Crim 2015 Edited

Deans Circle
2016
Digested by: DC 2016 Members
Editors:
Tricia Lacuesta
Lorenzo Gayya
Cristopher Reyes
Macky Siazon
Janine Arenas
Ninna Bonsol
Lloyd Javier
CRIMINAL
LAW
Recent Jurisprudence
Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

2016
Table of Contents
Criminal Law 1.........................................................................................................................................................3
Stages of Execution ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Conspiracy and proposal .................................................................................................................................. 4
Complex crimes and special complex crimes ........................................................................................... 6
Justifying Circumstances................................................................................................................................... 8
Exempting Circumstances ................................................................................................................................ 9
Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation.............................................................................. 10
Modification and extinction of criminal liability.................................................................................. 11
Criminal Law 2...................................................................................................................................................... 12
Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property ...................................................................... 12
Article 248. Murder .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Article 249. Homicide...................................................................................................................................... 20
Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray ............................................................................... 23
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed ................................................................................ 24
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention ...................................................................... 35
Article 308. Who are liable for theft .......................................................................................................... 36
Article 310. Qualified theft ............................................................................................................................ 38
Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery .................................................................................................... 41
Article 315. Swindling (estafa) .................................................................................................................... 43
Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness ............................................................................................................. 49
Article 353. Definition of libel ..................................................................................................................... 50
Article 365. Imprudence and negligence ................................................................................................ 51
Special Penal Laws ............................................................................................................................................. 52
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA No. 9165) ...................................................... 52
Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (RA No. 9262) ....................... 72
Bouncing Checks Law (BP No. 22) ............................................................................................................. 73
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (RA No. 6539) ......................................................................................... 74
Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (RA
No. 7610) ............................................................................................................................................................. 75
1|Page

2016
Illegal Possession of Firearms .................................................................................................................... 76
Probation Law (PD No. 968) ....................................................................................................................... 77
Anti-Hazing Law (RA No. 8049)...............................................................................................78
2|Page

2016
CRIMINAL LAW 1
Stages of Execution
GARY FANTASTICO and ROLANDO VILLANUEVA vs. ELPIDIO MALICSE, SR. and PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015, J. Peralta
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Facts:
Elpidio Malicse, who was at the time drunk, was outside the house of his sister when
all of sudden he heard his sister and his nephew cursing him which prompted him to slap
his sister. Thereafter, Elpido was persuaded by the Barangay Chairman to calm down and
return home. He tried to apologize to his sister, but upon reaching the house of the latter,
his nephews cursed him further. Elpidio then kicked the door of the house open and behind
the door was his sisters son and son-in-law who both started mauling Elpidio with the help
of others. Elpidio pretended to have died and was rushed to the hospital. Thereafter,
Epidios attackers were charged with attempted murder.
Issue:
Whether or not the charge of attempted murder will prosper.
Ruling:
Yes. Under the Revised Penal Code, the elements of an attempted felony are the
following: (1) The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts;
(2) He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; (3) The
offender's act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance; and (4) The nonperformance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance. The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two (2)
elements, namely: (1) That there be external acts; (2) Such external acts have direct
connection with the crime intended to be committed. An overt or external act is defined as
some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more
than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a
concrete offense. The act done need not constitute the last proximate one for completion. It
is necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to the intended crime. In
other words, the overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense.
In this case, the attackers mauled Elpidio with intent to kill but were not able to
perform all acts of execution by reason of causes other than their own spontaneous
3|Page

2016
desistance, that is, the injuries inflicted upon Elpidio. The fact that the information used the
phrase not necessarily mortal to describe Elpidios injuries does not mean that there was
no intent to kill from the attackers. Hence, the charge will prosper.
Conspiracy and proposal
FRANCISCO T. INOCENCIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 205760, November 09, 2015, J. Reyes
An information alleging conspiracy can stand even if only one person is charged except
that the court cannot pass verdict on the co-conspirators who were not charged in the
information.
Facts:
Five Informations charging Francisco Inocencio with acts of theft allegedly
committed in conspiracy with Ma. Milagros Clemente were filed before the RTC. In the said
Informations, it was alleged that Clemente, a bank officer, fraudulently transferred a million
pesos to Inocencios bank account, and the latter later withdrew the whole amount.
Issue:
Whether or not an information alleging conspiracy is valid even if only one person is
charged.
Ruling:
Yes. It is valid, but the court cannot pass verdict on the co-conspirators who were
not charged in the information. The non-inclusion of the co-conspirator does not invalidate
the Information especially since conspiracy is not charged as a crime, but is merely alleged
as a mode of committing the crime.
In this case, conspiracy is alleged only as a mode of committing the crime. Ideally,
Clemente and the petitioner should have been indicted together. However, the noninclusion of Clemente does not invalidate the Information filed, because since conspiracy is
not charged as a crime, but is merely alleged to show how criminal liability was incurred.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROBERTO HIDALGO, DON JUAN HIDALGO AND
MICHAEL BOMBASI ALIAS "KABAYAN"(AT LARGE)
G.R. No. 203313, September 02, 2015, PEREZ, J.
Conspiracy exists when the acts of the accused demonstrate a common design towards
the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose.
Facts:
4|Page

2016
Roberto, Don Juan and Bombasi were charged for three counts of simple rape with
conspiracy, of a minor who was only 13 years old and under the care and custody of
Roberto, who is her guardian. Don Juan was arrested while Roberto allegedly surrendered
to PNP CIDG and Bombasi remains at large. RTC found that there was conspiracy among
them and found them guilty. CA affirmed but modified the other aggravating circumstances
considered by the RTC.
Issue:
Whether or not CA erred in ruling that conspiracy was established and in finding
them liable for three counts of simple rape.
Ruling:
No. Conspiracy exists when the acts of the accused demonstrate a common design
towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose. In this case, the acts of Roberto,
Don Juan and Bombasi clearly demonstrated unity of action to have carnal knowledge of
AAA: (1) Both Roberto and Bombasi tied AAA's hands at her back, while a handkerchief was
already tied in her mouth; (2) Both men turned AAA around, touched her body and started
to take her clothes off; (3) Roberto succeeded in undressing AAA, went on top of her and
placed his penis inside her vagina; (4) After satisfying his lust, Roberto got off from AAA and
Bombasi took his turn and inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina; (5) After Bombasi, Don
Juan went on top of AAA, kissed her shoulders and lips and also inserted his penis inside
AAA's vagina; (6) When they were satiated in their sexual desires, the three accused untied
the rope binding AAA and threatened to cut off her tongue and kill her family in case she
would tell them what happened. Unmistakably, these acts demonstrated a concerted effort
to rape AAA.
Since there was a conspiracy between Roberto, Don Juan and Bombasi, the act of
one of them was the act of all and the three of them are equally guilty of all the crimes of
rape committed against AAA.
RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015, Mendoza, J.
Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may be inferred from the conduct of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted
with a common purpose and design.
Facts:
Dr. Manuel Ang, Sr. is engaged in lending business under the business name of Cebu
Sterling lending Investors, Inc. (CSLII). Sometime in 1996, Erlinda Galvez-Sultan secured a
loan in the amount of P500,000 with mortgage of property covered by TCT No. T-256662.
The said real mortgage was annotated at the back of said certificate which was signed by
Atty. Gadia as Registrar of Deeds in Davao City. Consequently, the mortgaged property was
sold to First Oriental Ventures, Inc. (FOVI) and a TCT NO. T-285369 was issued in its favor
to the prejudice of Ang. The latter sought for the original copy of TCT No. T-256662 from
Raymundo E. Zapata as the vault-keeper, but Zapanta told Ang that it could not be found.
5|Page

2016
Suspecting of an irregularity, Ang filed a complaint before the Sandiganbayan against Atty.
Gadia and Zapanta for conspiring to commit the crime of Infidelity in the Custody of
Documents under Article 226 of the RPC and for unlawfully causing the issuance of TCT NO.
T-285369, deleting the encumbrance annotated in TCT No. T-256662, from where the
former title was derived, thereby affording unwarranted benefits to FOVI. The
Sandiganbayan found Atty. Gadia and Zapanta guilty of the crimes charged. Thus, this
petition was filed.
Issue:
Whether or not Zapanta conspired with Atty. Gadia in the commission of the offense
charged.
Ruling:
No. In order to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he
must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
complicity. Conspiracy can be inferred from, and established by, the acts of the accused
themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and
community of interests. What is determinative is proof establishing that the accused were
animated by one and the same purpose. There must be intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. Conspiracy
must, like the crime itself, be proven beyond reasonable doubt for it is a facile device by
which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold. Suppositions based on
mere presumptions and not on solid facts do not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zapanta
conspired with Atty. Gadia in committing the crimes charged. No testimonial or
documentary evidence was presented to substantiate Zapantas direct or indirect
participation in the anomalous registration of TCT No. T-285369, and in the
concealment/disappearance of the original copy of TCT No. T-256662. Not a scintilla of
proof was adduced to show with absolute certainty that Zapanta was the one who actually
withdrew the original copy of TCT No. T-256662 from the vault of the RD. At best, the
prosecution witnesses only identified Zapanta as a vault keeper of the RD but not
necessarily the vault keeper who pulled out the subject title.
It must be emphasized, however, that what he did here was the very function he had
to discharge in the performance of his official duties. Also, once the title was released from
his custody, his responsibility ceased and it then devolved upon the recipient to keep the
document until the transaction was finished. Hence, Zapanta could not be faulted if after the
subject title was released to the requestor, it was subsequently utilized in the furtherance of
an illegal and fraudulent design as he had no control or participation over the registration
process or in the issuance of TCT No. T-285369.
Complex crimes and special complex crimes
AURORA ENGSON FRANSDILLA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 197562, April 20, 2015, J. Bersamin
6|Page

2016
When the crime is a complex one, the penalty imposable as provided in Art. 48 of
said Code is the penalty for the most serious offense in its maximum period.
Facts:
Aurora Fransdilla pretended to be an employee of POEA. It was upon said
pretension that Lalaine allowed the accused to enter her house. While inside, the accused
tried to distract Lalaine by using the telephone, asking for a cigarette, and going to the
bathroom. Later, four other men, who were with Fransdilla, entered the house. One of them
declared holdup while poking a gun at Lalaines neck. He pulled Lalaine's hair and dragged
her upstairs. The men took the victims moneys and sets of jewelry. Later on, they were
convicted with Fransdilla for the complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house by armed
persons and robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons was committed.
Issue:
Whether the penalty for the complex crime is that for the more serious offense.
Ruling:
Yes. In Napolis v. Court of Appeals, the Court abandoned the doctrine that when the
felonies of robbery in an inhabited house and robbery with violence against or intimidation
of a person are committed, the penalty for the latter crime (although the lighter one) should
be imposed because the violence against or intimidation of a person was the "controlling
qualification," on the theory that "robbery which is characterized by violence or
intimidation against the person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by
force upon things, because where violence or intimidation against the person is present
there is greater disturbance of the order of society and the security of the individual."
Following the above view, if, aside committing robbery in an inhabited house, the thief lays
hand upon any person, the imposable penalty shall be much lighter. This result and the
process of reasoning defy logic and reason. It is more logical and reasonable to hold that
when the crime is a complex one, the penalty imposable as provided in Art. 48 of said
Code is the penalty for the most serious offense in its maximum period.
MARIETA DE CASTRO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, BERSAMIN, J.
In estafa through falsification of commercial documents, the court should impose the
penalty for the graver offense in the maximum period. Otherwise, the penalty prescribed is
invalid, and will not attain finality.
Facts:
Marieta de Castro, a bank teller of BPI was convicted of four counts of estafa through
falsification of a commercial document. It was the Branch Manager, Cynthia Zialcita, who
observed and investigated de Castros acts. De Castro committed the crime by asking bank
7|Page

2016
depositors Amparo Matuguina and Milagrosa Cornejo to leave their passbooks to her and
thereafter by forging the depositors signatures to withdraw therein. Under Matuguinas
account, three withdrawal slips covering a total of P65,000 were found. Numerous slips
were also found under Cornejos account. De Castro later on admitted her guilt. However,
the question on the penalty to be imposed upon the accused was not clear.
Issue:
Whether or not the court should impose the penalty for the graver offense in the
maximum period?
Ruling:
Yes. In estafa through falsification of commercial documents, the court should
impose the penalty for the graver offense in the maximum period. Otherwise, the penalty
prescribed is invalid, and will not attain finality. Estafa is punished according to the value of
the defraudation while falsification of commercial documents is punished with prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of P5,000.00. In Criminal Case
No. 94-5524, estafa was the graver felony because the amount of the fraud was P20,000.00;
hence, the penalty for estafa is to be imposed in its maximum period. In Criminal Case No.
94-5525, since the estafa is punished with four months and one day of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to two years and four months of prision correccional in its minimum
period and falsification is penalized with prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, the latter offense is the graver felony, and its penalty is to be imposed in the
maximum period. In Criminal Case No. 94-5526 the penalty for the falsification of
commercial documents is higher than that for the estafa and the former should also be
imposed in the maximum period. In Criminal Case No. 94-5527, where the amount of the
fraud was P35,000.00, the penalty for estafa is higher than that for falsification and the
same should be imposed in its maximum period.
Justifying Circumstances
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNALDO BOSITO y CHAVENIA
G.R. No. 209346 January 12, 2015 J. Carpio
By invoking self-defense, one admits killing the victim and the constitutional
presumption of innocence is effectively waived. The burden of evidence then shifts to the
appellant that the killing was justified and that he incurred no criminal liability.
Facts:
Arnaldo Bosito repeatedly hacked Bonaobra with a bolo until he died. Charged with
murder, Bosito invoked self-defense, claiming that he was passing by the rice field when he
was invited by Bonaobra and his group to come drink with them. Bosito claimed that his
refusal angered Bonaobra and the latter tried to strike Bosito with a bolo but the latter was
able to gain possession of the bolo and hacked Bonaobra.
8|Page

2016
Issue:
Whether or not Bonaobra can validly invoke self-defense.
Ruling:
No. By invoking self-defense, appellant admits killing the victim and the
constitutional presumption of innocence is effectively waived. The burden of evidence then
shifts to the appellant that the killing was justified and that he incurred no criminal liability.
Thus, it is incumbent upon appellant to prove the elements of self-defense: (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 claiming
self-defense.
In this case, Bosito claimed that the unlawful aggression consisted of Bonaobras
group ganging up on him. However, aside from Bositos self-serving testimony, the defense
did not present any witness to corroborate his testimony. Next, the means employed by
Bosito to prevent or repel the supposed unlawful aggression was beyond reasonably
necessary. As correctly found by the trial and appellate courts, the number, nature, and
gravity of the wounds sustained by Bonaobra reveal a determined effort to kill and
contradict Bositos claim of self-defense. The prosecutions evidence shows that Bonaobra
sustained and died from multiple hack wounds. The records show that after Bonaobra
received the first blow to his head, which proved to be the most fatal, Bosito still continued
to thrust his boloto the victim three more times.
Exempting Circumstances
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODERICK LICAYAN, ROBERTO LARA AND ROGELIO
NOELE DELOS REYES
G.R. No. 203961, July 29, 2015, Leonardo-De Castro, J.
A person invoking the exempting circumstance of compulsion due to irresistible force
must show that the irresistible force reduced him to a mere instrument that acted not only
without will but also against his will. The compulsion must be of such character as to leave the
accused no opportunity to defend himself or to escape.
Facts:
Rogelio Delos Reyesalong with Roderick Licayan and Roberto Larawere
charged with the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom. In his defense, Delos Reyes argued that
he was merely passing by at the crime scene when one of the co-accused pointed a gun at
him and forced him to guard the victims, hence he is entitled to the exempting circumstance
of compulsion due to irresistible force.
Issue:
9|Page

2016
Whether or not Delos Reyes may properly exempting circumstance of compulsion
due to irresistible force.
Ruling:
No. A person invoking the exempting circumstance of compulsion due to irresistible
force admits in effect the commission of a punishable act must show that the irresistible
force reduced him to a mere instrument that acted not only without will but also against his
will. The compulsion must be of such character as to leave the accused no opportunity to
defend himself or to escape. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present,
imminent and impending; and it must be of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury
is not enough. A speculative, fanciful or remote fear, even fear of future injury, is
insufficient.
In this case, the RTC observed the demeanor of Delos Reyes when he testified and
found that he was obviously lying. This is in contrast to the testimony of the victim which
the RTC described as very clear, positive and straightforward. Delos Reyess story itself is
not credible: It is hard to believe that a person who accidentally discovers kidnap victims
would be held at gunpoint by the kidnappers to guard said victims; or that a mastermind of
a kidnapping syndicate; or that Delos Reyes did not find it unusual to see a woman with her
hands tied.
Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation
ALBERT G. AMBAGAN, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 204481-82, October 14, 2015, Velasco, Jr., J.
The conviction of a person as a principal by inducement requires that the inducement
be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and that such
inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor.
Facts:
Police Officer Reynaldo Santos accosted several body guards of then Amadeo, Cavite
Mayor Albert Ambagan for carrying firearms. Upon being informed of the incident,
Ambagan arrived and requested Santos to settle the problem, but the latter refused. The
Mayor allegedly said: "Sige yan pala ang gusto mo. Mga kasama, banatan na ninyo yan."
Thereafter, the Santos was allegedly shot by the body guards. Ambagan and his bodyguards
were charged with two counts of homicide for the death of Santos. The Sandiganbayan
convicted them.
Issue:
Whether or not Albert Ambagan should be held liable for two counts of homicide.
Ruling:
10 | P a g e

2016
No. The Sandiganbayan adjudged Ambagan guilty as principal by inducement for
allegedly uttering "Sige, yan pala ang gusto mo. Mga kasama banatan na ninyo yan" which
impelled petitioner's bodyguards to open fire at the victims. The conviction of a person as a
principal by inducement requires that the inducement be made with the intention of
procuring the commission of the crime; and that such inducement be the determining cause
of the commission by the material executor. The Sandiganbayan would have been correct if
Ambagan indeed made the utterance immediately before the shooting incident. However,
the Court held that there was insufficient evidence as to what really transpired. In other
words, the evidence offered against Ambagan in court does not pass the test of moral
certainty and is insufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence that Ambagan is entitled
to under the Bill of Rights. Hence, Ambagan was acquitted.
Modification and extinction of criminal liability
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO MORALES Y LAM
G.R. No. 206832. January 21, 2015. First Division. Perez, J. (Resolution)
The death of accused-appellant pending appeal of his conviction, extinguishes his civil
and criminal liabilities. A violation of Republic Act No. 9165 does not entail any civil liability
therefore no civil liability needs extinguishment.
Facts:
Accused Morales was charged with illegal possession and sale of shabu. Two
criminal complaints were filed against him before the RTC of Rizal for violation of Sections 5
and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 to which he pleaded not guilty. The RTC
convicted Morales and the same was affirmed by CA. However pending appeal to the SC,
Morales died.
Issue:
Whether or not the death of Morales pending appeal extinguishes his civil and
criminal liabilities.
Ruling:
Yes. The death of accused-appellant Morales pending appeal of his conviction,
extinguishes his civil and criminal liabilities. Under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code,
criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal
penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the
death of the offender occurs before final judgment. Ordinarily, both the civil and criminal
liabilities are extinguished upon the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
by the lower courts. However, a violation of Republic Act No. 9165 does not entail any civil
liability. No civil liability needs extinguishment.
11 | P a g e

