
Rape; Mental Retardates. For a charge of rape under Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, the prosecution must prove that (1) the
offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished such
act through force, threat or intimidation, when she was deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was
demented. Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape
under the aforesaid provisions of law. Proof of force or intimidation is NOT
necessary, as mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual
act. What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the
accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of the latter. (PEOPLE
vs. ALEXANDER BANGSOY, GR No. 204047, January 13, 2016)
The elements of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), as amended, are as follows: (a) intent on the part of the
accused to deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the
victim of his liberty; and (c) motive of the accused, which is extorting
ransom for the release of the victim. Time is not a material ingredient in the
crime of kidnapping. As long as all these elements were sufficiently
established by the prosecution, a conviction for kidnapping is in order.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SPO1 CATALINO GONZALES, JR.,
G.R. NO. 192233, FEBRUARY 17, 2016)
In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that Ison misrepresented herself as the owner of the fishponds and entered
into the Contract to Sell without authority from Col. Vergara. It was likewise
not amply established that the private complainants were completely
unaware of the pertinent facts concerning the fishponds' ownership. Hence,
the essential element of reliance upon the misrepresentation, which should
have induced the private complainants to part with their money, is wanting.
Inevitably, the Court is constrained to uphold the presumption of innocence
in Ison's favor and acquit her. A perusal of Col. Vergara's Affidavit yields the
following observations. First, he, in fact, asked Ison to look for a buyer of the
fishponds, albeit no written document was issued and the extent of the given
authority was not discussed. Second, Col. Vergara did not explicitly deny that
he granted Ison the authority to sign any contract considering that the latter
still remains to be the registered owner of the fishponds. Third, in the
December of 2004 meeting held in Tropical Hut, Col. Vergara exhibited little
interest as shown by his early departure and his utterance to the effect that
Ison and the private complainants should settle the matter among
themselves. Fourth, Col. Vergara, being the owner of the fishponds and the
one who would sustain the most damage as a result of any unauthorized
sale, never filed any complaint, criminal or otherwise, against Ison. Col.
Vergara's disinterest in filing a complaint or testifying against Ison militates
against the private complainants' claim that Ison had no authority to enter
into the transaction. (CORAZON D. ISON v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 205097, June 08, 2016)
Estafa; Penalties - Pursuant to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the
penalty prescribed for estafa in which the amount of the fraud is over
P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00 is prision correctional in its
maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (i.e., four years, two
months and one day to eight years); if the amount of the fraud exceeds
P22,000.00, the penalty thus prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum
period, and one year shall be added for each additional P10,000.00 provided
the total penalty imposed shall not exceed 20 years. Considering that the
penalty does not consist of three periods, the prescribed penalty is divided
into three equal portions, and each portion shall form a period,31 with the
maximum period being then imposed.32 However, the floor of the maximum
period - six years, eight months and 21 days - is fixed in the absence of any
aggravating circumstance, or of any showing of the greater extent of the evil
produced by the crime,33 to which is then added the incremental penalty of
one year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, or three years in all.
The resulting total penalty is nine years, eight months and 21 days of prision
mayor, which shall be the maximum of the indeterminate sentence.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARISSA BAYKER, G.R. NO.
170192, FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
Theft; Elements of. Under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the
essential elements of the crime of theft are: (1) the taking of personal
property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking away was done
with intent to gain; (4) the taking away was done without the consent of the
owner; and (5) the taking away is accomplished without violence or
intimidation against person or force upon things. (GUILBEMER FRANCO vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 191185, FEBRUARY 1, 2016)
Estafa; Elements of.- The elements of Estafa under this provision are as
follows: (1) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other personal
property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (2)
misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the money or property
received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (3) the
misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4)
demand by the offended party that the offender return the money or
property received. In the case of Pamintuan v. People, 621 SCRA 538(2010),
the Court had the opportunity to elucidate further on the essence of the
aforesaid crime, as well as the proof needed to sustain a conviction for the
same, to wit:The essence of this kind of [E]stafa is the appropriation
or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the
entity to whom a return should be made. The words "convert" and
"misappropriate" connote the act of using or disposing of another's property
as if it were one's own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from
that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one's own use includes not only
conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of
the property of another without right. In proving the element of
conversion or misappropriation, a legal presumption of
misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the
proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be sold and fails to
give an account of their whereabouts. (CHENG VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 174113, JANUARY 13, 2016
To qualify the crime of simple theft to qualified theft, the crime of theft must
be committed with grave abuse of confidence.All of the elements for
qualified theft are present in this case. Proceeding from the fact that
Boquecosa was, on the dates of the crime, a sales clerk and vault custodian
of the Pawnshop, she admitted having pawned the missing pieces of jewelry.
The act, of course, presupposes a previous taking of the items. (People v.
Boquecosa, G.R. No. 202181, [August 19, 2015])
Qualified Theft; Penalty - The penalty for qualified theft is based on the
value of the property stolen, which in this case is P97,984.00. To compute for
the imposable penalty, we must first take the basic penalty for theft, which is
prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods to be imposed in the
maximum period, that is, eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to
ten (10) years of prision mayor. To determine the additional years of
imprisonment to be added to the basic penalty, the amount of P22,000.00 is
deducted from P97,984.00, which leaves a difference of P75,984.00. This
amount is then divided by P10,000.00, disregarding any amount less than
P10,000.00. The resulting quotient of 7 is equivalent to 7 years, which is
added to the basic penalty.(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDGARDO T.
CRUZ, G.R. No. 200081, June 08, 2016)
In this case, because Cruz committed qualified theft, his penalty is two
degrees higher than the penalty for simple theft, which is reclusion temporal
in its medium and maximum periods to be imposed in its maximum period or
eighteen (18) years, two (2) months, and twenty-one (21) days to twenty
(20) years, which shall be added to the resulting quotient of 7 years. The
resulting sum shall then be the imposable penalty. Thus, the range of the
imposable penalty is twenty-five (25) years, two (2) months, and twenty-one
(21) days to twenty-seven (27) years. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
EDGARDO T. CRUZ, G.R. No. 200081, June 08, 2016)
Moreover, as the crime committed is qualified theft, we do not apply the rule
in simple theft that the maximum penalty cannot exceed twenty (20) years.
The penalty for qualified theft has no such limitation. His penalty exceeds
twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, the penalty that should be imposed,
therefore, is reclusion perpetua. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
EDGARDO T. CRUZ, G.R. No. 200081, June 08, 2016)
Bigamy; Elements of. Bigamy is punished under Article 349 of the Revised
Penal Code: ARTICE 349. Bigamy. The penalty of prision mayor shall be
imposed upon any person who shall contact a second or subsequent
marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before
the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a
judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. For an accused to be
convicted of this crime, the prosecution must prove all of the following
elements: [first,] that the offender has been legally married; [second,] that
the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse
is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to
the Civil Code; [third,] that he contracts a second of subsequent marriage;
and [lastly] that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential
requisites for validity. (NORBERTO A. VITANGCOL vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, GR No. 207406, January 13, 2016)
The Revised Penal Code provides that: "Any person who shall publish,
exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or
by similar means, shall be responsible for the same. The author or editor of a
book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper,
magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations
contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof." The
provision did not distinguish or graduate the penalty according to the nature
or degree of the participation of the persons involved in the crime of libel. It
is basic in statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish, we
should not distinguish. Accordingly, we cannot distinguish Pichay's criminal
liability from the others' criminal liability only because he was the president
of the company that published the libelous articles instead of being their
author. Pichay's criminal liability was the same as that of the others, such
that he was even meted the same penalty as that imposed on the author of
the libelous articles. The crime of libel would not even be consummated
without his participation as publisher of the libelous articles. One who
furnishes the means for carrying on the publication of a newspaper and
entrusts its management to servants or employees whom he selects and
controls may be said to cause to be published what actually appears, and
should be held responsible therefor, whether he was individually concerned
in the publication or not. (MARY ELIZABETH TY-DELGADO vs. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and PHILIP ARREZA
PICHAY, G.R. NO. 219603, JANUARY 26, 2016)
Under Section 12, the disqualification shall be removed after the expiration
of a period of five years from his service of sentence. In Teves v. Comelec,
587 SCRA 1 (2009), we held that the five-year period of disqualification
would end only on 25 May 2010 or five years from 24 May 2005, the day
petitioner paid the fine he was sentenced to pay in Teves v. SandiganbayanM
447 SCRA 309 (2004). In this case, since Pichay served his sentence when he
paid the fine on 17 February 2011, the five-year period shall end only on 16
February 2016. Thus, Pichay is disqualified to become a Member of the
House of Representatives until then. Considering his ineligibility due to his
disqualification under Section 12, which became final on 1 June 2009, Pichay
made a false material representation as to his eligibility when he filed his
certificate of candidacy on 9 October 2012 for the 2013 elections. Pichay's
disqualification under Section 12 is a material fact involving the eligibility of
a candidate under Sections 74 and 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. (MARY
ELIZABETH TY-DELGADO vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and PHILIP ARREZA PICHAY, G.R. NO. 219603,
JANUARY 26, 2016)
Child Abuse Law; Children - The victim is 16 years of age at the time of
the commission of the offense. Under Section 3 (a) of R.A. No. 7610,
"children" refers to "persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those over
but unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical
or mental disability or condition.(MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y MARUHOM,
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 206513, October 20, 2015 )
As a mother, the death of her child, who has the blood of her blood, and the
flesh of her flesh, is the most excruciating idea that a mother could entertain.