2016
CRIMINAL LAW 2
Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property
BERNARDO U. MESINA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015, Bersamin J.
The crime of malversation of public funds has the following elements, to wit: (a) that
the offender is a public officer; (b) that he had the custody or control of funds or property by
reason of the duties of his office; (c) that the funds or property were public funds or property
for which he was accountable; and (d) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.
Facts:
Bernardo Mesina (Mesina) herein accused, is the Local Treasurer Officer I of the
Local Government of Caloocan City. During his term in office, Mesina was tasked with the
collection of the different taxes and fees imposed by the aforementioned LGU. Sometime in
1998, Mesina collected from one Rosalinda Baclit (Baclit) OIC of collection turned over /
remitted to Mesina the weeks collection. Thereafter, Baclit received phone calls from the
Main City Hall asking whether Baclit was able to remit the patubig fees to Mesina. Baclit
answered in the affirmative. Not being able to locate the patubig funds, the office of the
Mayor invited both Baclit and Mesina to explain and locate where the patubig funds are.
Upon further investigation it was found out that the aforementioned funds were placed
inside the vault of Mesina. This prompted the filing of the criminal case for Malversation as
defined by the RPC against Mesina. The RTC found Mesina guilty of Malversation beyond
reasonable doubt. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. In his defense, Mesina avers that
he did not misappropriate the patubig funds. He merely kept the funds because his mother
was hospitalized and needed the aforementioned funds. Hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether Mesina is guilty of Malversation of public funds
Ruling:
Yes. The elements of the crime charged were duly established against the
petitioner. The Prosecution proved, firstly, that the petitioner was a public officer with the
position of Local Treasurer Officer I of Caloocan City; secondly, that by reason of his
position, he was tasked to collect fees and taxes regularly levied by the Mini City Hall,
including market fees, miscellaneous fees, real property taxes, and the subject patubig
collection; and, thirdly, that all of the fees and taxes collected were unquestionably public
funds for which he was accountable. As to the fourth element of misappropriation, the
petitioner did not rebut the presumption that he had misappropriated the patubig
collection to his personal use. He had earlier feigned ignorance of having received the
patubig collection when he phoned Ms. Baclit to tell her that he did not receive the
collection. He still insisted that he had not received the sum from Ms. Baclit when the City
12 | P a g e

2016
Treasurer summoned them both. Only after the petitioners vault was finally opened did he
declare that the collection was intact inside his vault. Even then, the actual amount found
therein was short by P37,876.98. Conformably with Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code,
supra, the failure of the petitioner to have the patubig collection duly forthcoming upon
demand by the duly authorized officer was prima facie evidence that he had put such
missing fund to personal use. Although the showing was merely prima facie, and, therefore,
rebuttable, he did not rebut it, considering that he not only did not account for the collection
upon demand but even steadfastly denied having received it up to the time of the inspection
of the sealed vault. Under the circumstances, he was guilty of the misappropriation of the
collection.
DOMINGO G. PANGANIBAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 211543, December 09, 2015 PEREZ, J.
To have custody or control of the funds or property by reason of the duties of his office,
a public officer must be a cashier, treasurer, collector, property officer or any other officer or
employee who is tasked with the taking of money or property from the public which they are
duty-bound to keep temporarily.
Facts:
Domingo Panganiban, then mayor of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, was granted a cash advance
in the sum of Php 500,000.00 for an intended official travel to Adelaide, Australia which did
not push through. Instead of liquidating the aforesaid sum, Panganiban entered into an
agreement with the municipal accountant for the sum to be liquidated by means of salary
deductions which was, accordingly, implemented. Thereafter, Panganiban was charged with
malversation of public funds.
Issue:
Whether or not the charge of malversation will prosper.
Ruling:
No. The following are the elements of malversation: (a) the offender is a public
officer, (b) he has custody or control of the funds or property by reason of the duties of his
office, (c) the funds or property are public funds or property for which he is accountable,
and, most importantly, (d) he has appropriated, taken, misappropriated or consented, or,
through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.
In this case, Panganiban was a public officer, however, he had no custody or control
of the funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; that the funds or property are
public funds or property for which he was accountable; and that he had consented, or,
through abandonment to take them. To have custody or control of the funds or property by
reason of the duties of his office, a public officer must be a cashier, treasurer, collector,
property officer or any other officer or employee who is tasked with the taking of money or
property from the public which they are duty-bound to keep temporarily until such money
13 | P a g e

2016
or property are properly deposited in official depository banks or similar entities; or until
they shall have endorsed such money or property to other accountable officers or
concerned offices. Panganiban was not shown to have been such public officer, even
temporarily, in addition to his main duties as mayor. Therefore, he could not have
appropriated, taken, misappropriated or consented, or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take them.
Article 248. Murder
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENJAMIN CASAS y VINLUAN
G.R. No. 212565 February 25, 2015, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
The elements of murder that the prosecution must establish are: (a) that a person was
killed; (b) that the accused killed him or her; (c) that the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (d) that the killing is not
parricide or infanticide.
Facts:
Casas and Eligio Ruiz were involved in a fistfight during which Casas stabbed Eligio
twice while the latter was fleeing. Casas ran into Joel Tabile who tried to help Eligio with a
bamboo pole. However, Joel slipped, fell face first on the floor, and was stabbed by Casas
twice. Casas caught up with Eligio and stabbed him again. Joel subsequently died. Casas was
charged and convicted by the RTC for the attempted murder of Eligio and the murder of
Joel. The CA affirmed.
Issue:
Whether or not Casa is guilty of murder.
Ruling:
No, he is not guilty of murder but only homicide. The elements of murder that the
prosecution must establish are: (a) that a person was killed; (b) that the accused killed him
or her; (c) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in
Article 248 of the RPC; and (d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. Among the
qualifying circumstances thus enumerated in Article 248 is treachery. To appreciate
treachery, it must be shown that: (a) the means of execution employed gives the victim no
opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (b) the methods of execution were
deliberately or consciously adopted; indeed, treachery cannot be presumed, it must be
proven by clear and convincing evidence.
In this case, the records show that a fistfight ensued between Eligio and Casas. Joel,
seeing that Casas had stabbed Eligio, wanted to help the latter by using a bamboo pole but
slipped and fell. As he was lying prostrate on the floor, Casas delivered the blows that ended
Joels life. Under these circumstances, it is the Courts observation that Joel was fully aware
of the danger posed in assisting Eligio. He knew that Casas was armed with a knife and had
14 | P a g e

2016
just used the same on Eligio. Joel elected to intervene, and even armed himself with a
bamboo pole. It is rather obvious that Joel was aware of the danger to his life. Further,
acting in the heat of the moment, and there being no showing that no appreciable interval of
time had elapsed from Joels mishap to his stabbing so as to allow for the assailants careful
reflection, it does not equally appear that Casas deliberately adopted means in order to
ensure that Joel had no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. Palpably, Casas just
happened to stab Joel as the latter had just slipped on the floor when the former caught up
with him (Joel). Evidently, this lack of deliberation on the part of Casas, as well as Joels
obvious awareness of the danger to his life, prompts this Court to discount treachery as a
qualifying circumstance. Thus, insofar as the incidents in Crim. Case No. 136842 go, the
Court downgrades the conviction to the crime of Homicide.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OSCAR SEVILLANO y RETANAL
G.R. No. 200800, February 9, 2015, Perez, J.
In the prosecution of the crime of murder as defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC), the following elements must be established by the prosecution: (1) that a person
was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person; (3) that the killing was attended by
treachery; and (4) that the killing is not infanticide or parricide.
Facts:
The victim Pablo Maddauin was with his friends when the accused appellant, who
appears to be drunk, suddenly pulled out a knife from his waist and stabbed the victim on
the chest. Jose and Carmelita tried to restrain the appellant from attacking the victim, but
Jose experienced leg cramps and lost his hold on appellant. Appellant turned again on the
victim and continued to stab him several times more. Carmelita then shouted for help. The
victims wife came to the scene and embraced appellant as she wrestled for the knife.
Thereafter, the victim was brought to the hospital but unfortunately, he died that same day.
For his part, accused denied the accusations against him and interposed self-defense to
absolve him from criminal liability. The RTC and the CA found the accused gugilty of
murder. Hence, the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
for murder.
Ruling:
Yes. The elements for the crime of murder were clearly met. The prosecution
witnesses positively identified the appellant as the person who stabbed Pablo several times
on the chest which eventually caused the latters death. They testified that they even tried to
stop appellants attack but unfortunately, were unsuccessful. The testimonies of these
witnesses, considering that their narration of facts, were straightforward and replete with
details that coincide with the medical examination conducted on the body of the victim.
Also, the appellants defense of denial cannot prevail over the eyewitnesses positive
15 | P a g e

2016
identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime. Denial, like alibi, if not substantiated by
clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight
in law. Anent the presence of the element of treachery as a qualifying circumstance, the
prosecution was able to establish that the attack on the unsuspecting victim, who was
merely seated on a bench and talking with his friends, was very sudden. In fact, the victim
was able to utter only "Bakit?." The Court noted that the essence of treachery is the sudden
and unexpected attack on the unsuspecting victim by the perpetrator of the crime,
depriving the former of any chance to defend himself or to repel the aggression, thus
insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the
part of the victim.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO DE CASTRO AND RANDOLF PABANIL
G.R. No. 205316, June 29, 2015, Villarama, Jr., J.
To be convicted of murder, the following must be established: (1) a person was killed;
(2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying
circumstances under Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) the killing neither constitutes parricide
nor infanticide.
Facts:
Edwin Lonzame saw the victim SPOII Orlando De Leon at their bakery buying milk
and bread. Randolf Pabanil also came to buy from the bakery. Shortly, another man arrived
and punched Randolf. De Leon pacified them until the man ran away but he continued
talking with Randolf and they had an altercation. Then, another man named Romeo, arrived
and hit De Leon on the head. De Leon fell and was mauled by Randolf, Romeo, Eric and
Roland. De Leon was hit on the face by Randolf with a stove and gas tank he took from a
nearby store. De Leon tried to stand up but Romeo prevented him and they grappled for De
Leon's service firearm. The said gun went off, and shortly Romeo again took it and pointed
the gun at De Leon. When the gun did not fire, Romeo hit De Leon's head with the gun,
dragged him to the street and left. De Leon was again mauled by Randolf, Eric and Roland
who took turns in hitting him with a gas stove. When Romeo returned, he picked up the gas
tank and dropped it on De Leon's face. De Leon later died. The accused were arrested but
Eric died pending his case. The RTC found the accused guilty of murder but Roland was
acquitted. The CA affirming the RTCs decision that the accused failed to prove the elements
of defense of a relative since there was no unlawful aggression on the part of De Leon. In
fact, Randolf hit De Leon because he thought that De Leon was with the man who punched
him and not because he was threatened by De Leon's gun.
Issue:
Whether or not accused are guilty of murder.
Ruling:
Yes. To be convicted of murder, the following must be established: (1) a person was
killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was with the attendance of any of the
16 | P a g e

2016
qualifying circumstances under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; and (4)
the killing neither constitutes parricide nor infanticide. In this case, the foregoing elements
of the crime of murder were duly established. De Leon was killed. Appellants killed him. De
Leon's killing was attended by abuse of superior strength, one of the qualifying
circumstances under Article 248 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. De Leon's
killing is not parricide or infanticide. In fact, appellants do not dispute the first, second and
fourth elements. They merely questioned the second element, the presence of the qualifying
circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
To take advantage of superior strength is to purposely use excessive force, out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The Court agreed with
the CA that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present in this case.
As aptly pointed out by the CA, De Leon was already helpless when he was repeatedly
attacked with a gas tank. Appellants clearly used excessive force against the already
unarmed and defenseless De Leon. And as testified to by Lonzame, after the accused left,
appellant Romeo returned, picked up the gas tank and dropped it to De Leon.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO DILLAy PAULAR
GR. No. 200333, January 21, 2015, DEL CASTILLO, J.
The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Pepito, Jr. and Renegado established without
a shadow of doubt that it was appellant who mercilessly killed his brother, Pepito. Pepito, Jr. 's
testimony was corroborated in all material points by the testimony of Renegado.
Facts:
Appellant Domingo Dilla y Paular was charged with the crime of murder for the
death of his brother, Pepito Dilla y Paular. Based on the evidence presented by the
prosecution, it was shown that Pepito was working on his farm when appellant suddenly
appeared and shot the victim with a gun hitting him on his left thigh. The victim managed to
run but was overtaken by appellant who then stabbed him with a bolo. The son of the
victim, Pepito Jr., and Mary Jane Renegado witnessed the incident. Appellant however
denied the charge against him and claimed that it was Pepito who was the aggressor. The
RTC held that the attack on the victim was perpetrated by no other than appellant; that the
attack was treacherous as the appellant suddenly appeared and shot the victim, and after
having wounded him, stabbed him with a bolo. The RTC found appellants tale incredible
and self-serving especially in view of his positive identification by the prosecution
witnesses. Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the CA arguing in the main that the RTC erred
in finding him guilty of the charge. He contended that there was no direct proof showing
that he actually killed the victim.
Issue:
Whether or not there was direct proof showing that he actually killed the victim.
Ruling:
17 | P a g e

2016
Yes. After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds the appeal to be
lacking in merit. The records belie appellants contention that there was no direct proof
identifying him as the perpetrator of the crime. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses
Pepito, Jr. and Renegado established without a shadow of doubt that it was appellant who
mercilessly killed his brother, Pepito. Pepito, Jr. 's testimony was corroborated in all
material points by the testimony of Renegado. In fine, both the RTC and the CA correctly
found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and properly
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO DULIN y NARAG
G.R. No. 171284, 29 June 2015, J. Bersamin
The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning, or is done in a
swift, deliberate and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or to escape, without the slightest provocation on the part of the
victim.
Facts.
One of the witnesses for the prosecution testified seeing Dulin stab Batulan who was
already prostrate face down, on the fateful night of August 22, 1990. Dulin was on top of
Batulan, as if kneeling; holding Batulan by the hair with his left hand and thrusting the knife
at the latter with his right hand. Thereafter, Batulan was brought to the hospital where he
eventually died. In his defense, Dulin testified that it was Batulan who first stabbed him on
the right side of his body and in the left hand, and when the former complained about it, the
latter replied I will really kill you. Batulan allegedly chased after Dulin and they grappled
for the weapon. The RTC convicted Dulin of murder. Dulin appealed to the CA, maintaining
that his crime should be homicide instead of murder, considering the RTCs appreciation of
incomplete self-defense as a privileged mitigating circumstance; and that even if selfdefense should be unavailing, he could be found guilty only of homicide because it was the
victim who had first attacked by stabbing him, and that the multiple wounds inflicted on the
victim did not mean that he had not been justified in killing the victim. The CA, however,
affirmed the RTCs decision.
Issue.
Whether or not the CA erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of
treachery in the killing.
Held.
Yes. Under the circumstances, treachery should not be appreciated in the killing of
Batulan because the stabbing by Dulin did not take Batulan by surprise due to his having
been sufficiently forewarned of Dulins impending assault, and being thus afforded the
opportunity to defend himself, or to escape, or even to recover control of the weapon from
Dulin. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning, or is done in a
swift, deliberate and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting
18 | P a g e

2016
victim no chance to resist or to escape, without the slightest provocation on the part of the
victim. The mode of attack must not spring from the unexpected turn of events.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. APOLONIO BABOR
G.R. NO. 215319, 21 October 2015, Third Division, (Villarama, Jr., J.)
The elements of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the
killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code; (4) the killing constitutes neither parricide nor infanticide.
Facts:
Marife and accused-appellant went to the house of Marifes parents. Accusedappellant left at about 8 in the evening to go to his fathers house. When Marife and her
parents were asleep, accused-appellant returned and entered the room with a bolo. Accused
hacked her left foot and then proceeded to hack the victim, Marifes father. Accusedappellant claims that it was someone else who hacked them, since he allegedly was hacked
and then jumped out the window without waking the rest of his family. The RTC convicted
him of murder, the CA affirmed.
Issue:
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt
Ruling:
Yes. The elements of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him;
(3) the killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; (4) the killing constitutes neither parricide nor
infanticide.
Marife was able to identify accused-appellant and see the incident that occurred
because the room where the killing took place was illuminated by a kerosene lamp. The
testimony indicating where accused-appellant hacked the victim was consistent with the
post-mortem examination results.
In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present:
(1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the
accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of
attack employed by him. With respect to the presence of treachery in the killing of the
victim, which is a qualifying circumstance necessary for a murder conviction, accusedappellant killed the victim with a bolo at night time and while he was sleeping. Clearly, he
was not in a position to defend himself. Also it is evident that accused-appellant consciously
and deliberately waited for the victim to sleep, returned to the house late at night and
armed himself with a bolo to ensure the success of his atrocious act. The lower courts did
not commit reversible error when they found the testimony of Marife sufficient to establish
that accused-appellant murdered the victim.
19 | P a g e

2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OSCAR PARBA Y SOLON, AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 214506, October 19, 2015, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
When the attack against an unarmed victim is so sudden and unexpected that he had
no inkling of what the assailant was about to do, there is treachery.
Facts:
Jesus Catapan, a security guard, was buying cigarrettes from a vendor stationed near
the main gate of SIT Elementary Department when Oscar Parba, the accused, who was then
seated beside the vendor, stood up, pulled a gun from his belt bag, and shot a man at the
back of the head while the latter was helping his daughter disembark from a motorcycle.
The victim, Mark Navaja, fell to the ground while Parba and his companion exited towards
the highway, chased by two other security guards. Parba pointed a gun at them, prompting
the two to seek cover, and he boarded a jeepney. Eventually, the guards lost sight of him.
The following day, the policemen, who were only able to arrest Parba, subjected him to a
paraffin test, where the casts taken off his hands tested positive for the presence of
gunpowder residue. In his defense, Parba denied committing the crime and interposed alibi,
denial, and set-up as defenses. He averred that on the date of the incident, he was sleeping
in his house until 10 o'clock in the morning as he came from a drinking spree with his
brother the night before. In the afternoon, Jose Rivera, a police officer, arrived and allowed
Parba to test a gun which the former promised to give him. After firing the gun, Rivera
invited Parba to the police headquarters where he learned for the first time that he was
suspected of killing Navaja. Parba and a John Doe were charged with the crime of Murder.
Issue:
Whether or not Parba should be held liable for murder.
Ruling:
Yes. One of the circumstances which qualifies homicide to murder is the existence of
treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
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. When the attack against an unarmed victim is so sudden and
unexpected that he had no inkling of what the assailant was about to do, there is treachery.
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that Parba's attack on Navaja was so
sudden and executed in such a manner that Navaja was caught off-guard on what Parba
intended to do. Eyewitnesses testified that at the time of the attack, Navaja was helping his
child alight from the motorcycle when Parba, without warning, shot him at the back of his
head. Hence, Parba is guilty of murder.
Article 249. Homicide
20 | P a g e

2016
HERMIE OLARTE y TARUG and RUBEN OLAVARIO y MAUNAO v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 197731 July 6, 2015, Del Castillo, J.
The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as
manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or
mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the
qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code exist.
Facts:
One early morning, the victim Eugene M. Villostas, was fetched by his half-brother
from a drinking session. On their way home, they stopped in a nearby videoke bar to buy
some cigarettes. The victim was suddenly stabbed by petitioners Hermie Olarte and Ruben
Olavario, and Salvador Pasquin, who belonged to a group then singing and drinking inside
the bar. The three accused were charged with the crime of frustrated homicide. All the
three accused posted bail. However, Pasquin jumped bail, thus only petitioners were
arraigned. After trial, the RTC convicted the accused. The CA affirmed the conviction.
Hence, petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 45.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners are guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide.
Ruling:
YES. The Court observed that the CA correctly affirmed the RTCs conviction of
petitioners for frustrated homicide. The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the
accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his
assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely
medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code exist. These elements were proved during trial. First, direct
and positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses established that Villostas sustained seven
stab wounds on vital parts of his body caused by a pointed sharp object. Plainly, the nature,
location and number of wounds sustained by him demonstrate petitioners intent to kill.
Next, the injuries suffered by Villostas were all fatal. Particularly critical were the 5centimeter wound below his left armpit, the 3.5-centimeter wound on the mid-part of his
left chest which required inserting a tube thereon to drain blood so as not to impede his
breathing, and the 5-centimeter stab wound on the right side of his abdomen which also
injured his liver. As testified to by Dr. Pascual, Villostas would have succumbed to death
due to the said injuries if not for the timely medical attention. Finally, no qualifying
circumstance for murder was alleged in the Information to have attended the commission of
the crime.
ROGELIO ROQUE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 193169, April 6, 2015, J. Del Castillo
21 | P a g e