The spontaneity of the acts of Jabalde against Lin is just a product of the
instinctive reaction of a mother to rescue her own child from harm and
danger as manifested only by mild abrasions, scratches, or scrapes suffered
by Lin, thus, negating any intention on inflicting physical injuries. Having lost
the strength of her mind, she lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade
or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that
was so essential in the crime of child abuse. In fine, the essential element of
intent was not established with the prescribed degree of proof required for a
successful prosecution under Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610.
(VIRGINIA JABALDE Y JAMANDRON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 195224, June 15, 2016)
Anti-Child Abuse Law; Sexual Abuse - Under Section 5, Article III of R.A.
No. 7610, a child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when he or she
indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult.
This statutory provision must be distinguished from Acts of Lasciviousness
under Articles 336 and 339 of the RPC. As defined in Article 336 of the RPC,
Acts of Lasciviousness has the following elements:(1) That the offender
commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;r2) That it is done under any
of the following circumstances : A. By using force or intimidation; or b. When
the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or c.When
the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) That the offended party
is another person of either sex. Article 339 of the RPC likewise punishes acts
of lasciviousness committed with the consent of the offended party if done
by the same persons and under the same circumstances mentioned in
Articles 337 and 338 of the RPC, to wit: 1. if committed against a virgin over
twelve years and under eighteen years of age by any person in public
authority, priest, home-servant, domestic, guardian, teacher, or any person
who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted with the education or custody of the
woman; or 2. if committed by means of deceit against a woman who is single
or a widow of good reputation, over twelve but under eighteen years of age.
(MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y MARUHOM, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 206513, October 20, 2015 )
Section 3 (g) of RA 3019 does not require the giving of unwarranted benefits,
advantages or preferences to private parties who conspire with public
officers, its core element being the engagement in a transaction or contract
that is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. The
elements of the offense are: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that
he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and
(3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government. (PCGG vs. MA. MERCEDITAS
NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ, G.R. No. 194159. October 21, 2015.)
Plunder is the crime committed by public officers when they amass wealth
involving at least P50 million by means of a combination or series of overt
acts. Under these terms, it is not sufficient to simply allege that the amount
of ill-gotten wealth amassed amounted to at least P50 million; the manner of
amassing the ill-gotten wealth whether through a combination or series of
overt acts under Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080 is an important element
that must be alleged. When the Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it
refers to at least two (2) acts falling under different categories listed in
Section 1, paragraph (d) of R.A. No. 7080 [for example, raids on the public
treasury under Section 1, paragraph (d), subparagraph (1), and fraudulent
conveyance of assets belonging to the National Government under Section 1,
paragraph (d), subparagraph (3)].
To prove plunder, the prosecution must weave a web out of the six (6)
ways of illegally amassing wealth and show how the various acts reveal a
combination or series of means or schemes that reveal a pattern of
criminality.Plunder is a crime composed of several predicate criminal
acts. To prove plunder, the prosecution must weave a web out of the six
ways of illegally amassing wealth and show how the various acts reveal a
combination or series of means or schemes that reveal a pattern of
criminality. The interrelationship of the separate acts must be shown and
be established as a scheme to accumulate ill-gotten wealth amounting to
at least P50 million. Plunder thus involves intricate predicate criminal acts
and numerous transactions and schemes that span a period of time.
Naturally, in its prosecution, the State possesses an "effective flexibility"
of proving a predicate criminal act or transaction, not originally
contemplated in the Information, but is otherwise included in the broad
statutory definition, in light of subsequently discovered evidence. The
unwarranted use of the flexibility is what the bill of particulars guards
against. (ENRILE vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 213455,
[August 11, 2015])
Bouncing Checks Law- There are two (2) ways of violating BP 22: (1) by
making or drawing and issuing a check to apply on account or for value,
knowing at the time of issue that the check is not sufficiently funded; and (2)
by having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the time of
issue but failing to do so to cover the full amount of the check when
presented to the drawee bank within a period of ninety (90) days. (JORGE B.
NAVARRA, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 203750, June
06, 2016)
It must be pointed out that the denials proffered by Atty. Salvado cannot
belie the dishonor of the checks. His strained explanation that the checks
were mere securities cannot be countenanced. Of all people, lawyers are
expected to fully comprehend the legal import of bouncing checks. In Lozano
v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986), the Court ruled that the gravamen of the
offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless
check; that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.