2016
In attempted or frustrated homicide, the offender must have the intent to kill the
victim; If there is no intent to kill on the part of the offender, he is liable for physical injuries
only.
Facts:
While brothers Reynaldo and Rodolfo Marquez were in the house of Bella SalvadorSantos in Bulacan, Rodolfo spotted Rogelio dela Cruz and shouted to him to join them.
Believing that the shout was directed at him, Rogelio Roque (accused) stopped the tricycle
he and his wife were in and cursed Rodolfo. Reynaldo apologized for the misunderstanding
but the accused was unyielding. Before leaving, he warned the Marquez brothers that
something bad would happen to them if they continue to perturb him. Bothered, Rodolfo
went to the house of Barangay Chairman Pablo Tayao (Tayao) to ask for assistance in
settling the misunderstanding. Because of this, Reynaldo, who had already gone home, was
fetched by dela Cruz and brought to the house of Tayao. Since Tayao was then no longer
around, Reynaldo just proceeded to the accuseds house to follow Tayao and Rodolfo who
had already gone ahead. Upon arriving at the accuseds residence, Reynaldo again
apologized to petitioner but the latter did not reply. Instead, the accused entered the house,
was already holding a gun when he came out, and suddenly fired at Reynaldo who was hit in
his right ear. He still shot Reynaldo when the latter hit the ground. Unsatisfied, he kicked the
victim on the face and back. Reynaldo pleaded Tayao for help to no avail, since the accused
warned those around not to get involved. Fortunately, Reynaldo's parents arrived and took
him to a local hospital for emergency medical treatment. Dr. Renato Raymundo attended to
him and issued a medical certificate stating that a bullet entered the base of Reynaldo's skull
and exited at the back of his right ear. The RTC found the accused guilty. The CA affirmed
the ruling.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of frustrated homicide.
Ruling:
As aptly stated by the CA, In attempted or frustrated homicide, the offender must
have the intent to kill the victim; If there is no intent to kill on the part of the offender, he is
liable for physical injuries only. Vice-versa, regardless of whether the victim only suffered
injuries that would have healed in nine to thirty days, if intent to kill is sufficiently borne
out, the crime committed is frustrated homicide (Arts. 263-266). Usually, the intent to kill
is shown by the kind of weapon used by the offender and the parts of the victim's body at
which the weapon was aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted. Hence, when a deadly
weapon, like a bolo, is used to stab the victim in the latter's abdomen, the intent to kill can
be presumed (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 13TH ED., P. 431).
It is worth highlighting that the victim received two (2) gunshot wounds in the head.
Indeed the location of the wounds plus the nature of the weapon used are ready indications
that the accused-appellant's objective is not merely to warn or incapacitate a supposed
22 | P a g e

2016
aggressor. Verily, had the accused-appellant been slightly better with his aim, any of the two
(2) bullets surely would have killed him outright. Also, the intent to kill is further exhibited
by the fact that the accused-appellant even prevented barangay officials from intervening
and helping the bleeding victim. Indeed, the fact that Reynaldo Marquez was miraculously
able to live through the ordeal and sustain only modicum injuries does not mean that the
crime ought to be downgraded from frustrated homicide to less serious physical injuries.
After all, as was mentioned above, what should be determinative of the crime is not the
gravity of the resulting injury but the criminal intent that animated the hand that pulled the
trigger.
Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray
GUILLERMO WACOY y BITOL vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES/ JAMES QUIBAC y
RAFAEL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 213792/ G.R. No. 213886, June 22, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The elements of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray are as follows: (a) that there be
several persons; (b) that they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of
assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally; (c) that these several persons quarrelled and
assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner; (d) that someone was killed in
the course of the affray; (e) that it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased; and
(j) that the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence
cannot be identified.
Facts:
Wacoy and Quibac were charged with the crime of Homicide for conspiring to kill
Elner Aro thereby inflicting upon him blunt traumatic injuries which directly caused his
death. It was also alleged that the aggravating circumstance of superior strength was
employed in the killing. The RTC found Wacoy and Quibac guilty of the crime of Death
Caused in a Tumultuous Affray instead of Homicide. The RTC found that the prosecution
witness testimony on the mauling incident does not firmly establish that Wacoy and Quibac
conspired in the killing of Aro, and that the medical reports were neither categorical in
stating that the injuries Aro sustained from the mauling directly contributed to his
death. Upon appeal, the CA modified Wacoy and Quibac's conviction to that of Homicide
with the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. Aggrieved,
Wacoy and Quibac separately moved for reconsideration but these were denied by the CA.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA correctly found Wacoy and Quibac guilty of the crime of
Homicide.
Ruling:
23 | P a g e

2016
Yes. Based on case law, a tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs
between several persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course
of which some person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. In
the instant case, there was no tumultuous affray between groups of persons in the course of
which Aro died. On the contrary, the evidence clearly established that there were only two
(2) persons, Wacoy and Quibac, who picked on one defenseless individual, Aro, and
attacked him repeatedly, taking turns in inflicting punches and kicks on the poor victim.
There was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal
aggression in that fateful incident. Since Wacoy and Quibac were even identified as the ones
who assaulted Aro, the latter's death cannot be said to have been caused in a tumultuous
affray. Therefore, the CA correctly held that Wacoy and Quibac' s act of mauling Aro was the
proximate cause of the latter's death; and as such, they must be held criminally liable
therefore, specifically for the crime of Homicide.
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE SALVADOR a.k.a. "Felix
G.R. No. 207815, June 22, 2015, VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Under Article 266-A of the RPC there are two ways by which the crime of rape may be
committed: by sexual intercourse or by sexual assault.
Facts:
Jose Salvador was charged with the crime of rape he committed against his daughter
BBB by allegedly inserting his finger and sexual organ into the latter. Upon arraignment,
accused pleaded not guilty and trial ensued. On cross-examination, BBB clarified that when
she said that appellant raped her, appellant was not actually able to insert his penis in her
vagina. Dr. Parilla, Jr. issued a Medico-Legal Report where he found "no evident injury at
the time of exam" nor was there any discharge found. Nevertheless, he noted that the
medical evaluation does not exclude sexual abuse. The RTC found appellant guilty of rape by
sexual assault. On appeal, the CA affirmed but with modification the RTCs decision but with
respect to the penalty only. Since it was established that appellant was BBBs father and that
BBB was below 18 years of age, the CA concluded that the crime committed was qualified
rape. Consequently, the CA amended the penalty imposed as well as the award of damages
increasing the same to reclusion perpetua with no eligibility of parole and the award of civil
indemnity is increased to P75,000.00. Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
doubt.
Whether appellants guilt for rape by sexual assault was proven beyond reasonable
Ruling:
Yes. Under Article 266-A of the RPC there are two ways by which the crime of rape
may be committed: by sexual intercourse or by sexual assault. Rape by sexual intercourse is
24 | P a g e

2016
defined under Article 266-A(1) where it is committed by a man who shall have carnal
knowledge with a woman under a certain set of circumstances enumerated in the provision.
Rape by sexual assault as defined under Art 266-A(2), on the other hand, is committed by
any person who, under the same set of circumstances in Article 266-A(1), inserts his penis
into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or
anal orifice of another person.
Here, what was established by the testimony of BBB was that appellant inserted his
finger in her vagina. By his act of inserting his finger in BBBs organ, the crime of rape by
sexual assault has been consummated. The fact that there were no injuries found in the
medical exam is immaterial, because the same is not an element in rape cases. The finding of
any injury as yielded by the physical exam is not a requirement in rape cases. With respect
to the imposable penalty, it having been established that BBB was under 18 years of age at
the time of the crime and that appellant is her father, a qualifying circumstance, the proper
penalty to be imposed should be reclusion temporal in contrast with the penalty which the
CA imposed.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILO COLENTAVA
G.R. No. 190348, February 9, 2015, Del Castillo, J.
The elements therefore of qualified rape are: "(1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman;
(3) done by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under [18] years of age at the time of
the rape; (5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the
victim."
Facts:
AAA was 16 years old when the alleged incidents of rape were committed against
her by her own father, the appellant in this case, in the months of June, July, and August in
the year 2003. At these three instances, the appellant lay down beside her and inserted his
penis into her vagina. Afterwards, he pointed his pistol at her and threatened not to tell BBB
or else he would kill her. It was only after the third rape incident that "AAA" finally
mustered the courage to reveal to her grandmother what had happened. The accuseds
defense was a mere denial supported by his witness CCC, the older brother of AAA. The RTC
and the CA found the appellant guilty as charged. Hence, the present appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not appellants guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
Yes. In this case, both the trial court and the [CA] found that the prosecution was
able to sufficiently establish all the elements of qualified rape. The Court saw no reason to
depart from the findings of the lower courts. "AAAs" testimony on her harrowing
experience in the hands of appellant was found by the lower courts to be positive,
straightforward, categorical and steadfast. Moreover, the evidence on record established
25 | P a g e

2016
that "AAA" was just 16 years old when appellant, her own father, had carnal knowledge of
her. Clearly, all the elements of qualified rape are present in this case.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MICHAEL JOSON y ROGANDO
G.R. No. 206393. January 21, 2015. First Division. Perez, J.
Force or violence that is required in rape cases is relative; when applied, it need not be
overpowering or irresistible.
Facts:
For raping his 14-year old sister, Michael Joson was charged with violation of
Articles 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 to which he
pleaded not guilty. The medical examination result revealed that there is no evident injury
on AAA at the time of the examination. The RTC convicted Joson. On appeal, the CA affirmed
the RTCs the judgment of conviction. On appeal to the SC, the appellant maintains that the
prosecution failed to prove all elements of rape particularly the elements of force, threat or
intimidation
Issue:
Whether or not Joson is guilty of the crime of rape.
Ruling:
Yes. The victims testimony has established all the elements of rape required under
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. First, appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim.
AAA positively identified her own brother as the assailant. She was likewise unwavering in
her narration that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. Second, appellant employed
threat, force and intimidation to satisfy his lust. Force or violence that is required in rape
cases is relative; when applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible. That it enables the
offender to consummate his purpose is enough. The parties relative age, size and strength
should be taken into account in evaluating the existence of the element of force in the crime
of rape. The degree of force which may not suffice when the victim is an adult may be more
than enough if employed against a person of tender age.
In the case at bench, the accused-appellant employed that amount of force sufficient
to consummate the rape. It must be stressed that, at the time of the incident, AAA was only
14 years old. Considering the tender years of the offended party as compared to the
accused-appellant who was in the prime of his life, the act of the accused-appellant in
pinning the arms of AAA to avoid any form of resistance from her suffices. Force or
intimidation is not limited to physical force. As long as it is present and brings the desired
result, all consideration of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.
RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 211002. January 21, 2015. Second Division. Leonen, J.
26 | P a g e

2016
A victim need not identify what was inserted into his or her genital or anal orifice for
the court to find that rape through sexual assault was committed.
Facts:
Richard Ricalde, a distant relative and textmate of the victim, was charged with rape
through sexual assault committed against XXX, a 10-year-old boy. On arraignment, Ricalde
pleaded not guilty. Medical examination conducted on XXX revealed that there were no
signs of recent trauma in his anal orifice that was also "NEGATIVE for spermatozoa. The
RTC found Ricalde guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape through sexual assault which
was later affirmed by CA on appeal. Ricalde filed this Petition praying for his acquittal. On
appeal to the SC, petitioner contends that XXX did not categorically say that a penis was
inserted into his anal orifice and that the absence of spermatozoa in XXXs anal orifice
negates the commission of the crime. Finally he contends that the court should have applied
the "variance doctrine".
Issue:
Whether or not the failure of the victim to identify what was inserted in his anal
orifice negates the criminal liability of the accused.
Ruling:
No. A victim need not identify what was inserted into his or her genital or anal
orifice for the court to find that rape through sexual assault was committed. What is
important and relevant is that indeed something was inserted into his or her genital or anal
orifice. To require the victim to identify the instrument or object that was inserted into his
or her genital or anal orifice would be contrary to the fundamental tenets of due process.
Also, the absence of spermatozoa in XXXs anal orifice does not negate the possibility
of an erection and penetration. The medico-legal explained that his negative finding of
trauma in the anal orifice does not remove the possibility of an insertion considering the
flexibility of the sphincter, i.e. the particular portion of the anus.
And finally, no variance exists between what was charged and what was proven
during trial. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all elements of the crime
of rape through sexual assault.
People of the Philippines and AAA v. Court of Appeals, 21st Division, Mindanao
Station, Raymund Carampatana, Joefhel Oporto, and Moises Alquizola
G.R. No. 183652 February 25, 2015, Peralta, J.
The elements of rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2)
such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious
Facts:
27 | P a g e

2016
On March 25, 2004 AAA had a graduation dinner party with her friends. Present in the
dinner is Raymund Carampatana (Carampatana) and Joefehl Oporto (Oporto). After the
dinner, they decided to have a drinking session to celebrate their graduation. During the
drinking session, AAA was being offered to drink but she first refused since she hasnt tried
liquor before. They shared problems with each other and when it was AAAs turn, she
became emotional and broke down. It was at this moment that she had her first drink. The
shots were passed around and she consumed more than she can handle. Thereafter, she felt
dizzy so she laid on Oportos lap. Oporto then started kissing her and she got angry and told
her to stop. They forced her to take more shots and succeeded. She then became
unconscious. As she had regained her consciousness momentarily, she noticed that she is
being carried down the stairs. She was asleep again. As she regained her consciousness she
realized she was at Moises Alquizolas (Alquizola) lodging house. She knew this because she
had been there before. She would thereafter fall asleep and wake up again. During one of
the times she was unconscious, she saw Oporto on top of her and kissing her on different
parts of her body and having intercourse with her. She started crying and tried to refuse but
was unsuccessful because of intoxication. Carampatana then had intercourse with her,
followed by Alquizola. Carampatana, Oporto, and Alquizola denied AAAs allegations and
said that the sexual intercourse was consensual and initiated by AAA due to her
drunkenness. The RTC held Carampatana, Oporto, and Alquizola guilty of rape. However,
the CA held the accused not guilty. It gave more credence to the version of the defense and
ruled that AAA consented to the sexual congress. She was wide awake and aware of what
private respondents were doing during the intercourse. She never showed any physical
resistance, never shouted for help, and never fought against her alleged ravishers.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in finding that the accused are not guilty of Rape
Ruling:
Yes, the CA erred in finding that the accused are not guilty of Rape. The elements of
rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was
accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious. Here, the accused intentionally made AAA consume hard liquor
more than she could handle. They still forced her to drink even when she was already
obviously inebriated. They never denied having sexual intercourse with AAA, but the latter
was clearly deprived of reason or unconscious at the time the private respondents ravished
her. The CA, however, readily concluded that she agreed to the sexual act simply because
she did not shout or offer any physical resistance, disregarding her testimony that she was
rendered weak and dizzy by intoxication, thereby facilitating the commission of the crime.
In reviewing rape cases, the lone testimony of the victim is and should be, by itself, sufficient to
warrant a judgment of conviction if found to be credible. Also, it has been established that
when a woman declares that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to
mean that she has been raped, and where her testimony passes the test of credibility, the
accused can be convicted on that basis alone. This is because from the nature of the offense,
the sole evidence that can usually be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the
complainants testimony itself. If AAA was not truthful to her accusation, she would not
have opened herself to the rough and tumble of a public trial.
28 | P a g e

2016
People of the Philippines v. Domingo Gallano y Jaranilla
G.R. No. 184762 February 25, 2015, Bersamin, J.
The accused may be convicted of rape on the basis of the victim's sole testimony provided such
testimony is logical, credible, consistent and convincing
Facts:
On January 2, 2003 while his wife went to the hospital to take care of her father, the
accused Domingo Gallano inserted his penis into his nieces vagina. He then warned her
niece not to tell her mother or else, he will kill her. The accused brother-in-law saw the
incident and told the accused wife. The wife then confronted her niece and it was here when
the niece confessed to the crime committed against her. Both the RTC and the CA convicted
the accused of Rape. The accused contended that he cannot be convicted of Rape based on
the sole testimony of the victim.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused can be convicted of Rape based on the sole testimony of
the victim.
Ruling:
Yes, the accused can be convicted based on the sole testimony of the victim. Rape is a
crime that is almost always committed in isolation or in secret, usually leaving only the
victim to testify about the commission of the crime. As such, the accused may be convicted
of rape on the basis of the victim's sole testimony provided such testimony is logical,
credible, consistent and convincing. Moreover, the testimony of a rape victim is given full
weight and credence considering that her denunciation against him for rape would
necessarily expose herself and her family to shame and perhaps ridicule. It is more
consistent with human experience to hold that a rape victim will truthfully testify as to all
matters necessary to show that she was raped.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONALD NICAL y ALMINARIO
G.R. No. 210430, February 18, 2015, REYES, J.
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.
Facts:
AAA worked as a maid, AAA was folding laundry when Alminario, who was also a
household helper, suddenly entered the room and immediately proceeded to embrace her.
She tried to run but the he grabbed her by her shorts and pushed her so hard against the
concrete wall of the room that she hit her head against it and became dizzy. At a point, AAA
lost consciousness, and when she woke up, she was back inside the room she had fled, lying
naked with Alminario on top of her and half naked. He inserted his penis into her vagina and
29 | P a g e

2016
she felt pain, but she was able to muster enough strength to push him off with her knee and
make her escape. She ran and told Nelyn, another maid, what Alminario had just done to
her. They reported it to brgy officials and AAA submitted herself for examination by Dr.
Magno at the PGH. Dr. Magno testified that he found no signs of any injury, sexual abuse,
lacerations, lesions and bleeding in the private parts of AAA, whose hymen was no longer
intact, but he clarified that his medical findings do not exclude the possibility that AAA was
raped or sexually abused by Alminario. RTC gave full credence to AAAs narration and found
Alminario guilty. CA affirmed.
Issue:
Whether or not Alminario is guilty in raping AAA.
Ruling:
Yes. In her testimony, AAA gave a clear, credible and complete narration of damning
details showing that Alminario did in fact assault her sexually. 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. As held in People v. Campos(394 Phil. 868, 2000): But a medical
examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. In fact, there can be rape even if
the medical examination shows no vaginal laceration. It is of no moment either that the
medical certificate fails to show that one suffered any contusion or abrasion. Although the
results of a medical examination may be considered strong evidence to prove that the
victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in establishing guilt or innocence. No
young woman would admit that she was raped, make public the offense and allow the
examination of her private parts, undergo the troubles and humiliation of a public trial and
endure the ordeal of testifying to all the gory details, if she had not in fact been raped.
On the other hand, although the Information below does not allege that Alminario
raped AAA while she was unconscious, the prosecution however alleged and proved the use
of force and violence against her. Article 266-A(1)(a) of the RPC was satisfied because
Alminario grabbed and pulled AAA by her shorts and then pushed her hard against the
concrete wall, and the impact of her head bouncing against the wall made her dizzy, weak,
and then unconscious, and this enabled Alminario to consummate his bestial design on her.
Her unconsciousness resulted directly from the force and violence employed against her.
Alminario is being charged under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the RPC, and the element of use of
force is not in any way disproved when the RTC found that AAA was partly conscious when
it said that the "private complainant felt the penis inside her vagina and she felt pain."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PACITO ESPEJON Y LEBIOS
It is a well-settled rule in our jurisdiction that the assessment of a trial court in
matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great respectif not finality
on appeal.
30 | P a g e

2016
Facts:
Five criminal informations for rape committed against AAA, then 12 years old, were
filed against Pacito Espejon. The RTC rendered judgment finding Espejon guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of five counts of rape as charged giving full weight and credence upon the
testimony of AAA. However, the CA modified the said decision where Espejon was found
guilty of only two counts of rape and three counts of attempted rape. Before the SC, Espejon
contends that the RTC and the CA erred in giving full weight and credence upon the
testimony AAA. He submits that the testimony of AAA is peppered with unexplained
anomalies. According to him, it is unnatural that AAA did not immediately reveal to her
parents about her being raped after the alleged first incident. He added that it is illogical
that AAA, after allegedly being forced to perform masturbation on the appellant, would still
willingly accept P20.00 from the appellant. Such actuation by AAA defies reasonable
expectations of how a supposed victim of rape would behave under the same circumstance.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in their appreciation of AAA's testimony.
Ruling:
No. It is a well-settled rule in our jurisdiction that the assessment of a trial court in
matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great respectif not
finalityon appeal. Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not
necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained. In this
connection, fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial considerations, and economic
reasons have all been considered by this Court as sufficient explanations for such delay.
Furthermore, AAAs receipt of P20.00 from the appellant right after the former was forced
to masturbate the latter is not prejudicial to the accusations of rape or attempted rape
against the appellant. It neither excuses appellants dastardly acts nor implies AAAs
consent thereto. What is most notable is the fact that the money was an unsolicited thing
that was handed to AAA after the ruttish subjection, such act which is indignity upon insult
being part and parcel of the whole crime that started with the abductive taking to the
bushes. The fear that numbed the person of AAA was, at the time of the lustful offer, still
was overpowering.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO BALCUEVA Y
BONDOCOY, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 214466, July 01, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
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 was other than a fervent desire to
seek justice.
Facts:
31 | P a g e

2016
Balcueva raped AAA, his biological daughter. The act of rape was interrupted when
AAAs sister saw the incident. Balcueva interposed the defense of alibi. He was convicted by
the trial court.
Issue:
Whether Balcueva's conviction for Qualified Rape should be upheld.
Ruling:
As correctly ruled, AAA's clear, categorical, and unwavering testimony reveals that
she was indeed raped by Balcueva, her own father. Suffice it to say that Balcueva's flimsy
defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over AAA's positive and categorical testimony and
identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime. Verily, 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 was 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.
PEOPLE V. NESTOR SUAREZ y MAGTAGNOB
G.R. No. 201151, January 14, 2015, PEREZ, J.
It is a well-entrenched principle that testimonies of child victims are given full weight
and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all
that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity.
Facts:
In an Information, Suarez was indicted before the RTC for the rape of his minor
niece. Suarez, in denying the charge, seeks to demolish the testimony of AAA by alleging that
her version of the incident reeks of improbabilities. According to him, there appears to be
no significant resistance on the part of AAA, who did not shout when appellant was
allegedly defiling her. Moreover, AAAs parents were just a house away at the time of the
alleged rape so she should have been encouraged to shout for help or exerted strong
resistance against appellants sexual advances.
Issue:
Whether or not AAAs testimony is credible.
Ruling:
YES. The conviction or acquittal of one accused of rape most often depends almost
entirely on the credibility of the complainants testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it
is generally unwitnessed and usually the victim is left to testify for herself. Her testimony is
32 | P a g e

2016
most vital and must be received with the utmost caution. When a rape victims testimony,
however, is straightforward and marked with consistency despite grueling examination, it
deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded. Once found credible, her lone
testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction. It has been settled that in rape cases, the law
does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance because it is not an
element of rape. Not all victims react the same way. Some people may cry out, some may
faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the
intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer
any resistance at all. The failure of a rape victim to offer tenacious resistance does not make
her submission to accuseds criminal acts voluntary. What is necessary is that the force
employed against her was sufficient to consummate the purpose which he has in mind.
Moreover, the medical examination of the victim is not an element of rape. The medical
examination does not seek to establish who committed the crime, rather it merely
corroborates the testimony of the rape victim that she has been raped. The prime
consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony, not necessarily the
medical findings; a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution
for rape. The victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENRIQUE GALVEZ
G.R. No. 212929, July 29, 2015, Villarama, Jr., J.
Failure to sufficiently establish the victims age and that relationship between the
offender and the victim was within the third civil degree with factual certainty and beyond
reasonable doubt is fatal and consequently bars conviction for rape in its qualified form.
Facts:
AAA, the 13-year old niece of Galvez, was alleged to be raped on several occasions
by Galvez with the use of force. When AAA told her father the incident, she was medically
examined and that indeed there were hymenal tears. On the other hand, Galvez denied the
allegations and claimed that it was his brother, AAAs father, who molested his child. Galvez
then was charged with 4 counts of rape and another 4 counts for violation of Sec. 5 (b), Art.
III, RA 7610. The RTC convicted him of 4 counts of sexual abused under RA 7610 and 4
counts of rape under the RPC. The CA affirmed with modifications the decision of the RTC,
and convicted Galvez of 4 counts of qualified rape.
Issue:
Whether or not Galvez is guilty of 4 counts of qualified rape.
Ruling:
No. Galvez is not guilty of qualified rape but is guilty of simple rape. Art. 335 of the
RPC defines rape and enumerates its elements. The elements of qualified rape are the
following: (1) carnal knowledge; (2) violence or intimidation; (3) the presence of qualifying
circumstance of the victim being below 18 years of age coupled with the fact that the
offender is a relative within the third degree of said victim.
33 | P a g e

2016
First, the element of carnal knowledge was sufficiently established by AAAs
narration that Galvez had sexual intercourse of her. Second, with respect to the element of
violence or intimidation, it is settled that said element may be substituted by moral
ascendancy. The Court reiterated this rule in numerous cases where the offender and the
victim were the uncle and niece respectively. There is existence of moral ascendancy in this
case because Galvez is AAAs uncle and AAA lived with him and his wife during the time the
acts of rape occurred. Lastly, with respect to the element that makes the offense qualified
rape, the both minority and the third degree relationship must be established. However, in
this case, neither birth certificate nor any other document was offered in evidence to prove
AAAs age. It was held by the Court in a case that the failure to sufficiently establish the
victims age with factual certainty and beyond reasonable doubt is fatal and consequently
bars conviction for rape in its qualified form. Furthermore, the allegation that Galvez is the
uncle of AAA is not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of
relationship. It is necessary to specifically allege that such relationship was within the third
civil degree.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BERNARDINO BIALA
G.R. No. 217975, November 23, 2015, J. Mendoza
For one to be convicted of qualified rape, at least one of the aggravating/qualifying
circumstances mentioned in Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, must be alleged in the
information and duly proved during the trial.
Facts:
AAA, a girl under 12 years old, was repeatedly rape by her guardian, Bernardino
Biala. She kept her silence of the acts committed against her until she mustered enough
courage to tell her neighbors, Spouses Sotelo, with whom she temporarily stayed.
Thereafter, Biala was charged with qualified rape.
Issue:
Whether or not Biala is guilty of qualified rape
Ruling:
Yes. For one to be convicted of qualified rape, at least one of the
aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended,
must be alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial.
In this case, the qualifying circumstance that the offender is a guardian of the victim
mentioned in Article 266-B, was properly alleged in the two Informations and sufficiently
established during trial. Biala served as AAA's guardian from the time she was taken away
from her natural mother at the age of two. He spent for her kindergarten and elementary
education. She even called Biala "Tatay." It was also clearly alleged that she was only 11
years old at the time of the commission of the rape in November 1999 and only 12 years old
34 | P a g e

2016
during the rape incident in June 2001. The prosecution proved her age by presenting her
birth certificate which stated that she was born on December 5, 1988.
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MIRAFLOR UGANIEL LERIO
G.R. No. 209039 December 09, 2015 PEREZ, J.
The following are the elements of kidnapping under Art. 267, par. 4 of the Revised
Penal Code: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in
any other manner deprives the latter of his or her liberty; (3) the act of detention or
kidnapping is illegal; and (4) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public
officer.
Facts:
Aileen Anniban and Miraflor Uganiel Lerio are neighbors. Lerio entered the house of
Anniban, laid down beside the infant child of Anniban and began chatting with her. Lerio
then told Anniban that she would take the infant outside to bask him under the morning sun
but the latter refused. A few minutes later, Anniban realized that Lerio and her child were
no longer in the house. After searching, Anniban found her infant child, Relly Ronquillo
Arellano, Lerios boyfriend, and Lerio on board a vessel. Lerio, together with co-accused
Arellano, were charged with Kidnapping of a Minor. However, the trial court dropped
Arellanos name on the Information.
Issue:
Whether or not Lerio is guilty of kidnapping.
Ruling:
Yes. The following are the elements of kidnapping under Art. 267, par. 4 of the
Revised Penal Code: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains
another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his or her liberty; (3) the act of
detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor,
female or a public officer.
The prosecution has adequately and satisfactorily proven that accused-appellant is a
private individual; that accused-appellant took one-month old baby Justin Clyde from his
residence, without the knowledge or consent of, and against the will of his mother; and that
the victim was a minor, one-month old at the time of the incident, the fact of which accusedappellant herself admitted.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAMUEL A. MAGNO
G.R. No. 206972, December 2, 2015, Perez J.
35 | P a g e

2016
In a prosecution for kidnapping, the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of the
latters liberty in any manner, needs to be established by indubitable proof.
Facts:
Somewhere in Tacloban City, AAA, a five-month old baby girl was allegedly
surreptitiously taken by Pamuel Magno (Magno) herein accused-appellant, without the
consent and against the will of BBB, AAAs mother while BBB was boiling water for AAA.
Thereafter, a cargo truck driver positively identified Magno with AAA as Magno abused a
baby on a bench in Plaza Libertad within Tacloban City. He noticed that the private part of
baby AAA was bloodied during the incident. Thereafter, Magno was arrested and was
charged with the crime of rape and kidnapping.
Issue:
Whether or not Magno is guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping with
rape.
Ruling:
Yes. The elements of kidnapping under Article 267 paragraph 4 of the Revised
Penal Code are: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or
in any other manner deprives the latter of his or her liberty (3) the act of detention or
kidnapping is illegal; and (4) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a
public officer. The prosecution has satisfied the constitutionally required proof that the
accused-appellant is a private individual, that accused-appellant took AAA, a baby, without
the knowledge or consent of her parents; and that AAA was only five (5) months old at the
time of the commission and consummation of the offense.
Verily, the medical report clearly states that AAA was raped. There is no dispute that rape
was committed considering that her hymen had fresh laceration and the edges are sharp,
reddened and edematous.
Article 308. Who are liable for theft
HERMAN MEDINA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 182648, June 17, 2015, Peralta, J.
Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of
another without the latters consent.
Facts:
Henry Lim engaged the services of Petitioner Medina to repair the door and roof of
his Sangyong Korando Jeep. At the time the jeep was delivered to Medina, it was still in
running condition because its engine was not affected. When a reasonable amount of time
had lapse without the jeep having been repaired, Purita, Lim's Sister, ordered a certain
36 | P a g e

2016
Beltran to get the jeep from Medina. Beltran initially failed to get the jeep since its
alternator, starter, battery, and two tires with rims could not be found. Upon inquiry,
Medina told him that he took and installed them on Lims another vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up,
which was also being repaired in the shop. Beltran went back in the afternoon of the same
day and was able to get the jeep, but without the missing parts. He had it towed and brought
it to his own repair shop. Before placing the jeep therein, he reported the incident to Purita.
Subsequently, Purita, in representation of Lim, filed a criminal complaint against Medina
charging the latter of simple theft. The trial court found Medina guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged. The decision of the trial court was affirmed by the CA. Hence,
this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the guilt of Medina was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
Yes. In this case, Medina acknowledged without hesitation the taking of the jeeps
alternator, starter, battery, and two tires with magwheels, but he put up the defense that
they were installed in the pick-up owned by Lim. With such admission, the burden of
evidence is shifted on him to prove that the missing parts were indeed lawfully taken. Upon
perusal of the transcript of stenographic notes, the Court finds that Medina unsatisfactorily
discharged the burden. Even bearing in mind the testimony of Tumamao, he failed to
substantiate, through the presentation of
supporting documentary evidence or
corroborative testimony, the claims that: (1) Lim was the owner of the pick-up; (2) the
missing parts of the jeep were exactly the same items that were placed in the pick-up; (3)
Lim consented, expressly or impliedly, to the transfer of auto parts; and (4) Mendoza
witnessed the removal of the spare parts from the jeep and their placement to the pick-up.
Neither did Medina adduce any justifying or exempting circumstance to avoid criminal
liability.
JOVITO CANCERAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 206442, 01 July 2015, J. Mendoza
An accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or
necessarily included in the information filed against him. He cannot be convicted of a higher
offense than that with which he was charged in the complaint or information and on which he
was tried.
Facts.
An Information was filed charging Canceran for the crime of Frustrated Theft. A
witness saw Canceran pushing a cart with two boxes of Magic Flakes, which upon inspection
actually contained smaller boxes of Ponds White Beauty Cream worth P28, 627.20.
Canceran thereafter hurriedly left, a chase ensued where he was eventually apprehended.
RTC found Canceran guilty of consummated Theft in line with the ruling in Valenzuela v.
People that there is no crime of Frustrated Theft.
37 | P a g e

2016
Issue.
Whether or not Canceran should be acquitted of the crime of theft as it was not
charged in the information.
Held.
No, but he must be convicted only of the lesser offense of Attempted Theft. No less
than the Constitution guarantees the right of every person accused in a criminal prosecution
to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. [A]n accused cannot be
convicted of a higher offense than that with which he was charged in the complaint or
information and on which he was tried. It matters not how conclusive and convincing the
evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted in the courts of any offense, unless
it is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily included
therein. As stated earlier, there is no crime of Frustrated Theft. The Information can never
be read to charge Canceran of consummated Theft because the indictment itself stated that
the crime was never produced. Instead, the Information should be construed to mean that
Canceran was being charged with theft in its attempted stage only. Necessarily, Canceran
may only be convicted of the lesser crime of Attempted Theft.
Article 310. Qualified theft
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MERA "JOY" ELEUTERIO NIELLES, @ MERA NIELLES
DELOS REYES
G.R. No. 200308 February 23, 2015, Del Castillo, J.
Elements of qualified theft: 1) taking of personal property; 2) that said property
belongs to another; 3) that the said taking was done with intent to gain; 4) that it was done
without the owners consent; 5) that it was accomplished without the use of violence or
intimidation against persons, or of force upon things; and 6) that it was done with grave abuse
of confidence.
Facts:
Nielles was Juanita Flores employee in her business of guaranteeing purchase
orders and gift checks of several department stores and depositing or selling them for
consideration. Nielles collected P640,353.86 from sub-guarantors but failed to remit them
to Flores or the latters account. Instead, she issued 15 personal checks and deposited them
to Flores account. However, all the checks were dishonored upon presentment due to
account closed. A case for qualified theft was filed against Nielles. The RTC convicted her,
which the CA affirmed. Before the SC, Nielles argues that the prosecution failed to establish
that she took the amount belonging to Flores and the issuance of the checks does not prove
the same.
Issue:
38 | P a g e

2016
Whether or not Nielles is guilty of qualified theft
Ruling:
Yes, she is guilty of qualified theft. The prosecution satisfactorily established all the
elements of qualified theft, to wit: 1) taking of personal property; 2) that said property
belongs to another; 3) that the said taking was done with intent to gain; 4) that it was done
without the owners consent; 5) that it was accomplished without the use of violence or
intimidation against persons, or of force upon things; and 6) that it was done with grave
abuse of confidence. The circumstance of grave abuse of confidence that made the case as
qualified theft was proven. Nielles herself testified that as a cashier, her functions and
responsibilities include billings and collections from their agents and making of deposits
and withdrawals in behalf of Flores. Moreover, when the payment for the purchase orders
or gift checks becomes due, she would fill up the four (4) blank checks given by the subguarantor with the knowledge and consent of Private Complainant. It is beyond doubt that
an employee like a cashier who comes into possession of the monies she collected enjoys
the confidence reposed in her by her employer, as in the instant case. The element of taking
of personal property was satisfactorily established by the prosecution.
GRACE SAN DIEGO y TRINIDAD, Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 176114, April 8, 2015, Peralta, J.
crime.
Resort to circumstantial evidence is inevitable when there are no eyewitnesses to a
Facts:
Petitioner Grace San Diego had been the accountant of Obando Fisherman's MultiPurpose Cooperative, Inc. from January 1993 to March 11, 1997. She was in charge of
accounting all business transactions of the cooperative. From November 18, 1996 to
January 6, 1997, petitioner acted as cashier and from January 13- 30, 1997, she acted as
teller. Thus, she had complete access to the cash vaults and filing cabinets of the cooperative
where its documents were kept. Then she stopped reporting for work. The General Manager
and the bookkeeper tried to establish the accountability of San Diego by comparing the cash
position she prepared and certified as correct against the balances of the bank. They
discovered discrepancies in petitioner's report. The audited figure showed the cash on hand
in bank to be Php3,712,442.80 as of March 11, 1997. However, petitioner reported and
certified the cash on hand of the cooperative with the total amount of Php9,590,455.17 to
be correct. San Diego was charged with the crime of qualified theft. Petitioner asserts that
the prosecution was not able to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt because there was
no proof in the audit that the cooperative had really so much funds and that in consequence
there was deficiency of some Php6,000,000. She insists that the People did not present any
witness who categorically testified that she ran away with the supposed missing funds. She
argues that the proof adduced indicates commission of estafa.
Issue:
39 | P a g e

2016
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of qualified theft.
Ruling:
Yes. The CA did not err when it ruled that the proof adduced by the prosecution is
sufficient to prove petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution presented
the testimony of its expert witness, Alfonso Piscasio, the cooperative's independent auditor
since 1992. The audit report, duly offered and presented in the trial, was supported by
certifications by several depository banks of the cooperative indicating its balance on its
account. Petitioner's own expert witness, Criselda Sarmiento Oplas, failed to dispute the
audit report presented. As to her second contention, the court stated that resort to
circumstantial evidence is inevitable when there are no eyewitnesses to a crime. The courts
are allowed to rule on the bases of circumstantial evidence if the following requisites
concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance, (2) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven, and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the circumstances established
constituted an unbroken chain which leads to a reasonable conclusion that San Diego is the
guilty person. She had custody of the checks, acted as cashier and teller, prepared a
certification representing the total cash balance, and then stopped reporting for work. The
crime is not estafa because petitioner never received the sum of money in trust, or on
commission or for administration. Petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of qualified theft and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
Maria Paz Frontreras y IlagAn v. People of the Philippines
G.R No. 190583, December 7, 2015, J. Reyes
Theft becomes qualified if it is among others, committed with grave abuse of
confidence.
Facts:
Maria Paz was a vault custodian of Old Balara Branch Cebuana Lhuillier. She was
tasked to safekeep all the pawned items and jewelries inside the branch vault. During
sometime, it was reported that there were missing jewelries and discrepancies with the
audited financial statement which led to prosecution of qualified theft against Mria Paz. She
presented documents that the jewelries were already released but she has failed to present
the payment made.
Issue:
Whether or not Maria Paz is guilty of Qualified Theft
Ruling:
Yes. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence
against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of
another without the latters consent. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that
40 | P a g e

2016
is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation.
Theft becomes qualified if it is among others, committed with grave abuse of confidence.
In this case, Maria Paz gravely abused such relation of trust and confidence when
she accessed and released the pawned items under her custody, received the payments for
their redemption but failed to record such redemption and remit the payments to the cash
collections of Cebuana. Without the authority and consent of her employer, she repeatedly
took and appropriated for herself the redemption payments paid for the pawned items.
Thus, she is guilty of qualified theft.
Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARNEL BALUTE y VILLANUEVA
G.R. No. 212932. January 21, 2015. First Division. Perlas-Bernabe, J. (Resolution)
A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and the objective
of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must
precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.
Facts
Arnel Balute was charged of the crime of Robbery with Homicide after snatching the
cellphone of SPO1 Raymundo B. Manaois and subsequently inflicting upon him injuries
which resulted to his death despite medical intervention. Balute denied having any
knowledge of the charges and interposed a defense of alibi. The RTC convicted Balute of the
crime of Robbery with Homicide with the aggravating circumstance of treachery. On appeal,
the CA affirmed the conviction with modification as to the presence of treachery as
aggravating circumstance. Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime charged.
Ruling:
Yes. A special complex crime of robbery with homicide takes place when a homicide
is committed either by reason, or on the occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for
robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking
of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of
violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. A conviction
requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and the objective of the malefactor
and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking
of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. Homicide is said
to have been committed by reason or on occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was
committed: (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the
possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the
41 | P a g e