The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making
and circulation of worthless checks. Because of its deleterious effects on the
public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. (ENGEL PAUL ACA vs.
ATTY RONALDO P. SALVADO, A.C. NO. 10952, JANUARY 26, 2016)
The non-presentation of the barangay tanods is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution. The more relevant testimonies are those of the members of the
raiding team who testified that they recovered packets of shabu from
accused-appellants house. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JULIET
PANCHO, G.R. No. 206910, October 14, 2015.)
The presence of the following elements required for all prosecutions for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs has been duly established in the instant case:
(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. Appellant was
apprehended, indicted and convicted by way of a buy-bust operation, a form
of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of
trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal
plan. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction
which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. The
crime is consummated at once at the point when the police officer has gone
through the operation as a buyer whose offer was accepted by the accused,
followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former. (PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. RICO ENRIQUEZ Y CRUZ, G.R. No. 214503, June
22, 2016)
For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, only the following
elements are essential: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and its payment. What is material is proof that the sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation of evidence of the seized item, as part
of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and
receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-
bust transaction. (PEOPLE vs. ASIGNAR, G.R. No. 206593, November
10, 2015)
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be
sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of
the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the things sold and the
payment therefor. The Court finds that all elements for illegal sale were duly
established with accused-appellant having been caught in flagrante delicto
selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by the buy-bust team
of PO3 Palabay. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMEL SAPITULA y
PACULAN, G.R. NO. 209212, FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
We agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that accused-appellant
is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempting to transport dangerous
drugs. The prosecution proved the essential element of the crime; accused-
appellant would have successfully moved 13.96 grams of methamphetamine
hydrochloride from Manila to Cebu had she not been apprehended at the
initial check-in area at the Manila Domestic Airport Terminal 1. The
prosecution need not present the airline ticket to prove accused-appellant's
intention to board an aircraft; she submitted herself to body frisking at the
airport when 13.96 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride was found in
her person. (THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CRISTY DIMAANO Y.
TIPDAS, G.R. NO. 174481, FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
Chain of Custody Rule It is settled that the failure to strictly follow the
directives of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 is not fatal
and will not necessarily render the items confiscated inadmissible. It is
settled that the failure to strictly follow the directives of Section 21, Article II
of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not necessarily render the items
confiscated inadmissible. What is important is that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The succession of
events in this case show that the items seized were the same items tested
and subsequently identified and testified to in court. We thus hold that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized from the accused-
appellants were duly proven not to have been compromised. (PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES VS POSADA, GR No. 196052, September 2, 2015)
In People v. Salvador, 715 SCRA 617 (2014), the Supreme Court (SC) ruled
that the failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory of the
seized drugs and the photograph, as well as the absence of a member of the
media or the Department of Justice (DOJ), pursuant to Section 21, Article II of
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, is not fatal and will not render an accuseds
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is
of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and [the]
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. JULIET PANCHO, G.R. No. 206910, October 14,
2015.)
The failure of the members of the raiding team to deliver the seized items to
the judge who issued the warrant becomes immaterial because records show
that the chain of custody is intact. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
JULIET PANCHO, G.R. No. 206910, October 14, 2015.)
This Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should
ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, as it is almost always impossible to
obtain an unbroken chain. The most important factor is the preservation of
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be
used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. RONWALDO LAFARAN Y ACLAN, G.R. No. 208015,
October 14, 2015.)