2016
robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. In the instant case,
the prosecution was able to establish the fact that Balute poked his gun at SPO1 Manaois,
took the latters mobile phone, and thereafter, shot him, resulting in his death despite
surgical and medical intervention.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAY HINLO a.k.a. "INDAY KABANG", RICHARD PALMA y
VARCAS a.k.a. "INDAY ATET," RUVICO SENIDO y HAMAYBAY a.k.a. "RUBY," and EDGAR
PEDROSO y PALASOL a.k.a. "LIBAT"
G.R. No. 212151, February 18, 2015, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
A conviction requires that the robbery is the main purpose and the killing is merely
incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the
killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.
Facts:
Hinlo, Palma, Senido, Pedroso, and Dumagat planned to rob the house of Sps. Clavel.
They proceeded to the house of Sps. Clavel where Senido used a knife to cut the cyclone
wire fence. As they entered the compound of the house, they destroyed the knob of the
kitchen door and gained entry where they took certain valuable items. Meanwhile, Freddie
woke up to go to the bathroom and as he entered, Senido, who was hiding inside, assaulted
him and the two wrestled. Hinlo approached Freddie and with the use of a bladed weapon,
stabbed the latter on his abdomen which led to his untimely demise. Thereafter, Palma,
Senido, Pedroso, Hinlo, and Dumagat hurriedly escaped and left behind part of the items
they took on the railroad located behind the property. Shortly thereafter, the police arrived
and recovered the two leather bags where the compact discs and microphone were placed.
An Information was filed charging Palma, Senido, Pedroso, Hinlo, and Dumagat with the
special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294 (1) of the RPC. RTC
convicted them. CA affirmed.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld the conviction for Robbery with Homicide.
Ruling:
Yes. In People v. Uy (GR No. 174660, 2011): the Court explained that the elements for
the crime of robbery with homicide are: (a) the taking of personal property is committed
with violence or intimidation against persons; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the
taking is animo lucrandi or with intent to gain; and (d) on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery, homicide was committed. A conviction requires that the robbery is the main
purpose and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede
the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.
In the instant case, the CA correctly upheld the RTCs conclusions finding that they
were all armed with knives when they broke into the house, took certain personal
properties, and, in the course thereof, stabbed Freddie, resulting to his death. This is
42 | P a g e

2016
supported by the testimony of the state witness, Dumagat, who presented a detailed,
consistent, and credible narrative of the incident and positively identified accusedappellants as the perpetrators of the crime. It is settled that the positive identification of
accused-appellants prevails over their defense of alibi considering that in this jurisdiction
the latter is considered as inherently weak and, thus, cannot outweigh the testimony of
eyewitnesses establishing that accused-appellants committed the crime. Moreover,
conspiracy having been established, when a homicide takes place by reason of or on
occasion of the robbery, all those who took part shall be guilty of the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide whether they actually participated in the killing, unless there is
proof that there was an endeavour to prevent the killing.
Article 315. Swindling (estafa)
Cherry Ann M. Benabaye v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 203466 February 25, 2015, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
As long as juridical possession has not been transferred, there is no Estafa.
Facts:
Cherry Ann Benabaye (Benabaye) was the Loans Bookkeeper of Siam Bank Inc. (Siam
Bank). As such, she was authorized to collect and/or accept loan payments of Siam Bank's
clients and issue provisional receipts therefor, accomplish a cash transfer slip at the end of
each banking day detailing the amounts of money that she has received, and remit such
payments to Jenkin U. Tupag (Tupag), her supervisor. Sometime in 2001, Siam Bank
conducted an audit investigation of its loan transactions and thereby found out that fraud
and certain irregularities attended the same. It discovered the non-remittance of some loan
payments received from its clients based on the provisional receipts issued by its account
officers, as well as the daily collection reports corresponding to the said provisional
receipts. 853 provisional receipts were issued by Benabaye but were unreported, and, more
significantly, the corresponding payments were unremitted based on the daily collection
reports on file. Siam Bank directed Benabaye to explain the discrepancies between the
provisional receipts she had issued and the unremitted money involved. Likewise, Siam
Bank made a final demand upon her to return the amount of the money involved. In her
written explanation, Benabaye claimed that the discrepancies could be clarified by her
supervisor, Tupag, to whom she had submitted her daily cash transfer slips together with
the corresponding provisional receipts. Dissatisfied by the explanation, Siam Bank
terminated the services of Benabaye and filed a criminal case for Estafa for failure to remit
the amounts collected to the bank, and misapplying said amounts to her own use and
benefit and despite repeated demands, failed to pay the said amounts.
Issue:
Whether or not Benabaye is guilty of Estafa under Art. 315 par. 1 (b) of the Revised
Penal Code
Ruling:
43 | P a g e

2016
No. The first element of Estafa under this provision is that the offender's receipt of
money, goods, or other personal property is in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the
same. Under the first element, when the money, goods, or any other personal property is
received by the offender from the offended party (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3) for
administration, the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical
possession of the thing received. Juridical possession means a possession which gives the
transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. A
sum of money received by an employee on behalf of an employer is considered to be only in the
material possession of the employee. The material possession of an employee is adjunct, by
reason of his employment, to a recognition of the juridical possession of the employer. As
long as the juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass to the employeeperpetrator, the offense committed is not Estafa. The first element of Estafa through
misappropriation has not been established.
People of the Philippines v. Julie Grace K. Villanueva
G.R. No. 163662 February 25, 2015, Bersamin, J.
Estafa may be committed when: (1) the offender has postdated or issued a check in
payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance; (2) at the time
of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender has no funds in the bank, or the funds
deposited are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; (3) the payee has been
defrauded.
Facts:
Loreto Madarang (Madarang) is engaged in selling jewelry. Julie Villanueva
(Villanueva) bought from Madarang five sets of jewelry. As payment thereof, Villanueva
issued nine checks drawn against Philippine National Bank (PNB). However, PNB only paid
2 checks; the other 7 checks were dishonored by reason of Account closed or Drawn
against insufficient funds. Despite several demand letters, Villanueva failed to settle her
obligations. On her defense, Villanueva alleged that they had an agreement that Madarang
shall not present the checks for payment unless he is advised of the sufficiency of funds on
her account.
Issue:
Whether or not Villanueva is guilty of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of
the Revised Penal Code
Ruling:
Yes. Villanueva is guilty of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d), of the Revised
Penal Code. Estafa may be committed when: (1) the offender has postdated or issued a
check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance; (2)
at the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender has no funds in the bank, or
the funds deposited are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; (3) the payee has
been defrauded. The deceit here should be the efficient cause of the defraudation, and
should either be prior to, or simultaneously with, the act of the fraud. All the elements
44 | P a g e

2016
of estafa are present. The first element was admitted by Villanueva, who confirmed that she
had issued the checks to Madarang in exchange for the jewelry she had purchased. There is
no question that Madarang accepted the checks upon the assurance of Villanueva that they
would be funded upon presentment. It is clear that Madarang would not have parted with
and entrusted the pieces of valuable jewelry to Villanueva whom she barely knew unless
Villanueva gave such assurance to her. The second element was likewise established
because the checks were dishonored upon presentment due to insufficiency of funds or
because the account was already closed. The third element was also proved by the showing
that Madarang suffered prejudice by her failure to collect from Villanueva. Villanuevas
defense that they had an agreement not to present the checks for payment unless Madarang
is advised of the sufficiency of funds in her account cannot be given weight for failure to
present proof of such agreement.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PALMY TIBAYAN and RICO PUERTO
GR Nos. 209655-60, JANUARY 14, 2015, J. PERLAS-BERNABE
Thus, the elements of Syndicated Estafa are: (a) Estafa or other forms of swindling, as
defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC, is committed; (b) the Estafa or swindling is
committed by a syndicate of five (5) or more persons; and (c) defraudation results in the
misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperative, samahang nayon(s), or farmers associations, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.
Facts:
The victims were enticed by TGICI (wherein the accused were officers) due to the
offer of high interest rates, as well as the assurance that they will recover their investments.
After giving their money to TGICI, private complainants received a Certificate of Share and
post-dated checks, representing the amount of the principal investment and the monthly
interest earnings, respectively. Upon encashment, the checks were dishonored, as the
account was already closed, prompting private complainants to bring the bounced checks to
the TGICI office to demand payment. At the office, the TGICI employees took the said checks,
gave private complainants acknowledgement receipts, and reassured that their
investments, as well as the interests, would be paid. However, the TGICI office closed down
without private complainants having been paid and, thus, they were constrained to file
criminal complaints against the incorporators and directors of TGICI.
Issue:
Whether or not accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Syndicated Estafa defined and penalized under Item 2 (a), Paragraph 4, Article 315 of the
RPC in relation to PD 1689?
Ruling:
Yes. In this case, a judicious review of the records reveals TGICIs modus operandi of
inducing the public to invest in it on the undertaking that their investment would be
returned with a very high monthly interest rate ranging from three to five and a half percent
45 | P a g e

2016
(3%-5.5%). Under such lucrative promise, the investing public are enticed to infuse funds
into TGICI. However, as the directors/incorporators of TGICI knew from the start that TGICI
is operating without any paid-up capital and has no clear trade by which it can pay the
assured profits to its investors, they cannot comply with their guarantee and had to simply
abscond with their investors money. To be sure, a Ponzi scheme is a type of investment
fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds
contributed by new investors. Its organizers often solicit new investors by promising to
invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many
Ponzi schemes, the perpetrators focus on attracting new money to make promised
payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance that investors are
profiting from a legitimate business. The idea behind this type of swindle is that the conman collects his money from his second or third round of investors and then absconds
before anyone else shows up to collect. Necessarily, Ponzi schemes only last weeks, or
months at the most.
It is clear that all the elements of Syndicated Esta/a, committed through a Ponzi
scheme, are present in this case, considering that: (a) the incorporators/directors of TGICI
comprising more than five (5) people, including herein accused-appellants, made false
pretenses and representations to the investing public -in this case, the private complainants
-regarding a supposed lucrative investment opportunity with TGICI in order to solicit
money from them; ( b) the said false pretenses and representations were made prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of fraud; (c) relying on the same, private complainants
invested their hard earned money into TGICI; and (d) the incorporators/directors of TGICI
ended up running away with the private complainants' investments, obviously to the
latter's prejudice.
GRACE DAVID Y CESAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 208320, August 19, 2015, Carpio, J.
The crime of simple estafa is ordinarily committed in the manner defined under the
Revised Penal Code; but if the accused resorts to falsification merely to facilitate and insure the
commission of estafa, then he is guilty of the complex crime of estafa through falsification.
Facts:
Hella Philippines, Inc. (Hella), hired Grace David (petitioner) as Traffic and Customs
Coordinator. Hella learned that petitioner had been misrepresenting the amounts she wrote
on several BOC Form No. 38-A alleging that petitioner made it appear that payments of
additional taxes were made to BOC, when in fact there was none. Petitioner falsified Land
Bank commercial documents by making it appear that Hella was assessed additional
customs duties for the release of its imports. The various amounts which were purportedly
for the payment of the assessed additional customs duties were misappropriated by
petitioner for her own personal use and benefit.
Issue:
46 | P a g e

2016
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the complex crime of Estafa through
Falsification of Commercial Documents.
Ruling:
Yes. Complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code refer to either (1)
an act which constitutes two or more grave or less grave offenses; or (2) an offense which is
a necessary means for committing another. The phrase necessary means in Article 48
does not mean indispensable; otherwise, the offense as a necessary means to commit
another would be an indispensable element of the latter and would be an ingredient
thereof. For instance, the crime of simple estafa is ordinarily committed in the manner
defined under the RPC; but if the accused resorts to falsification merely to facilitate and
insure the commission of estafa, then he is guilty of the complex crime of estafa through
falsification.
In this case, it was proven that petitioner falsified several BOC Form No. 38-A, a
commercial document, in order to facilitate and insure the commission of estafa. BOC Form
No. 38-A is a commercial document used by authorized collecting banks, such as Land Bank,
as official receipt for the payment of additional or deficiency customs taxes and duties. The
falsification of the BOC forms, which are commercial documents, was a necessary means to
commit estafa. Hence, petitioner is guilty of the complex crime of Estafa through
Falsification of Commercial Documents.
People of the Philippines v. Suzette Arnaiz A.K.A. Baby Rosal
G.R. No. 205153 September 9, 2015, Villarama, Jr., J.
The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or third person
Facts:
Suzette Arnaiz is an officer of the travel agency called Florida Travel and Tours. She
recruited Edenelda Cayetano, Napoleon Bunuan, and Flerminio Cantor, Jr. promising that
the three will be deployed abroad to work. Due to such pretenses, the three paid Arnaiz
substantial amounts of money. However, they were not deployed abroad, instead they
found out that Florida Travel and Tours is not licensed to recruit workers for deployment
abroad. Failing to recover their money, they thus filed a complaint for Estafa against Arnaiz.
Issue:
Whether or not Arnaiz is guilty of Estafa.
Ruling:
Yes. The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
47 | P a g e

2016
estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. By means of deceit, appellant
made complainants believe that she had the proper authority to send them to work abroad,
for which reason they gave her substantial amounts of money. Appellant clearly misled the
complainants who believed she had the power to send them to work. They were required to
submit their bio-data and passports, and were asked to give substantial amounts of money
for the processing of their visas and other documents necessary for deployment. Efforts to
recover their money after they were not deployed for the promised work abroad failed
resulting to monetary damages on their part.
CLARITA ESTRELLADO-MAINAR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 184320, July 29, 2015, Brion, J.
One cannot be held liable for other forms of swindling under Art. 316, par. 1 of the
Revised Penal Code absent a finding that he/she employed fraud or deceit in the form of false
pretenses with regard to his/her ownership of the real property sold.
Facts:
Estrellado-Mainar offered for sale to Eric Naval a lot and told the latter that the title
to the land she was selling had no problems and that it would still be segregated from the
mother title. Estrellado-Mainar then sold the land to Naval and the latter built his house on
the land afterwards. However, representatives of JS Francisco and Sons, Inc. demolished
Navals house. Naval then discovered that the lot sold to him had been the subject of a
dispute between Estrellado-Mainars family and JS Francisco. Naval demanded from the
Estrellado-Mainar the return of the amount he paid for the land, and to pay the value of the
house demolished, but the latter refused. Estrellado-Mainar was charged with the crime of
other forms of swindling under Art. 316, par. 1 of the RPC before the MTCC. MTCC found
Estrellado-Mainar guilty of other forms of swindling under Art. 316, par. 2 of the RPC. The
RTC affirmed the conviction. Estrellado-Mainar filed a petition for review before the CA but
the same was dismissed for non-compliance with Sec. 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. She
argued that she did not misrepresent the subject land to be free from any lien or
encumbrance, thus she should not be liable for the crime.
Issue:
Whether or not Estrella-Mainar violated Art. 316, par. 1 of the RPC.
Ruling:
No. For a successful prosecution of the crime of swindling under Article 316,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the following essential elements of this crime must
be established: (1)that the thing be immovable, such as a parcel of land or a building; (2)
that the offender who is not the owner of said property should represent that he; is the
owner thereof; (3) that the offender should have executed an act of ownership, e.g., selling,
leasing, encumbering, or mortgaging the property; and (4) that the act be made to the
prejudice of the owner or a third person.
48 | P a g e

2016
In this case, the first, third and fourth elements are settled. However, with regard to
the second element, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the allegation in the
Information that the Estrella-Mainar pretended to be the lawful owner the lot. It is not
disputed that Naval was aware that the title to the land being sold to him was still under the
name of Estrella-Mainars father and that Estrella-Mainar told Naval that the tile to the land
would still have to be segregated from the mother title. Thus, it is clear then that EstrellaMainar did not pretend to be the owner of the property sold. The element of deceit or fraud
in the form of false pretenses with regard to ownership of the real property sold is therefore
wanting.
Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness
NONITO IMBO Y GAMORES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 197712, 20 April 2015, First Division, (Perez, J.)
Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative
evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration
by a credible witness.
Facts:
Imbo was accused of committing acts of lasciviousness upon his own daughter, AAA.
Imbo denied the charge claiming that his wife, CCC, merely fabricated such a story. The trial
court found AAAs testimony credible and convincing and rendered judgment convicting
Imbo of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness. The CA affirmed the RTCs conviction of
petitioner for Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC in relation to Sec. 5 of RA No.
7610.
Issue:
Whether the CA gravely erred in giving credence to the incredible and implausible
testimony of private complainant
Ruling:
On more than one occasion, the Court has held that the lone testimony of the
offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The fact that no
other member of their household corroborated the testimony of AAA is not definitive of the
commission of the crime. By its very nature, sexual abuse, in this case, acts of lasciviousness
by the petitioner against his own daughter, is generally done out of sight of people and is
only attested to by the victim and the perpetrator. On the other hand, the inconsistencies
pointed out by petitioner do not discount at all the possibility of him sexually abusing his
own daughter on the night in question. Lust is no respecter of time and place. In this case,
both the RTC and CA found the testimony AAA credible over petitioners defense of denial is
a weak defense as against the positive identification by, and straightforward narration of
the victim. Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving
49 | P a g e

2016
negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive
declaration by a credible witness.
Article 353. Definition of libel
ALEJANDRO ALMENDRAS JR. v. ALEXIS ALMENDRAS
GR NO. 179491, JANUARY 14, 2015, J. SERENO
For an imputation to be libelous under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the following
requisites must be present: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be
given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable.
Facts:
Alexis filed an action for damages arising from libel and defamation against
Alejandro in the Regional Trial Court, when the latter published the letter containing the
following:
This to notify your good self and your staff that one ALEXIS "DODONG" C.
ALMENDRAS, a brother, is not vested with any authority to liaison or transact any business
with any department, office, or bureau, public or otherwise, that has bearing or relation with
my office, mandates or functions. x x x.
Noteworthy to mention, perhaps, is the fact that Mr. Alexis Dodong C. Almendras, a
reknown blackmailer, is a bitter rival in the just concluded election of 1995 who ran against
the wishes of my father, the late Congressman Alejandro D. Almendras, Sr. He has caused pain
to the family when he filed cases against us: his brothers and sisters, and worst against his own
mother.
I deemed that his act of transacting business that affects my person and official
functions is malicious in purpose, done with ill motive and part of a larger plan of harassment
activities to perforce realise his egoistic and evil objectives. May I therefore request the
assistance of your office in circulating the above information to concerned officials and
secretariat employees of the House of Representatives. x x x
Alejandro on the other hand, denied having the intention to defame Alexis. He
insists that he has the legal, moral, or social duty to make the communication, or at least,
had an interest to protect, being then a Congressman duty-bound to insulate his office and
his constituents from the dubious and mistrustful pursuits of his elder brother. Moreover,
the letters were also not meant to be circulated or published. They were sent merely to
warn the individuals of respondents nefarious activities, and made in good faith and
without any actual malice.
Issue:
Whether or not Alejandro is guilty of Libel?
50 | P a g e

2016
Ruling:
Yes. Under Article 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious,
even if true, if no good intention and justifiable motive is shown. As an exception to the rule,
the presumption of malice is done away with when the defamatory imputation qualifies as
privileged communication. In order to qualify as privileged communication under Article
354, Number 1, the following requisites must concur: (1) the person who made the
communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the communication, or at least,
had an interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or of the one to whom it is
made; (2) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some
interest or duty in the matter, and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; and
(3) the statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice.
Malice can be presumed inasmuch as the letters are not privileged in nature.
Petitioner Alexandros contention that he has the legal, moral or social duty to make the
communication cannot be countenanced because he failed to communicate the statements
only to the person or persons who have some interest or duty in the matter alleged, and
who have the power to furnish the protection sought by the author of the statement. A
written letter containing libelous matter cannot be classified as privileged when it is
published and circulated among the public. Examination of the letters would reveal that
petitioner himself intended for the letters to be circulated (and they were so) when he said
that:
May I therefore request the assistance of your office in circulating the above
information to concerned officials and secretariat employees of the House of Representatives.
This lack of selectivity on his part is indicative of malice and is anathema to his claim
of privileged communication because such publication created upon the minds of the readers a
circumstance which brought discredit and shame to respondents reputation.
Article 365. Imprudence and negligence
ROGELIO J. GONZAGA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 195671. January 21, 2015. First Division. Perlas-Bernabe, J.
In order to establish a motorists liability for the negligent operation of a vehicle, it
must be shown that there was a direct causal connection between such negligence and the
injuries or damages complained of.
Facts:
Dionesio Inguito, Sr. was driving his two minor children to school when they had a
head-on collision with a car driven by Rogelio J. Gonzaga (Rogelio) who, at the time of the
incident, was driving on the wrong side of the road. The two children sustained injuries
while their father died notwithstanding medical operation performed. Later, Rogelio was
charged with the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with Double Serious
Physical Injuries and Damage to Property under Article 365 in relation to Article 263 of the
51 | P a g e