The essence of the chain of custody rule is to make sure that the dangerous
drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same
dangerous drug recovered from his or her possession.- the prosecution must
prove the corpus delicti18 which in drug-related cases refers to the
dangerous drug itself, in this case, shabu. As repeatedly ruled by this Court,
the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti are properly
preserved for as long as the chain of custody of the same are duly
established. The essence of the chain of custody rule is to make sure that the
dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the
same dangerous drug recovered from his or her possession. (ROBERTO
PALO y DE GULA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 192075,
FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
The prosecution must establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seize
item As held in People of the Philippines v. Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo: The
rule on chain of custody expressly demands the identification of the persons
who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the
authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from
the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented
in court. Moreover, as a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of
custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what
the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in
the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next linjv in the
chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure
that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the
same.(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RAUL AMARO Y CATUBAY ALIAS
"LALAKS," G.R. No. 207517, June 01, 2016)
The Court ( SC ) notes that there were nagging questions about the post-
examination custody that were left unanswered by the prosecution evidence,
particularly, as to who exercised custody and possession of the specimen
after the chemical examination and how it was handled, stored and
safeguarded pending its presentation as evidence in court. The failure of the
prosecution to provide details pertaining to the said post-examination
custody of the seized item created a gap in the chain of custody which again
raised reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti. ( PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENRICO MIRONDO Y IZON, G.R. No. 210841,
October 14, 2015 )
Appellant notes the absence of evidence which shows that the buy-bust
operation was exercised in coordination with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) or the barangay authorities, and the failure of
the police officers to properly identify and to physically conduct an inventory
of the seized items in his presence, as mandated by Section 21, Paragraph 1,
Article II of RA No. 9165 which provides: Section 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 drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.}It bears stressing however,
that failure to strictly comply with the foregoing procedure will not render an
arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence in view of the
qualification permitted by Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165, to wit: (a) The apprehending officer/team
having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official 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, further, that non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items[.] Thus, it has been held that for as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved pursuant to the
chain of custody rule, non-compliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 does
not automatically render illegal the arrest of an accused or inadmissible the
items seized. The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the
identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the
purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs
and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused
until the time they are presented in court. Moreover, as a method of
authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It
would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that
every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness'
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which
it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in
the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to
have possession of the same. (PEOPLE vs. DALAWIS, G.R. No. 197925,
November 9, 2015)
In addition to the inventory made of the seized items, the prosecution was
able to prove an unbroken chain of custody of the illegal drug from its seizure
and marking to its submission to the PNP Crime Laboratory for analysis, to
the identification of the same during the trial of the case. Indeed no
photographs of the illegal drug were presented in court despite PO2 Cruz's
assertion that they have been taken although he explained that they went
missing. Yet we find that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
dangerous drug seized from appellant were duly proven by the prosecution
to have been properly preserved. The identity, quantity and quality of the
same were untarnished. As long as the chain of custody is unbroken, even
though the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not
faithfully observed, the guilt of the appellant will not be affected. (PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICO ENRIQUEZ Y CRUZ, G.R. No. 214503,
June 22, 2016)
The PDEA agents who apprehended appellants did not deviate from the
procedure prescribed by law and regulations. Section 21, paragraph 1, Article
II of RA 9165 provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and
custody of dangerous drugs: 1) The apprehending team having initial
custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence
of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof. This is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR)of RA 9165, which reads: (a) The apprehending
officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official 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, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items. (People v. Breis y Alvarado , G.R. No.
205823, [August 17, 2015])
"This Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should
ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, 'as it is almost always impossible to
obtain an unbroken chain.' The most important factor is the preservation of
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be
used to determine the guilt or [the] innocence of the accused. Hence, the
prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs[,] as required under [Section] 21[, Article II of
the IRR] of [R.A.] No. 9165, will not render the accused's arrest illegal or the
items seized from [him] inadmissible." The chain of custody is not
established solely by compliance with the prescribed physical inventory and
photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated
persons. The IRR of R.A. No. 9165 on the handling and disposition of seized
dangerous drugs states: Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items[.] NO CITATION, PLEASE PROVIDE,
THANKS! :)
The failure of the prosecution to conduct a physical inventory and take
photograph of the seized item does not ipso facto render inadmissible in
evidence the items seized. There is a proviso in the implementing rules
stating that when it is shown that there exist justifiable grounds and proof
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been
preserved, the seized items can still be used in determining the guilt or
innocence of the accused. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs DATS
MAMALUMPON y BAEZ, G.R. NO. 210452, AUGUST 26, 2015)
It has been ruled time and again that non-compliance with Section 21 of the
IRR does not make the items seized inadmissible. What is imperative is "the
preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as
the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused." In this case, the chain of custody can be easily established
through the following link: (1) PO1 Blones marked the seized sachet
of shabu handed to him by SPO1 Toring with "ECB-04-19-05." Nothing in the
records will show that SPO1 Toring yielded, at any instance, possession of the
subject sachet to another person, after he acquired custody thereof from the
civilian informant on their way to the police station until he gave it to PO1
Blones for marking; (2) the letter-request for laboratory examination of the
seized item marked "ECB-04-19-05" was signed by Police Superintendent
Anthony Lao Obenza; (3) the said request and the marked item seized, which
were personally delivered by PO1 Blones and SPO1 Toring, were duly
received by the PNP Crime Laboratory; (4) Chemistry Report No. D-491-
2005 confirmed that the marked item seized from appellant was
methylamphetamine hydrochloride; and (5) the marked item was offered in
evidence. (People v. Cayas, G.R. No. 215714 , [August 12, 2015])
The Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and
integrity of the corpus delicti of the offense charged. In People v. Torres, we
held that the identity of the prohibited drug must be proved with moral
certainty. It must also be established with the same degree of certitude that
the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same
item offered in court as exhibit. In this regard, paragraph 1, Section 21,
Article II of R. A. No. 9165 (the chain of custody rule) provides for safeguards
for the protection of the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized.