2016
RPC aggravated by the failure of the accused to provide help during the incident. Regelio
pleaded not guilty to the charge. The RTC convicted Rogelio holding that Rogelios act of
driving very fast on the wrong side of the road was the proximate cause of the collision,
resulting to the death of Dionesio, Sr. and serious physical injuries to Dionesio, Jr. and
Cherry. Motion for reconsideration filed by Rogelio was partly granted and the decision was
modified as to the penalty imposed however on appeal, the CA reinstated the original
decision of the RTC.
Issue:
Whether or not Rogelio is guilty of the crime charged.
Ruling:
Yes. To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act must be something more
than a mere negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle a willful and wanton disregard
of the consequences is required. Willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of
others within the meaning of reckless driving statutes has been held to involve a conscious
choice of a course of action which injures another, either with knowledge of serious danger
to others involved, or with knowledge of facts which would disclose the danger to any
reasonable person. Notably, the road where the incident occurred was a curve sloping
upwards towards Brgy. Bocboc where the Inguitos were bound and descending towards the
opposite direction where Rogelio was going. Indeed, the very fact of speeding, under such
circumstances, is indicative of imprudent behavior. Hence, excessive speed, combined with
other circumstances such as the occurrence of the accident on or near a curve, as in this
case, constitutes negligence. Consequently, the Court finds that Rogelio acted recklessly and
imprudently in driving at a fast speed on the wrong side of the road while approaching the
curve where the incident happened, thereby rendering him criminally liable as well as
civilly accountable for the material damages resulting therefrom. Furthermore, the Court is
inclined to sustain Rogelios claim that he tried to extend help to the victims. Hence, in
imposing the proper penalty on the accused, the qualifying circumstance under the last
paragraph of Article 365 of the RPC should not be considered.
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA No. 9165)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO BOCADI Y APATAN,
ACCUSED, ALBERTO BATICOLON Y RAMIREZ, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 193388, July 01, 2015, PEREZ, J.
A buy-bust operation, albeit made without the participation of PDEA, does not violate
appellant's constitutional right to be protected from illegal arrest.
Facts:
52 | P a g e

2016
Baticolon and Bocadi were charged with a violation of Article II of R.A No. 9165. Special
Investigator Fineza of the NBI received a report regarding an open sale of shabu in one
barangay. A buy-bust operation was formed by the authorities. Bocadi offered Fineza shabu
and the latter handed the marked bills to Baticolon. Bocadi and Baticolon were immediately
arrested. The trial court ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the fact that both
accused were caught in flagrante delicto in a valid buy-bust operation. Baticolon questions
the validity of the buy-bust operation. He contends that with the enactment of R.A. No. 9165,
it is now required that all anti-drug operations shall be coordinated with the PDEA, and only
specially trained and competent drug enforcement personnel shall conduct drug
enforcement operations. He argues that the NBIs operation is highly questionable
considering that it is neither a deputized agent of PDEA nor is buy-bust operations its
primary mandate. Baticolon also submits that the evidence presented against him were
insufficient for his conviction, especially considering the non-presentation of the marked
money by the prosecution.
Issue:
1. Was there a valid buy-bust operation?
2. Whether or not the non-presentation of the marked money is fatal to the case of
the prosecution.
Ruling:
1. Baticolon's argument is no longer novel. In People v. Sta. Maria, this Court has
already ruled that a buy-bust operation, albeit made without the participation of PDEA, does
not violate appellant's constitutional right to be protected from illegal arrest. There is nothing
in Republic Act No. 9165 which even remotely indicate the intention of the legislature to
make an arrest made without the participation of the PDEA illegal and evidence obtained
pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Moreover, the law did not deprive the PNP of the
power to make arrests. Further, such contention is untenable because in this case the
prosecution was able to establish that coordination with the PDEA was made prior to the
buy-bust operation and even after the arrests were made. It is therefore evident that the
arrests made by the NBI were legal and the evidence seized therefrom admissible in
evidence.
2. It is clear from the aforesaid issuance that the presentation of the marked money
is not essential in the validity of arrest. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the
presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation. It is sufficient to show that
the illicit transaction did take place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti in evidence. These were done, and were proved by the prosecution's evidence. In this
case; the prosecution has successfully established the unbroken chain of custody over the
seized drugs. After the buy-bust operation was completed, SI Fineza pre-marked the items
seized and brought these to the NBI office for photograph and inventory. At the NBI office,
an inventory of the seized items was conducted and these were photographed in the
presence of a Sky Cable media man, barangay kagawad and a PDEA representative. A
photograph of the accused with the seized items was also taken. SI Fineza then prepared a
written request for laboratory examination. The written request for laboratory examination
and the item seized were, thereafter, delivered by SI Fineza to the Negros Oriental PNP
53 | P a g e

2016
Provincial Crime Laboratory for examination. The request and seized item were received by
PSI Llena, the forensic chemist who conducted a chemistry examination of the substance.15
In her Chemistry Report No. D-039-05, Police Senior Inspector Josephine S. Llena (PSI
Llena) certified that the specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.16
The substance tested was .the same item marked; offered in evidence as Exhibit "D" 17494;
and positively identified during trial by SI Fineza as the very same item sold by and taken
from Bocadi during the buy-bust operation.
The Court has previously ruled that as long as the state can show by record or
testimony that the integrity of the evidence has not been compromised by accounting for the
continuous whereabouts of the object evidence at least between the time it came into the
possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory, then the prosecution can
maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RECTO ANGNGAO and ROBERT CARLIN
G.R. No. 189296, March 11, 2015, J. Bersamin
The integrity of the evidence presented the corpus delicti no less became suspicious
by the mysterious silence of the record on what transpired after the transaction.
Facts:
After a buy-bust operation involving the accused Recto Angngao and Robert Carlin
and the apprehender SPO4 Marquez Madlon, the confiscated substances brought to the
Benguet Provincial Crime Laboratory Office identified and testified the same positive for
marjijuana resin and hashish oil. The Office of the City Prosecutor filed in the RTC two (2)
informations against the accused, charging them with illegal sale and possession of the said
dangerous drugs. The RTC convicted Angngao but acquitted Carlin. The CA affirmed the
RTCs ruling.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution has established the chain of custody of the
confiscated drugs.
Ruling:
No. The integrity of the evidence presented the corpus delicti no less became
suspicious by the mysterious silence of the record on what transpired after the transaction.
On its part, the RTC, after reliving the buy-bust operation, uncharacteristically jumped to
the conclusion that the accused was guilty as charged by declaring that the prosecution
was able to establish these elements [of illegal sale of dangerous drugs] beyond moral
certainty, and that the accused was validly searched by the police officers after his lawful
arrest and same yielded approximately one-half liter of the potent dangerous drug hash oil
or resin. In the same breath, the RTC rejected the accuseds denial and alibi as inherently
weak defenses. In turn, the CA devoted little, if any, discussion on the chain of custody vis-vis the seized drugs.
54 | P a g e

2016
In turn, the CA devoted little, if any, discussion on the chain of custody vis--vis the seized
drugs.
Such treatment by the two lower courts of a matter as essential to the conviction as
the chain of custody is not surprising. To be more specific, the assailed decisions of both the
RTC and the CA do not show that the arresting lawmen had marked the seized drugs
immediately upon confiscation at the site of the arrest, or even later on in the police station.
In fact, the RTC did not advert to any markings at all. Although the CA noted that the drugs
were marked with the initials of the apprehending police officers, the circumstances
attendant to such markings, like when and where the markings were done, were not
sufficiently revealed. In particular, SPO4 Madlon, SPO4 Lucas and SPO2 Agbayani did not
indicate whether the seized items had been marked right away following the confiscation,
or later on in the police station, as their respective testimonies show. Other than the
response of SPO2 Agbayani to the question pertaining to the date appearing on the
markings, nothing shows how such markings were obtained and the circumstances
surrounding that important link in the chain. The members of the buy-bust team did not
even mention in the Joint Affidavit of Arrest or in the Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer that they
had marked the drugs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RAKIM MINANGA y DUMANSAL, G.R. No. 202837,
January 21, 2015, VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The essential elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is
not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possess the said drug.
Facts:
Appellant was charged with violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, for illegal possession of shabu. At the trial, PNP officers assigned with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency, and a Forensic Chemist, testified for the prosecution that the
appellant was arrested in a buy-bust operation. On the other hand, the defense gave a
different version of the story. He said that there was no buy-bust operation conducted at
that time and denied the charge against him. The RTC found appellant guilty. The RTC held
that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of illegal possession of drugs in this
case. The RTC said that appellants assertion that money was handed by the Muslim to the
police officers in his presence is illogical, uncommon and unconvincing. The RTC also found
that the two other defense witnesses lacked candor and their combined testimonies have
earmarks of falsehood. The CA affirmed the RTCs Decision. The appellant claimed that his
guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellants guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
55 | P a g e

2016
Yes. The essential elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possess the said drug.
The essential elements were proven in this case. Appellant was caught in flagrante
possessing 12.882 grams of shabu, a dangerous drug, packed in four big sachets. His
possession of said dangerous drugs is not authorized by law. And he was freely and
consciously possessing the contraband as shown by his act of handing these four sachets to
PO1 Condez in an intended sale. We note that appellant was positively identified by PO1
Condez as the one who handed over the four sachets. However, the money was not given to
appellant as it was intended only as show money. The Court gave full faith and credence to
the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the presumption of regularity in the
apprehending officers performance of official duty. It is a settled rule that in cases involving
violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are
police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner,
unless there is evidence to the contrary.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANDER DACUMA Y LUNSOD
The following requisites are necessary in order to successfully prosecute an offense of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and
consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
Facts:
After being caught in the act of selling shabu in the buy-bust operation conducted,
the police officers apprehended Sander Dacuma and brought him to the police station.
Barangay Councilor Lesiguez and a certain Councilor Macalinao were summoned by the
police officers to conduct a body search on the person of Dacuma inside the police station
where three sachets of shabu, marked money and one disposable lighter were recovered
from Dacuma. Two sets of information were filed against Dacuma for illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drug. The RTC found him guilty of illegal sale but dismissed the
charge for illegal possession for insufficiency of evidence. The said decision was affirmed by
the CA.
Issue:
Whether or not Dacuma is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 5 RA
9165.
Ruling:
No. The following requisites are necessary in order to successfully prosecute an
offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.
56 | P a g e

2016
In the prosecution of illegal sale, what is essential is to prove that the transaction or
sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus
delicti. The consummation of sale is perfected the moment the buyer receives the drug from
the seller. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that the four sachets which tested
positive for shabu and eventually presented in court were the same ones confiscated by the
police officers due to its non-marking at the place where the buy-bust operation was
committed at the police station. In this case, records show that the first element to establish
chain of custody which is the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer is missing to establish illegal sale.
In a number of cases, the Court sanctioned substantial compliance with the
procedure to establish a chain of custody, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team/officers. There is a
liberality on minor deviations as long as there is no gross disregard of the procedural
safeguards prescribed in the substantive law. However, when serious uncertainty is
generated about the identity of the seized items presented in evidence, liberality ceases and
presumption of innocence takes precedence over substantial compliance.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA NEPOMUCENO y PEDRAZA
G.R. No. 194999, February 9, 2015, Del Castillo, J.
The elements of Illegal sale of drugs are: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object and consideration; and, (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor."
This offense merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which occurs the
moment the buyer exchanges his money for the drugs of the seller.
Facts:
The prosecution established that the Chief of the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) of
the Makati Philippine National Police (PNP) received a report from a confidential informant
(CI) that appellant was selling shabu. He thus formed a buy-bust team to entrap appellant
composed of PO2 Barrameda, who was designated as the poseur-buyer and team leader,
PO2 Virginio Costa, PO2 Rodrigo Igno, PO1 Alex Inopia, and PO1 Santos. The buy-bust
operation was then performed. PO1 Barrameda marked the subject plastic sachet with the
initials "GPN." Appellant was then arrested and brought to the DEU of Makati where she was
turned over to the duty investigator for documentation. Thereafter, appellant and the seized
plastic sachet with its contents were taken to the PNP Crime Laboratory for drug testing
and laboratory examination, respectively. Specimen of the white crystalline taken from the
plastic sachet tested positive for shabu. The RTC convicted the appellant for illegal sale of
shabu. The CA denied her appeal; hence, the case.
Issue:
Whether or not accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Ruling:
57 | P a g e

2016
Yes.The Court is satisfied that the prosecution discharged its burden in a
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. This offense merely requires the
consummation of the selling transaction, which occurs the moment the buyer exchanges his
money for the drugs of the seller. PO2 Barrameda, the police officer who acted as buyer,
testified on the buybust operation against appellant and positively identified her as the
seller of the seized shabu that was sold to him for P100.00. PO1 Santos, another police
officer and member of the buy-bust team, corroborated the testimony of PO2 Barrameda.
While they had not seen appellant prior to the buy-bust operation, the CI readily identified
and introduced her to PO2 Barrameda. In this case, it is admitted that there was no physical
inventory and photographing of the seized drug as mandated by law. However, it was
shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the item has been preserved and remained
intact. The crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized drug subject matter of the case
from its confiscation from appellant up to its presentation as evidence was duly accounted
for and shown to have not been broken. Considering this sequence of events, there is no
doubt that the sachet marked "GPN" submitted for laboratory examination and found
positive for shabu was the same one sold to the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation
and the very same item presented during the trial as the corpus delicti. No irregularity was
shown to have attended the chain of custody of the shabu. Its identity, integrity and
probative value were preserved and kept intact by the police officers.
PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES v. VIRGILIO LARGO PERONDO
G.R. No. 193855, February 18, 2015, DEL CASTILLO, J.
In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must
concur: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material in a prosecution for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti."
Facts:
On July 20, 2003, SPO2 Genzon, SPO1 James Estrera (SPO1 Estrera), PO3 Emmanuel
Sarmiento (PO3 Sarmiento) and PO3 Tapanan were briefed regarding a planned buy-bust
operation to be conducted against accused Virgilio Largo Perondo on that same day in Brgy.
San Roque, Cebu City. During the briefing, a civilian asset was designated as the poseurbuyer and two 50-peso marked bills were given to him as buy-bust money. The team
proceeded to the target area and strategically positioned themselves 10 to 15 meters away
from the barangay hall where accused was seen standing. The poseur-buyer approached
accused. After briefly talking to the latter, the poseur-buyer took out the 50-peso marked
bills from his pocket and gave them to the accused. In exchange, accused handed over to the
poseur-buyer a small plastic pack containing white crystalline substance. The poseur-buyer
examined it and then touched his head, which was the pre-arranged signal that the
transaction was already consummated. The members of the buy-bust team then rushed to
the scene and arrested the accused. They recovered from him the buy-bust money. The
accused denied that a buy-bust operation was conducted against him. The RTC found the
accused guilty of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The CA affirmed
the decision of the RTC in toto.
58 | P a g e

2016
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Ruling:
Yes. In this case, the prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the
essential elements of illegal sale of shabu. Accused was positively identified by the police
officers who conducted the buy-bust operation as the person who sold the shabu to the
poseur buyer. Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the
police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Here, the Court finds no reason to
doubt the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies.
The Court is not impressed with accuseds insistence that the failure to present the
poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution. It must be noted that whatever relevant
information the poseur-buyer may have was also equally known to the police officers who
testified for the prosecution during trial. This is considering that they all participated in the
planning and implementation of the buy-bust operation and were all direct witnesses to the
actual sale of the shabu, the accuseds arrest immediately thereafter, and the recovery from
him of the marked money.
Moreover, accuseds defenses of denial and frame-up do not deserve credence.
Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses. On the other
hand, frame-up is viewed with disfavor since it can easily be fabricated and is a common
ploy in prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. For these defenses to
prosper, they must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. However, none exists in
this case.
Lastly, accused's argument that the buy-bust operation is fatally flawed for failure of
the police officers to coordinate with the PDEA deserves scant consideration. Coordination
with the PDEA is not a crucial requisite of a proper buy-bust operation; it is not invalidated by
mere non-coordination with the PDEA.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DANTE DELA PEA and DENNIS DELIMA
G.R. No. 207635, February 18, 2015, VILLARAMA, JR., J.
A surveillance, pre-operation report, and buy-bust money are not elements of, and are
not vital to the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu. What is material to the prosecution of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the illegal sale actually took place, coupled
with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. Possession of dangerous drugs
constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an
accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession.
Facts:
Appellant Dante Dela Pea (Dela Pea) was charged with violation of Section 5,
Article II, R.A. 9165 for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu while Dennis Delima
59 | P a g e

2016
(Delima) was charged with illegal possession of shabu. When Intelligence Officer 1
Ferdenand Kintanar (IO1 Kintanar) received a report from their confidential informant that
Dela Pea was selling shabuin Barangay Sawang Calero, Cebu City, a team of PDEA officers
was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation against Dela Pea. IO1 Kintanar was tasked to
act as poseur-buyer. The team, accompanied by their confidential informant, proceeded to
Barangay Sawang Calero. When they finally found Dela Pea standing along the road with
Delima, IO1 Kintanar and the confidential informant approached him and informed Dela
Pea of their intention to buy shabu. IO1 Kintanar handed the marked money to Dela Pea,
who, in turn, handed a small sachet of suspected shabu. Delima, who was beside Dela Pea,
also showed a sachet of suspected shabu to IO1 Kintanar The group arrested Dela Pea and
Delima.IO1 Kintanar seized from Dela Pea the buy-bust money and 4 sachets of suspected
shabu. On the other hand, IO1 Rallos, who arrested Delima recovered from the latter a small
sachet of shabu which he turned over to IO1 Kintanar. Both appellants interposed the
defense of denial. The RTC found Dela Pea and Delima guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crimes charged. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Issue:
Whether or not Dela Pea and Delimas guilt for the crimes charged was established
by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
Yes. The elements necessary for the prosecution of a charge for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 are: (1) the identities of the buyer
and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment therefor. On the other hand, the elements of the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drug are: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to
be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
All the elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu, a
dangerous drug, were clearly proven by the prosecution through the credible testimony of
IO1 Kintanar. The identity of the parties to the sale transaction (Dela Pea and IO1
Kintanar) involving the subject sachet of shabu worth P300.00 and the consummation of the
sale were duly established by IO1 Kintanar. IO1 Kintanars testimony likewise established
the illegal possession of sachets of shabu by Dela Pea and Delima. No ill motive was shown
by the defense for IO1 Kintanar to unjustly implicate Dela Pea and Delima in the present
cases. Where there is no evidence that the principal witness for the prosecution was
actuated by improper motive, like IO1 Kintanar in the present case, the presumption is that
he was not actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.
Here, the unbroken chain of custody of the sachets of shabu seized from Dela Pea
and Delima was established by the prosecution through the testimonies of IO1 Kintanar and
IO1 Rallos, from the time of their confiscation and delivery to the crime laboratory for
examination until their presentation in court. In any event, we emphasized in People v.
Abedin that what is of utmost importance is to preserve the integrity and the evidentiary
60 | P a g e