However, this Court has also said that while the chain of custody should
ideally be perfect, in reality it is not "as it is almost always impossible to
obtain an unbroken chain." The most important factor is the preservation of
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be
used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the case at bar,
the chain of custody of the seized alleged marijuana was not sufficiently
established, thereby casting doubt on the identity and integrity of the
supposed evidence. Time and again, this Court has held that "the failure to
establish, through convincing proof, that the integrity of the seized items has
been adequately preserved through an unbroken chain of custody is enough
to engender reasonable doubt on the guilt of an accused, x x x A conviction
cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. MICHAEL KURT JOHN BULAWAN Y
ANDALES, G.R. No. 204441, June 08, 2016)
Chain of Custody Rule; MarkingWhat IO1 Mangili did in the bus upon
seizure of the drugs was to mark the same, which is not to be confused with
taking the physical inventory. Marking is not a requirement of RA 9165 or
its IRR, but has been held to be an initial stage in the chain of custody.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS BREYS Y ALVARADO, G.R. No.
205823, [August 17, 2015])
Although the seized items were marked only at the police station and not
during the actual apprehension and seizure, in People v. Loks, we held that
the "marking of the seized [substance] immediately upon . . . arrival at the
police station qualified as a compliance with the marking requirement."
(PEOPLE VS BOLO Y FRANCO, G.R. No. 200295, [August 19, 2015])
It is likewise true that the seven smaller sachets inside the two plastic
sachets were not initialled. Nevertheless, the marking of the corpus delicti as
a means to preserve its identity should be done only "as far as
practicable."99 In this case, only the two outer sachets could be marked
because the two sachets were heat-sealed.100 The two outer sachets would
have to be opened for the seven smaller sachets to be marked. This would
have contaminated the specimen. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
CRISTY DIMAANO Y. TIPDAS, G.R. NO. 174481, FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
The fact that the apprehending officer marked the plastic sachet at the police
station, and not at the place of seizure, did not compromise the integrity of
the seized item. Jurisprudence has declared that "marking upon immediate
confiscation" contemplates even marking done at the nearest police station
or office, of the apprehending team. Neither does the absence of a physical
inventory nor the lack of photograph of the confiscated item renders the
same inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as these would be used in
determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. (ROBERTO PALO y DE
GULA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 192075, FEBRUARY
10, 2016)
Chain of Custody; Marking - As the first step in the chain of custody,
"marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the police
poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the dangerous drug seized.
It is meant to ensure that the objects seized are the same items that enter
the chain and are eventually offered in evidence, as well as to protect
innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and the
apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of
evidence.16 While Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and its implementing rule do not
expressly specify a time frame for marking or the place where said marking
should be done, the chain of custody rule requires that the marking should
be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2)
immediately upon confiscation.17 Marking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team.18 In this case, the prosecution evidence failed to
convincingly show who between P/Insp. Baares, as poseur-buyer, and
P/Insp. Demauro, as back-up and arresting officer, marked the bag of
marijuana seized from appellant with the initials "LQE" dated "08-14-2005" at
the PDEA Office. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEE QUIJANO ENAD,
G.R. NO. 205764, FEBRUARY 3, 2016)
The failure to immediately mark the confiscated shabu after its seizure does
not affect its integrity. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs DATS
MAMALUMPON y BAEZ, G.R. NO. 210452, AUGUST 26, 2015)
The Court has ruled in People v. Enriquez, SCRA 337 (2013) that the links
that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are:
first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer, second, the turnover of the
illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer,
third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and
submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMEL SAPITULA y PACULAN,
G.R. NO. 209212, FEBRUARY 10, 2016)
Dangerous Drugs Law Cases; Corpus Delicti - Corpus delicti is the actual
commission by someone of the particular crime charged. In illegal drugs
cases, it refers to illegal drug itself. When the courts are given reason to
entertain reservations about the identity of the illegal drug item alleged
seized from the accused, the actual crime charged is put into serious
question. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENRIQUE MIRANDA, JR. Y
PAA, G.R. No. 206880, June 29, 2016)
Since the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous
drugs itself, proof beyond reasonable doubt that the seized item is the very
same object tested to be positive for dangerous drugs and presented in court
as evidence is essential in every criminal prosecution under R.A. 9165.