2016
value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused. The failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with Section 21
of R.A. 9165 is not fatal, and its non-compliance will not render the arrest of an accused
illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.
PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES v. ALFREDO REYES y SANTOS
G.R. No. 194606, February 18, 2015, DEL CASTILLO, J.
To establish the guilt of an accused for the illegal delivery of a dangerous drug, there
must be evidence that "(1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another,
personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery" is not authorized by law; and (3)
the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration.
Facts:
On June 28, 2005, a confidential informant (CI) went to the PDEA office in Camp
Diego Silang, San Fernando City, La Union and reported to SPO1 Rene Acosta (SPO1 Acosta)
that appellant Alfredo Reyes was selling shabu. Senior Inspector Reynaldo Lizardo (Sr. Insp.
Lizardo) formed a buy-bust team and designated SPO1 Acosta as poseur-buyer. The CI
contacted appellant by cellular phone and introduced SPO1 Acosta as a buyer of shabu.
SPO1 Acosta then talked to appellant and they agreed to meet. On June 29, 2005, SPO1
Acosta and PDEA Agent Ellizier Ignacio (Ignacio) arrived in the designated area. Appellant
arrived with the CI and approached SPO1 Acosta. The CI then introduced SPO1 Acosta to
appellant as the buyer of shabu. SPO1 Acosta asked him if he has the stuff and if SPO1
Acosta could see them. Appellant thus handed over to SPO1 Acosta two plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance. SPO1 Acosta then made the pre-arranged signal by
removing the towel from his shoulder to indicate the completion of the transaction. Ignacio
thus rushed to SPO1 Acosta and together, they arrested appellant. Appellant denied the
accusations against him. The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The CA affirmed the RTCs
judgment of conviction.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Ruling:
Yes. Appellants conviction must be sustained albeit with modification. All elements
of illegal sale of dangerous drugs must be proven; receipt of appellant of payment for the
purported sale of shabu was not established in this case. The crime of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, such as shabu, has the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer
and the seller, the object, and consideration; (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the
seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.
61 | P a g e

2016
In this case, SPO1 Acosta positively identified appellant as the person he transacted
with and who handed to him the two sachets of shabu presented in court. However, and as
correctly pointed out by appellant, the prosecution was unable to discharge its burden of
establishing the element of consideration or payment for the sachets of shabu. SPO1 Acosta
practically admitted in his testimony the lack of consideration or payment for the sachets of
shabu delivered to him by appellant. The element of receipt of payment for the thing sold is
absent in this case. Hence, the offense of illegal sale of shabu against appellant cannot stand.
However, this finding does not necessarily result in appellants exoneration. Appellant is
guilty instead of illegal delivery of shabu. The Information states that appellant did "wilfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver" to PO1 Acosta plastic sachets containing shabu
with a total weight of 1.67 grams. Thus, the charge against him was not confined to the sale
of shabu.
Under Article I, Section 3(k) of the same statute, the term "deliver" means "any act
of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any
means, with or without consideration." On the other hand, "sell" as defined in Section 3(ii)
refers to "any act of giving away any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical whether for money or any other consideration."
In this case, there was a prior arrangement between SPO1 Acosta and appellant to
meet. During the scheduled meeting, SPO1 Acosta introduced himself and asked appellant
for the shabu. Appellant responded by taking out from his pocket the shabu and handing
over its possession to SPO1 Acosta without receiving any payment therefor. Appellant had
no authority under the law to deliver the shabu since he was working as a carpenter at the
time of his arrest. Appellant likewise knowingly and voluntarily made the delivery. On the
basis therefore of the charges against appellant and the evidence presented by the
prosecution, he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal delivery of shabu under Section
5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERIC ROSAURO y BONGCAWIL
G.R. No. 209588, February 18, 2015, PEREZ, J.
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.
Facts:
On July 3, 2004, the police authorities received information from their confidential
agent that drugs were being distributed at Barangay Poblacion, Villanueva, Misamis
Oriental. Thus, the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Unit (PAID-SOTU)
elements led by SPO4 Lorenzo Larot and PO3 Juancho Dizon positioned themselves in the
house of their confidential agent. The PAID-SOTU elements saw Eric Rosauro (Rosauro)
negotiate with their confidential agent. In exchange for the one sachet of shabu given by
Rosauro to the confidential agent, the latter gave him a marked P100 bill. Larot and Dizon
came out of their hiding place and arrested Rosauro. Thereafter, the confidential agent
handed the sachet to Larot, who taped and marked it "Exhibit A", and placed it inside his
62 | P a g e

2016
pocket. He also took pictures of Rosauro and the drugs. Both the drugs and Rosauro were
then turned over to the Crime laboratory. The examination of the seized item yielded
positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). For his defense, Rosauro
claims that he was merely a victim of instigation and the sachet of shabu was not even
recovered from him but from the confidential informant. The RTC found Rosauro guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for selling and delivering a sachet of shabu to the poseur buyer a
Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The CA affirmed the RTC judgment ruling that
what transpired was an entrapment, not an instigation and that prosecution was able to
present the required unbroken chain in the custody of the subject drug.
Issue:
Whether or not Rosauro was guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged.
Ruling:
Yes. The RTC and the CA both found the arrest of accused-appellant to be the result
of a legitimate entrapment procedure, and we find nothing in the records as to warrant a
contrary finding. As to whether accused-appellants guilt was established beyond
reasonable doubt, we rule in the affirmative. In a catena of cases, this Court laid down the
essential elements to be duly established for a successful prosecution of offenses involving
the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs, like shabu, under Section 5, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165, to wit: (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 payment therefor. Briefly, the
delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the
seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the
proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti.
Verily, all the elements for a conviction of illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited
drugs were proven by the prosecution: the identity of accused-appellant as the seller, and
that of the confidential informant as poseur-buyer were established, as well as the exchange
of the sachet of shabu and the marked money. It was also ascertained that the seized item
was positive for shabu, a dangerous drug, and that the same item was properly identified in
open court by SPO4 Larot.
However, this Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should
ideally be perfect, in reality 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. Hence, the
prosecutions failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the
seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R. A. No. 9165, will not render the accuseds
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.
63 | P a g e

2016
In the case at bar, after the sale was consummated, the confidential informant gave
the seized item to SPO4 Larot who placed tape on the sachet and marked it "Exhibit A."
Upon reaching the police station, SPO4 Larot executed the Certificate of Inventory, as well
as the request for laboratory examination. The request, the specimen, as well as the marked
money and accused-appellant were then brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
examination. They were received by SPO2 Ricardo Maisog, the Receiving Clerk of the PNP
Crime Laboratory Office, who then forwarded them to Police Inspector Ma. Leocy Jabonillo
Mag-abo, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory. Moreover, the seized
item was duly identified by SPO4 Larot in open court as the same item seized from accusedappellant.
MANUEL R. PORTUGUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 194499; JANUARY 14, 2015; VILLARAMA, JR., J.
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.
Facts:
On April 16, 2003, a confidential asset went to the Pasig City Police Station, to report
the illegal drug activities of a certain alias Bobot at Pasig City. Upon receipt of the
information, the chief of said station formed a buy-bust team wherein PO1 Mariano was
designated as the poseur-buyer. Arriving thereat, the asset pointed to Bobot as the target
person. PO1 Mariano saw Bobot and petitioner transacting illegal drugs. When PO1 Mariano
and the asset met petitioner and Bobot on the road, the asset asked petitioner, Pre, meron
pa ba? At this point, petitioner looked at PO1 Mariano and thereafter, attempted to run.
However, PO1 Mariano was able to take hold of him. Then, the other police operatives
arrived. Petitioner was asked to open his hand. Upon seeing the suspected shabu on his
hand, they arrested petitioner, informed him of his constitutional rights and boarded him on
their service vehicle. Before leaving the area, PO1 Mariano placed the markings EXH A ARM
04-16-03 on the seized shabu. Thereafter, the police operatives brought petitioner to the
Rizal Medical Center for physical examination before they proceeded to the police station
for investigation. Petitioner claims that there were no inventory and photographs of the
prohibited item allegedly seized from him. He argues that as a result of this failure, there is
doubt as to the identity and integrity of the drugs, and there was a break in the chain of
custody of the evidence.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the essential elements illegal possession of dangerous drugs were
proven in this case.
2. Whether or not the absence of inventory and photograph created doubt as to the
identity and integrity of the drugs, and there was a break in the chain of custody of the
evidence.
64 | P a g e

2016
Ruling:
1. YES. The essential elements in illegal possession of dangerous drugs are (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possess the said drug. A close look at the sequence of events narrated by the prosecution
witnesses particularly by PO1 Mariano indicates that an intended buy-bust operation was
about to be carried out against Bobot. Said operation was not successful as no sale took
place between the intended poseur-buyer, PO1 Mariano, and Bobot. Bobot was also able to
evade arrest. Nonetheless, PO1 Mariano and the asset chanced upon an ongoing transaction
between petitioner and Bobot. It bears stressing that petitioner was particularly identified
by PO1 Mariano as the person who bought the suspected sachet of shabu from Bobot. When
petitioner attempted to run, PO1 Mariano was able to grab him. And when petitioner was
asked to open his hand, found in his possession was the same sachet that he bought from
Bobot. Through chemical analysis, the contents of the same sachet were found to be shabu.
2. NO. The Court has held that non-compliance with the above-mentioned
requirements is not fatal. 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 was established
through the following link: (1) PO1 Mariano marked the seized sachet subject of the in
flagrante delicto arrest with EXH A ARM 04-16-03 which stands for his full name, Aldrin
Reyes Mariano; (2) a request for laboratory examination of the seized item was signed by
P/Sr. Insp. Rodrigo E. Villaruel; (3) the request and the marked item seized were personally
delivered by PO1 Sabo and received by the PNP Crime Laboratory on the same day of the
arrest on April 16, 2003; (4) Chemistry Report No. D-687-03E confirmed that the marked
item seized from petitioner was methamphetamine hydrochloride; and (5) the marked item
was duly identified by PO1 Mariano in court and offered in evidence. Hence, it is clear that
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERARDO ENUMERABLE y DE VILLA, G.R. No. 207993,
JANUARY 21, 2015, CARPIO, J.
The dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its
existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.
Facts:
Appellant Gerardo was charged for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. The prosecution presented two
witnesses. On the other hand, appellant waived the presentation of any defense evidence.
While appellant waived the presentation of evidence for his defense, he disputed the
identity and integrity of the illegal drug which is the corpus delicti of the offense charged
against him. Appellant maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the unbroken chain
of custody of the illegal drug which gravely impairs its identity. Without the identity of the
corpus delicti being sufficiently established, appellant claimed that he should be acquitted.
65 | P a g e

2016
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the
confiscated illegal drug, which is the corpus delicti of the offense charged against appellant.
Ruling:
No. It is settled that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drug, not only must
the essential elements of the offense be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but likewise the
identity of the prohibited drug. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of
the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Necessarily, the
prosecution must establish that the substance seized from the accused is the same
substance offered in court as exhibit. In this regard, the prosecution must sufficiently prove
the unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated illegal drug. While this Court recognizes
substantial adherence to the requirements of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules and
regulations, not perfect adherence, is what is demanded of police officers attending to drugs
cases, still, such officers must present justifiable reason for their imperfect conduct and
show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved.
In this case, there was a glaring gap in the custody of the illegal drug since the
prosecution failed to sufficiently establish who had custody of the illegal drug from the
moment it was allegedly transmitted to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory on 27
May 2004 until it was allegedly delivered to the Regional Crime Laboratory on 4 June 2004.
There was no evidence presented how the confiscated sachets of shabu were stored,
preserved or labeled nor who had custody prior to their delivery to the Regional Crime
Laboratory and their subsequent presentation before the trial court. This is evident from
the testimony of PO3 Villas, who stated he had no knowledge on who had custody of the
sachets of shabu from 27 May 2004 until 4 June 2004. Since the failure of the prosecution to
establish every link in the chain of custody of the illegal drug gravely compromised its
identity and integrity, which illegal drug is the corpus delicti of the offense charged against
appellant, his acquittal is therefore in order.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BIENVENIDO MIRANDA Y FELICIANO

G.R. No. 209338, June 29, 2015, Villarama, Jr., J.
Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs if the
following are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereto.
Facts:
Based on a tip, a certain Dawie, later identified as Bienvenido Miranda is engaged
in the selling of shabu. A buy-bust operation was conducted in which P/CI Chica was
designated as the poseur-buyer so he prepared the buy-bust money consisting of 2 Php 100
bills which he marked. Miranda gave a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu and Chica
66 | P a g e

2016
paid using the marked money. When Chica made the pre-arranged signal, the other
members of the team rushed to the scene and he introduced himself as a police officer.
Miranda tried to flee, but Chairman Cruz was able to grab him by his left hand and recover
another plastic sachet of suspected shabu. The police officers asked Miranda to empty his
pockets and they recovered the marked money from him and brought him and the seized
drugs to the PDEA office. They prepared the Receipt of Property Seized/Confiscations which
Miranda refused to sign. P/CI Chica marked the sachet bought from Miranda as well as the
sachet recovered by Chairman Cruz from Miranda. Chica also prepared a Request for
Laboratory Examination for the weighing of the evidence. Moreso, the result yielded a
positive result to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. The RTC ruled that
Miranda committed the crimes and that all the elements are present for violation of Secs. 5
and 11 of R.A. 9165 in separate criminal cases. The CA affirmed the RTCs Decision stating
that the inconsistencies noted by the defense are minor in nature and were not crucial to
establish the offenses committed by the Miranda.
Issue:
1. Whether or not accuseds guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether or not the chain of custody was duly established.
Ruling:
1. Yes. Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous
drugs if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
thereto. In this case, the prosecution duly established the identity of the buyer and the
seller, appellant being the seller and P/CI Chica as the poseur-buyer. The object of the
transaction was a sachet of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu marked as MCC
BFM Exhibit A weighing approximately 0.0363 gram and the consideration was the P200
marked money. Through the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the
prosecution both the object and consideration have also been sufficiently established. As to
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor, P/CI Chica categorically testified
that he caught appellant in flagrante delicto selling and delivering the shabu during a buybust operation. He also personally handed to appellant the marked money as payment for
the same. Clearly, the aforementioned elements are present in this case.
2. Yes. Non-compliance with the requirements of the chain of custody is not fatal.
In fact, it has been ruled time and again that non-compliance with Section 21 of the IRR does
not make the items seized inadmissible. Substantial compliance thereof is sufficient. What
is essential 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.
Here, the records reveal that the police officers substantially complied with the process of
preserving the integrity of the seized shabu.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO CARRERA y IMBAT
G.R. No. 215731, September 2, 2015, VILLARAMA, JR., J.
67 | P a g e

2016
Sec. 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 punishes not only the sale but also the mere
act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been
accepted by the seller.
Facts:
Police officers conducted a buybust operation in response to a tip they received that
a certain Rolando Carrera was engaged in illegal drug activities. During the operation,
Carrera pulled out from his pocket a transparent plastic wrapped with electrical tape and
handed it to poseur-buyer. Upon receipt of the plastic packet with the crystalline substance,
the poseur-buyer grabbed Carrera, introduced himself as PDEA agent, and removed his cap
to notify the team. Thereafter, Carrera was arrested and was convicted of illegal possession
of prohibited drugs.
Issue:
Whether or not illegal possession was the proper offense.
Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court disagreed with the CAs conclusion that Carrera is guilty of
illegal possession of a prohibited drug. Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 punishes acts in
addition to selling prohibited drugs. It must be emphasized that they were charged with
selling, trading, delivering, giving away, dispatching in transit and transporting dangerous
drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The charge was not limited to
selling. Said section punishes not only the sale but also the mere act of delivery of
prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the
seller. In the distribution of prohibited drugs, the payment of any consideration is
immaterial. The mere act of distributing the prohibited drugs to others is in itself a
punishable offense.
Carrera was charged with illegal sale and delivery of a prohibited drug under Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Based on the information and evidence presented, he may be
found liable of illegal delivery of prohibited drugs. A person may be convicted of illegal
delivery of dangerous drugs if it is proven that (1) the accused passed on possession of a
dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery is
not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without
consideration.
In this case, there was no payment from the poseur-buyer, hence Carrera is guilty of
illegal delivery.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONWALDO LAFARAN Y ACLAN,
Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 208015, October 14, 2015, Perez, J.
68 | P a g e

2016
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the proof
that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti.
Facts:
SPO3 Danilo Yema received reports that Ronwaldo Aclan, the accused, was selling
shabu, and such report was later confirmed. Then, his team planned and conducted a buybust operation. Their team had a briefing on what to do during the operation. Their asset
would use five (5) pieces 100-peso bills all of which were marked by PO3 Pera with her
initials "CEP". At the place where the asset would meet the accused, the police witnessed the
exchange between their asset and the accused: the asset gave the marked money to the
accused and the latter, after accepting the money, drew something from his pocket and
handed it to the asset. It turned out to be one (1) small plastic sachet containing suspected
shabu. The asset executed the pre-arranged signal by touching his head signifying that the
transaction has been completed. The police officers then alighted from their vehicle and
immediately approached the asset and the accused. As they accosted the accused, the asset
secretly handed the plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu to SPO2 Aro, who
immediately placed the markings "WGA-RAL." The accused was brought to the police
station and a forensic examination on the specimen was conducted. The accused denied the
allegations against him and tries to impute irregularity in the conduct of the buy-bust
operation. He claims that the chain of custody was not established.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of illegal sale of shabu.
Ruling:
Yes. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the
marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is
material, therefore, is the proof that the sale transpired and the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti. The testimonies of SPO2 Aro and PO3 Pera both establish the identity of
accused as the seller and its delivery and the payment for such. As to the identity of the
object of the sale and the payment, the testimony of PO3 Pera shows that she was the one
who prepared and recovered said marked bills from the right hand of accused-appellant. All
of these bills were duly presented in court. Also, the presentation of evidence of the seized
drug as the corpus delicti is equally important. 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. However, this Court has 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. In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to prove
the identity and integrity of the seized item. The testimony of SPO2 Aro establishes that the
plastic sachet given by accused-appellant to the poseur-buyer was, in turn, handed over by
the latter to him and that he marked it with his initials and the initials of accused-appellant
69 | P a g e

2016
"WGA-RAL." Also, the court stated that marking the plastic sachet in the police station is not
fatal to the prosecution's case. Accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIET PANCHO, AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 206910, October 14, 2015, Perez, J.
Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of
knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory
explanation of such possession
Facts:
On the basis of a search warrant, members of the CIDG conducted a search on the
house of the accused, Juliet Pancho. PO1 Veloso was designated as the searcher, while PO2
Ilagan was assigned as the recorder of the raiding team and they were accompanied by
three baranggay tanods. The search yielded three big plastic packets of suspected shabu
weighing a total of 14.49 grams, which were recovered under a jewelry box placed on top of
a cabinet divider. PO1 Veloso handed the packets of shabu to PO2 Ilagan who recorded them
in the confiscation receipt and made markings on the plastic packets. The raiding team
brought the accused to the police station. PO1 Veloso accompanied PO2 Ilagan in handing
over the seized articles and the letter-request to the PNP Crime Laboratory which issued
Chemistry Report No. D-1381-2005, confirming that the three heat-sealed transparent
plastic bags were tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The
accused denied the charge against her. She contends that there are inconsistencies in the
search conducted and that the requisites of sec. 21, par. 1, Art. 21 of RA No. 9165 were not
complied with.
Issue:
Whether or not the guilt of the accused has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
Yes. In order for prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper,
there must be proof that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified
to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3)
the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. The
prosecution has duly established all these elements. By virtue of a search warrant, POl
Veloso found three packets of suspected shabu in one of the rooms of accused-appellant's
house. Although the shabu were not found on her person but on top of a cabinet, still, the
accused was deemed to have been in constructive possession of the packets of shabu
because they were under her control and management. The accused is not authorized by
law to possess the shabu. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie
evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a
satisfactory explanation of such possession - the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to
explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. Accused-appellant's bare denials
70 | P a g e

2016
will not suffice to overcome the presumption of knowledge. With respect to noncompliance with procedure laid down in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs, the
primordial consideration is the preservation of the identity and integrity of the corpus
delicti. In the instant case, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was not broken.
The recovery and the handling of the seized illegal drugs were satisfactorily established in
this case.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SONIA BERNEL NUARIN
G.R. No. 188698. July 22, 2015. Second Division. Brion, J.
A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the
perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each element of the crime.
Facts:
After a buy-bust operation conducted by the members of the District Drug
Enforcement Group of the Central Police District, Sonia Bemel Nuarin was arrested for the
sale and possession of illegal drugs. Later, Nuarin was charged with the violation of Section
5, Article II of R.A. 9165 to which she pleaded not guilty. The RTC found Nuarin guilty of
illegal sale of shabu but acquitted the appellant from the charged of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. In this present petition, the
appellant contends that the prosecution failed to establish that the buy-bust operation took
place and she maintained that the chain of custody over the seized shabu had been broken.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime charged.
Ruling:
No. The prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A successful
prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation of
evidence establishing each element of the crime: the identities of the buyer and seller, the
transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and the existence of the corpus delicti. In securing or
sustaining a conviction under R.A. No. 9165, the intrinsic worth of these pieces of evidence,
especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, must definitely be shown to have
been preserved. Evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is
the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant. It is in this respect that
the prosecution failed.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDGAR BOLO Y FRANCO
G.R. No. 200295, August 19, 2015, Perez, J.
In a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs
under Section 5, Article II of [R.A. No.] 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the
identities of the buyer and [the] seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment for it. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.
71 | P a g e

2016
Facts:
Col. Cuaton, Chief of the SAID SOU of the Caloocan City Police Station, acting on an
information that an alias Gagay was engaged in illegal drug activities at Caloocan City,
ordered that a buy bust team be formed to conduct an operation against the said person.
The buy-bust team then proceeded to the target place at Caloocan City. As a result of the
said operation, the accused was arrested and plastic sachets were recovered from him. An
information was filed against him; hence, the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty as charged.
Ruling:
Yes. In a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs under Section 5, Article II of [R.A. No.] 9165, the following elements must concur: (1)
the identities of the buyer and [the] seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment for it. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.
In the case at bar, all these elements were proven. First, the three plastic sachets
containing shabu, which were the subjects of the charge for illegal possession of dangerous
or prohibited drugs, were seen by PO1 Montefrio and found on accused-appellant's person
by PO3 Pagsolingan following accused-appellant's arrest in flagrante delicto for the illegal
sale of shabu. Second, accused-appellant was not able to establish his legal authority to
possess the said shabu. And third, accused-appellant's act of giving PO1 Montefrio, the
poseur-buyer, one sachet and, in the process, bringing out three more sachets indicated that
he freely and consciously possessed the said shabu. Moreover, as testified to by PO3
Pagsolingan, after he recovered the three sachets from accused-appellant, he kept them
until he turned them over to PO2 Hipolito at the police station. PO2 Hipolito then marked
them (EBF-2, EBF-3 and EBF-4) and turned them over to PSI Dela Rosa who attested that
the substance inside the subject sachets was shabu. Consequently, accused-appellant was
rightfully convicted of illegal possession of shabu.
Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (RA No. 9262)
BBB,* v. AAA,*
G.R. No. 193225, February 9, 2015, Reyes, J.
It bears stressing that Section 23(d) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC20 explicitly prohibits
compromise on any act constituting the crime of violence against women.
Facts:
72 | P a g e

2016
[BBB] and [AAA] had a relationship when the latter was still raising her first child
borne [CCC] from a previous relationship. During the relationship with [BBB], [AAA] bore
two more children namely, [DDD] and [EEE]. To legalize their relationship, [BBB] and [AAA]
married in civil rights and thereafter, the birth certificates of the children, including [CCCs],
was amended to change their civil status to be legitimated by virtue of the said marriage.
However, the relationship was not perfect. There were fights and arguments which caused
them to have strained relationship that lead them to the filing of the case. Pending the
Courts deliberation of the instant case, BBB filed a Manifestation and Motion to Render
Judgment Based on a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). BBB alleges that on July 29, 2013,
he and AAA had entered into a compromise anent the custody, exercise of parental
authority over, and support of DDD and EEE.
Issue:
Whether or not the case is a proper subject of a compromise agreement.
Ruling:
The instant petition is not a proper subject of a compromise agreement. The Court
cannot take the simplest course of finally writing finis to the instant petition by rendering a
judgment merely based on compromise as prayed for by BBB due to reasons discussed
below. The rules, however, intend that cases filed under the provisions of R.A. No. 9262 be
not subjects of compromise agreements. It bears stressing that Section 23(d) of A.M. No. 0410-11-SC20 explicitly prohibits compromise on any act constituting the crime of violence
against women. Thus, in Garcia v. Drilon,21 the Court declared that: Violence, however, is not
a subject for compromise. A process which involves parties mediating the issue of violence
implies that the victim is somehow at fault. x x x.22 (Emphasis deleted) AM No. 10-4-16SC,23 on the other hand, directs the referral to mediation of all issues under the Family Code
and other laws in relation to support, custody, visitation, property relations and
guardianship of minor children, excepting therefrom those covered by R.A. No. 9262.
While AAA filed her application for a TPO and a PPO as an independent action and
not as an incidental relief prayed for in a criminal suit, the instant petition cannot be taken
outside the ambit of cases falling under the provisions of R.A. No. 9262. Perforce, the
prohibition against subjecting the instant petition to compromise applies.
Bouncing Checks Law (BP No. 22)
ARMILYN MORILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND RICHARD NATIVIDAD
G.R. No. 198270, December 09, 2015 PERALTA, J.
The court of the place where the check was deposited or presented for encashment can
be vested with jurisdiction to try cases involving violations of BP 22.
Facts:
73 | P a g e

2016
Armilyn Morillo delivered construction materials amounting to a total of
P500,054.00. Richard Natividad paid P20,000.00 in cash and issued two post-dated checks
drawn from Metrobank, Pampanga branch. Upon maturity, Morillo attempted to deposit the
checks in her savings account at Equitable PCI Bank, San Lorenzo, Makati City. They were,
however, dishonored by the drawee bank. Immediately thereafter, Morillo communicated
the dishonor demanded for payment. The checks issued by Natividad bounced again.
Thereafter, Morillo filed a complaint with the City Prosecution Office of Makati City.
Natividad was charged with the crime of Estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of as well as for
Violation of BP 22. MeTC convicted Natividad of violating BP 22 which was affirmed by the
RTC. However, CA reversed the rulings, holding that the MeTC of Makati City did not have
jurisdiction
Issue:
Whether the CA erred when it ruled that the MeTC of Makati City did not have
jurisdiction.
Ruling:
Yes. The court of the place where the check was deposited or presented for
encashment can be vested with jurisdiction to try cases involving violations of BP 22. Thus,
the fact that the check subject of the instant case was drawn, issued, and delivered in
Pampanga does not strip off the Makati MeTC of its jurisdiction over the instant case for it is
undisputed that the subject check was deposited and presented for encashment at the
Makati Branch of Equitable PCI Bank. The MeTC of Makati, therefore, correctly took
cognizance of the instant case and rendered its decision in the proper exercise of its
jurisdiction.
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (RA No. 6539)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JULKIPLI ASAMUDDIN Y SALAPUDIN A.K.A."JUL" &
"REY"
G.R. No. 213913, September 02, 2015, VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The elements of Carnapping are: (1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to
another; (2) the taking is without the consent of the owner or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons or by using force upon things; and (3) the taking is done with intent to
gain.
Facts:
Emelina hired Salapudin as a messenger in E. Gloria Money Changer and assigned to
him is a blue Honda XRM motorcycle. Emelina handed to him, cash and various foreign
denominations to be brought to her friend Rina. Then, Emelina received a call from Rina
informing her that Salapudin has yet to arrive in her shop. Emelina's calls to the cellular
phones of Salapudin and his wife were at naught, prompting her to lodge a complaint
against him. RTC found Salapudin guilty for both Carnapping and Qualified theft.
74 | P a g e

2016
Issue:
Whether or not Salapudin is guilty of carnapping and theft.
Ruling:
Yes. The elements of Carnapping as defined under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6539 are: (1)
the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (2) the taking is without the consent
of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force
upon things; and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain. Unlawful taking,
or apoderamiento, is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; it is
deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he
has no opportunity to dispose of the same.
In this case, Salapudins failure to return the motorcycle to Emelina after his
working hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. constitutes unlawful taking. The subsequent
recovery of the stolen motorcycle will not preclude the presence of the third element. Actual
gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain or animus
lucrandi. Intent to gain is an internal act presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor
vehicle which the appellant failed to overcome with evidence to the contrary. Verily, the
mere use of the thing unlawfully taken constitutes gain. Salapudin is thus guilty of the crime
of carnapping under R.A. No. 6539.
Salapudin is also guilty of qualified theft, because by the nature of his job as a messenger in
E. Gloria Money Changer, Emelina had a high degree of confidence in him, which the latter
abused when instead of delivering the money entrusted to him to the designated money
changers, he disappeared and took the money.
Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (RA
No. 7610)
NICANOR PINLAC Y RESOLVE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 197458, November 11, 2015, Del Castillo, J.
A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, when the
child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other
consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group. The law
covers not only a situation in which a child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in any
lascivious conduct.
Facts:
Aiming to be a part of a fraternity, AAA, a 14-year-old boy, partook in its initiation
rites. Little did he know that he would be forced to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana. The
fraternitys leader, Nicanor Pinlac, took advantage of AAA the moment the latter lost control
of himself. Nicanor isolated AAA from the group, disrobed him and sucked his penis. The
75 | P a g e

2016
following day, Nicanor repeated the same lascivious conduct against the will of AAA. After
ten (10) months, AAA with his mother reported to the authorities the violation committed
by Nicanor against him.
Issue:
Whether or not Nicanor is guilty of child prostitution and other sexual abuse,
violating Sec. 5 (B), Article III of RA No. 7610.
Ruling:
Yes. The elements of the crime charged are: (1) the accused commits the act of
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited
in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is
below 18 years of age.
In this case AAA was 14 years and eight months old when he was subjected to
sexual abuse by the herein petitioner on March 9 and 10, 1997. This Court thus finds no
reversible error in the assailed Decision.
Illegal Possession of Firearms
ARNULFO A.K.A. ARNOLD JACABAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015, PERALTA, J.
The unvarying rule is that ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession, which includes not only
actual physical possession, but also constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to
ones control and management.
Facts:
Arnold Jacaban was charged with illegal possession of firearms. In his defense,
Jacaban argued that he is not guilty of the crime charged, because he is not the owner of the
house where the unlicensed firearms and ammunitions were found.
Issue:
Whether or not Jacabans defense is meritorious.
Ruling:
No. The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions are: (1) the existence of subject firearm; and, (2) the fact that the
accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it.
The unvarying rule is that ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession, which includes not
76 | P a g e

2016
only actual physical possession, but also constructive possession or the subjection of the
thing to ones control and management.
Here, the prosecution had proved the essential elements of the crime charged under
PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294. The existence of the seized firearm and the ammunitions
was established through the testimony of a police officer. There was an inventory of the
items seized which was made in the presence of Jacaban and the three barangay tanods who
all voluntarily signed the inventory receipt. The seized items were also identified in open
court. It was convincingly proved that Jacaban had constructive possession of the gun and
the ammunitions, coupled with the intent to possess the same. His act of immediately
rushing from the living room to the room where the police found a calibre .45 and grappled
with the latter for the possession of the gun proved that the gun was under his control and
management. He also had the animus possidendi or intent to possess the gun when he tried
to wrest it from the police.
Probation Law (PD No. 968)
MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y MARUHOM, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 206513, October 20, 2015, Peralta, J.
Appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies.
Facts:
Mustapha Dimakuta was indicted for violation of Sec. 5 par. b of RA 7610. He
committed a lascivious conduct upon a sixteen year old minor. The RTC convicted him of
the crime charged while the CA found him guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness and was
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as maximum.
Petitioner received a copy of CA Decision on July 6, 2012. Instead of further appealing the
case, he filed on July 23, 2012 before the CA a manifestation with motion to allow him to
apply for probation upon remand of the case to the RTC. Petitioner invoked the case of
Colinares v. People which allowed petitioner therein to apply for probation after his sentence
was later reduced on appeal by the Supreme Court. The CA ruled that Colinares case is
inapplicable.
Issue:
Whether or not Dimakuta can still apply for probation.
Ruling:
No. The Probation Law expressly requires that an accused must not have appealed
his conviction before he can avail himself of probation. Sec. 4 of the Probation Law provides
that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has
perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. In other words, appeal and probation
are mutually exclusive remedies.
77 | P a g e

2016
In this case, Dimakuta appealed the trial court's judgment of conviction before the
CA arguing that the RTC should not have given much faith and credence to the testimony of
the victim. It is apparent that petitioner anchored his appeal on a claim of innocence which
is clearly inconsistent with the tenor of the Probation Law that only qualified penitent
offender are allowed to apply for probation.
With respect to Dimakutas invocation of Colinares v. People, the same is
inapplicable, because in that case, the purpose of the accuseds appeal was to correct the
penalty imposed.
Anti-Hazing Law (RA No. 8049)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LTSG. DOMINADOR BAYABOS, LTJG. MANNY G.
FERRER, LTJG. RONALD G. MAGSINO, LTJG. GERRY P. DOCTOR, ENS. DOMINADOR B.
OPERIO, JR., and THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 171222, February 18, 2015, SERENO, CJ
So long as the commission of the crime can be duly proven, the trial of those charged
as accomplices to determine their criminal liability can proceed independently of that of the
alleged principal.
Facts:
Fernando C. Balidoy, Jr. (Balidoy) was admitted as a probationary midshipman at
the PMMA. In order to reach active status, all new entrants were required to successfully
complete the mandatory "Indoctrination and Orientation Period" but Balidoy died during
the said period. The prosecutor found probable cause to charge Aldwin Alvarez and others
as principals to the crime of hazing. A criminal case against Alvarez et al. was filed with
RTCZambales. The Prosecutor also found probable cause to charge Dominador D. Bayabos
(Bayabos) and other respondents as accomplices to the hazing. The Prosecutor eventually
filed with the Sandiganbayan a criminal case charging respondents as accomplices to the
crime of hazing. The RTCZambales dismissed the Information against the principal
accused, Alvarez et al. The respondents filed a Motion to Quash the Information against
them alleging that case against the principal accused had already been dismissed with
finality by the RTC and there was no allegation that the purported act had been made a
prerequisite for admission to the PMMA. The Special Prosecutor opposed the motion of
Bayabos et al. stating that there was nothing in the law requiring that the principals must be
prosecuted first before a case could be filed against the accomplices. The Sandiganbayan
quashed the Information and dismissing the criminal case against them stating that in view
of the dismissal of the case against the principals, the court ruled that the Information
charging Bayabos et al. as accomplices could no longer stand on its own.
Issues:
78 | P a g e

2016
Whether or not the prosecution of respondents for the crime of accomplice to
hazing can proceed in spite of the dismissal with finality of the case against the principal
accused.
Ruling:
Yes. We agree with petitioner that the Sandiganbayan erred when it dismissed
outright the case against respondents, on the sole ground that the case against the
purported principals had already been dismissed. It is a settled rule that the case against
those charged as accomplices is not ipso facto dismissed in the absence of trial of the
purported principals; the dismissal of the case against the latter; or even the latters
acquittal, especially when the occurrence of the crime has in fact been established. The
Court noted in the present case that Bayabos et al. merely presented the Order of Entry of
Judgment dismissing the case against Alvarez et al. Nowhere is it mentioned in the order
that the case was dismissed against the alleged principals, because no crime had been
committed.
The crime of hazing is thus committed when the following essential elements are
established: (1) a person is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situation or
subjected to physical or psychological suffering or injury; and (2) these acts were employed
as a prerequisite for the persons admission or entry into an organization. In the case of
school authorities and faculty members who have had no direct participation in the act, they
may nonetheless be charged as accomplices if it is shown that (1) hazing, as established by
the above elements, occurred; (2) the accused are school authorities or faculty members;
and (3) they consented to or failed to take preventive action against hazing in spite actual
knowledge thereof.
The indictment merely states that psychological pain and physical injuries were
inflicted on the victim. There is no allegation that the purported acts were employed as a
prerequisite for admission or entry into the organization. Failure to aver this crucial
ingredient would prevent the successful prosecution of the criminal responsibility of the
accused, either as principal or as accomplice, for the crime of hazing. Plain reference to a
technical term in this case, hazing is insufficient and incomplete, as it is but a
characterization of the acts allegedly committed and thus a mere conclusion of law. Thus,
the Information must be quashed, as the ultimate facts it presents do not constitute the
crime of accomplice to hazing.
Finally, the Court rejected the Special Prosecutors claim that the Sandiganbayan
should just have ordered the filing of another information or the correction of the defect by
amendment, instead of dismissing the case outright. Indeed, Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules
of Court, provides that if a motion to quash is based on the ground that the facts charged do
not constitute an offense, the court shall give the prosecution a chance to correct the defect
by amendment. However, the provision also states that if the prosecution fails to make the
amendment, the motion shall be granted. The Special Prosecutor insisted in his Comment
on the Motion to Quash that there was no defect in the Information. Neither has he filed a
new information after the motion was sustained, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 117. Thus, the
79 | P a g e

2016
Sandiganbayan was correct in ordering the quashal of the Information and the eventual
dismissal of the case.
DANDY L. DUNGO AND GREGORIO A. SIBAL, JR., Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 209464, July 01, 2015, MENDOZA, J.
Secrecy and silence are common characterizations of the dynamics of hazing. To
require the prosecutor to indicate every step of the planned initiation rite in the information at
the inception of the criminal case, when details of the clandestine hazing are almost nil, would
be an arduous task, if not downright impossible.
Facts:
Dungo and Sibal were charged with a violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8049 or the
Anti-Hazing Law of 1995. The two applied violence to Marlon Villanueva, a neophyte of
Alpha Phi Omega Fraternity. The Medico-Legal Officer who performed an autopsy disclosed
that there were thirty-three external injuries, with various severity and nature. He opined
that these injuries were hazing-related. The RTC convicted the accused. The RTC explained
that even if there was no evidence that Dungo and Sibal participated to bodily assault and
harm the victim, it was irrefutable that they brought Villanueva to the resort for their final
initiation rites. Clearly, they did not merely induce Villanueva to attend the final initiation
rites, but they also brought him to Villa Novaliches Resort. Dungo and Sibal argued that the
amended information charged them as they "did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assault and use personal violence upon one Marlon Villanueva y Mejilla." Yet,
both the RTC and the CA found them guilty of violating R.A. No. 8049 because they "induced
the victim to be present" during the initiation rites. The crime of hazing by inducement does
not necessarily include the criminal charge of hazing by actual participation. Thus, they
cannot be convicted of a crime not stated or necessarily included in the information. By
reason of the foregoing, the petitioners contend that their constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of accusation against them has been violated.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners constitutional right to be informed of the nature and
cause of accusation against them has been violated.
Ruling:
No. The Information properly charged the offense proved. The petitioners claim that
the amended information avers a criminal charge of hazing by actual participation, but the
only offense proved during the trial was hazing by inducement. Their contention must fail.
On the manner of how the Information should be worded, Section 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court, is enlightening: Section 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained
of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the
statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what
80 | P a g e

2016
offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the
court to pronounce judgment.
It is evident that the Information need not use the exact language of the statute in
alleging the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The test is whether
it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him, and the court
to render judgment properly.
The Court agrees with the OSG that the "planned initiation rite" as stated in the
information included the act of inducing Villanueva to attend it. In ordinary parlance, a
planned event can be understood to have different phases. Likewise, the hazing activity had
different stages and the perpetrators had different roles therein, not solely inflicting
physical injury to the neophyte. One of the roles of the petitioners in the hazing activity was
to induce Villanueva to be present. Dungo and Sibal not only induced Villanueva to be
present at the resort, but they actually brought him there. They fulfilled their roles in the
planned hazing rite which eventually led to the death of Villanueva. The hazing would not
have been accomplished were it not for the acts of the petitioners that induced the victim to
be present.
Secrecy and silence are common characterizations of the dynamics of hazing. To require the
prosecutor to indicate every step of the planned initiation rite in the information at the
inception of the criminal case, when details of the clandestine hazing are almost nil, would
be an arduous task, if not downright impossible. The law does not require the impossible
(lex non cognit ad impossibilia). The proper approach would be to require the prosecution
to state every element of the crime of hazing, the offenders, and the accompanying
circumstances in the planned initiation activity, which has been satisfied in the present case.
Accordingly, the amended information sufficiently informed the petitioners that they were
being criminally charged for their roles in the planned initiation rite.
81 | P a g e

Crim 2015 Edited

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim 2015 Edited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Resort to circumstantial evidence is inevitable when there are no eyewitnesses to a

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle

Criminal Law (Recent Jurisprudence) Deans Circle