Because the existence of the dangerous drug is crucial to a judgment of
conviction, it is indispensable that the identity of the prohibited drug be
established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a
finding of guilt to ensure that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of
the evidence are removed. To this end, the prosecution must establish the
unbroken chain of custody of the seized item. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. LEE QUIJANO ENAD, G.R. NO. 205764, FEBRUARY 3,
2016)
Dangerous Drugs Law; Informants It has oft been held that the
presentation of an informant as witness is not regarded as indispensable to
the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule, the
informant is not presented in court for security reasons, in view of the need
to protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through
his efforts. Thereby, the confidentiality of the informants identity is
protected in deference to his invaluable services to law enforcement. Only
when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in
obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his security
be disregarded. In the present case, as the buy-bust operation was duly
witnessed by SPO2 Aro and PO3 Pera, their testimonies can take the place of
that of the poseur-buyer. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RONWALDO
LAFARAN Y ACLAN, G.R. No. 208015, October 14, 2015.)
Chain of Custody Rule;- Although Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates
that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory
of the seized items and photograph them, non-compliance therewith is not
fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground and as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending team.While nowhere in the prosecution evidence show
the "justifiable ground" which may excuse the police operatives involved in
the buy-bust operation from making the physical inventory and taking a
photograph of the drug paraphernalia confiscated and/or seized, such
omission shall not render Saraum's arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him as inadmissible in evidence. Said "justifiable
ground" will remain unknown in the light of the apparent failure of Saraum to
specifically challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition
and preservation of the subject drug paraphernalia before the trial court. He
cannot be allowed too late in the day to question the police officers' alleged
non-compliance with Section 21 for the first time on appeal. (SARAUM VS.
PEOPLE G.R. NO. 205472, JANUARY 25, 2016)
Same; Same; Same; - The chain of custody rule requires the identification
of the persons who handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly
monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug
paraphernalia from the time they were seized from the accused until the
time they are presented in court. (SARAUM VS. PEOPLE G.R. NO.
205472, JANUARY 25, 2016)
Same; Same; Same; - While the procedure on the chain of custody should
be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is almost always impossible to obtain
an unbroken chain.Thus, failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article
II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused person's arrest
illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. (SARAUM
VS. PEOPLE G.R. NO. 205472, JANUARY 25, 2016)
Same; Same; Same;The most important factor is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.In this case, the
prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the confiscated drug paraphernalia had not been compromised because it
established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized items from
the time they were first discovered until they were brought to the court for
examination. Even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the
physical inventory and photograph of the drug paraphernalia, this will not
render Saraum's arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.
There is substantial compliance by the police as to the required procedure on
the custody and control of the confiscated items. The succession of events
established by evidence and the overall handling of the seized items by
specified individuals all show that the evidence seized were the same
evidence subsequently identified and testified to in open court. (SARAUM
VS. PEOPLE G.R. NO. 205472, JANUARY 25, 2016)
Same; Same; Same; The inexplicable failure of the police officers to testify
as to what they did with the alleged drug while in their respective possession
resulted in a breach or break in the chain of custody of the drug. "[W]hile
the chain of custody should ideally be perfect [and unbroken], in reality it is
not, as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain." As such,
what is of utmost importance "is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the
guilt or innocence of the accused." In the case at bench, this Court finds it
exceedingly difficult to believe that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
drug have been properly preserved by the apprehending officers. The
inexplicable failure of the police officers to testify as to what they did with
the alleged drug while in their respective possession resulted in a breach or
break in the chain of custody of the drug. In some cases, the Court declared
that the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to
establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of the shabu plus the
irregular manner which plagued the handling of the evidence before the
same was offered in court, whittles down the chances of the government to
obtain a successful prosecution in a drug-related case. (PEOPLE V.
HAVANA, G.R. NO. 198450, JANUARY 11, 2016)
Same; Same; Same; The alleged apprehending team after the alleged
initial custody and control of the drug and after immediately seizing and
confiscating the same, never ever made a physical inventory of the same,
nor did it ever photograph the same in the presence of the appellant from
whom the alleged item was confiscated.-Apart from the utter failure of the
prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody, yet another
procedural lapse casts further uncertainty about the identity and integrity of
the subject shabu. We refer to the non-compliance by the buy-bust team with
the most rudimentary procedural safeguards relative to the custody and
disposition of the seized item under Section 21(1),26 Article II of RA 9165.
Here, the alleged apprehending team after the alleged initial custody and
control of the drug, and after immediately seizing and confiscating the same,
never ever made a physical inventory of the same, nor did it ever
photograph the same in the presence of the appellant from whom the
alleged item was confiscated. There was no physical inventory and
photograph of the item allegedly seized from appellant. Neither was there
any explanation offered for such failure. (PEOPLE V. HAVANA, G.R. NO.
198450, JANUARY 11, 2016)
Same; Same; Same; While the Supreme Court in certain cases has
tempered the mandate of strict compliance with the requisite under Section
21 of Republic Act No. 9165, such liberality, as stated in the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) can be applied only when the evidentiary value
and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved as we stressed in
People vs. Guru 684 SCRA 544.-While this Court in certain cases has
tempered the mandate of strict compliance with the requisite under Section
21 of RA 9165, such liberality, as stated in the Implementing Rules and
Regulations can be applied only when the evidentiary value and integrity of
the illegal drug are properly preserved as we stressed in People v. Guru. In
the case at bar, the evidentiary value and integrity of the alleged illegal drug
had been thoroughly compromised. Serious uncertainty is generated on the
identity of the item in view of the broken linkages in the chain of custody. In
this light, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
accorded the buy-bust team by the courts below cannot arise. (PEOPLE V.
HAVANA, G.R. NO. 198450, JANUARY 11, 2016)
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; The Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1 Series of 2002, defines chain of custody as duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals
or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage,
from the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory
to safekeeping, to presentation in court or destruction.- The Dangerous
Drugs Board Regulation No. 1 Series of 2002, defines chain of custody as
duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt
in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping, to presentation in court or
destruction. (PEOPLE V. HAVANA, G.R. NO. 198450, JANUARY 11, 2016)
Verily, Section 4 of the Probation Law provides that the application for
probation must be filed with the trial court within the 15-day period for
perfecting an appeal. The need to file it within such period is intended to
encourage offenders, who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated, to
avail themselves of probation at the first opportunity. If the application for
probation is filed beyond the 15-day period, then the judgment becomes final
and executory and the lower court can no longer act on the application for
probation. On the other hand, if a notice of appeal is perfected, the trial court
that rendered the judgment of conviction is divested of any jurisdiction to act
on the case, except the execution of the judgment when it has become final
and executory. In view of the latest amendment to Section 4 of the Probation
Law that "no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the
defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction,"
prevailing jurisprudence treats appeal and probation as mutually exclusive
remedies because the law is unmistakable about it. Indeed, the law is very
clear and a contrary interpretation would counter its envisioned mandate.
Courts have no authority to invoke "liberal interpretation" or "the spirit of the
law" where the words of the statute themselves, and as illuminated by the
history of that statute, leave no room for doubt or interpretation. To be sure,
the remedy of convicted felons who want to avail of the benefits of probation
even after the remedy of an appeal is to go to the Congress and ask for the
amendment of the law. To surmise a converse construal of the provision
would be dangerously encroaching on the power of the legislature to enact
laws and is tantamount to judicial legislation. (MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y
MARUHOM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 206513,
October 20, 2015 )
It was obvious then, as it is now, that the accused in Colinares should not
have been allowed the benefit of probation. As I have previously stated and
insisted upon, probation is not a right granted to a convicted offender; it is a
special privilege granted by the State to a penitent qualified offender, who
does not possess the disqualifications under Section 9 of P.D. No. 968, as
amended. Likewise, the Probation Law is not a penal law for it to be liberally
construed to favor the accused.(MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y MARUHOM v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 206513, October 20, 2015 )
To note, what Section 4 of the Probation Law prohibits is an appeal from the
judgment of conviction, which involves a review of the merits of the case and
the determination of whether the accused is entitled to acquittal. However,
under the recommended grounds for appeal which were enumerated earlier,
the purpose of the appeal is not to assail the judgment of conviction but to
question only the propriety of the sentence, particularly the penalty imposed
or the crime for which the accused was convicted, as the accused intends to
apply for probation upon correction of the penalty or conviction for the lesser
offense. If the CA finds it proper to modify the sentence, and the penalty
finally imposed by the appellate court is within the probationable period, or
the crime for which the accused is eventually convicted imposes a
probationable penalty, application for probation after the case is remanded
to the trial court for execution should be allowed.(MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y
MARUHOM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 206513,
October 20, 2015 )
Not all of the elements of cattle-rustling were proven by the prosecution. The
carabao transported by petitioner and Alderete was not sufficiently proven to
be the same carabao owned by Mario and Teresita Perez.Alderete's
description of the carabao is too generic. Alderete did not mention any
distinguishing mark on the carabao that petitioner allegedly stole. In other
cases involving cattle-rustling, the identity of the stolen cattle was proven
with certainty because of distinguishing marks on the cattle. (ARIEL LOPEZ
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 212186, June 29, 2016)