LATEST JURISPRUDENCE IN CRIMINAL LAWS' ‘Compile by Judge Phligr Noo B Inovejae ‘Suppletryapoestion ofthe Revised Penal Code provsons fo Special Laws _Arnutf Jabacan v. People, G.R. No. 184365, March 23,2015 ‘Abe, PD 1086, as amended by RA 8204, 2 malum profititum and thatthe Revised ena! Gove s generally not spateabe, kas boon held tal wien 2 speci lan, which 'S'a malum pronibtum, adopts the nomerelature ofthe perais Inthe Revsed Penal Cove, hear aw sl Spy ‘Arie Lim v. People, G.R. No. 180834, November 26, 2014 Xx x We must fod if the appcaton ofthe law is consistnt with the purpose of and ‘eason forthe law. Ratone coset lex of cessat fx. (han the reason forthe law ‘zases, tho lw ceases) ts not the ler alone butte sito th aw also tat ges le, Tee eepocaly ein ths case where detor'scominalzaton woud not seve the tds of ution bu in foct subvert. The creator having colecid aeady more tan 3 Uren amount to cover the value of the check for payment of rentals, va aucton S30. wo find that Hedng the debtors president to answe fora caminal fence uncer BB 22 two years afer said colecion ls ne longer tenable ror Justiied bylaw or ‘uitabie congierstons. Xue Tle consistent re that penal states are conse sincly against the State end Teal in fovor of the accises. And sino paral laws shou. not be applied Imochancaly, the Count must determine whether the apploaton ef the penal aw Te Contant he purpose reason othe a. 2X cua Proton clause ae lmtation onthe power af Congress o enact penal las Lito Corpuz v. People, GR. No. 180016, April 29,2014 “There seems to bea perceived Injustice bought about by he range of penalties thatthe huts contnue to impose on ermes agsiet property commie today basco cn the Sou of comage measured by tre value of money eighty years agen 1902. However, this Court cannot moriy ne sad ange of penalses because tat woud constitute Jusicaleglsaton. What the legllaturs portoved faite amencing the penalties proved for nthe sai crimes earl be remedied Uvough thie Gourte decisions, 38 {hot would be encroacing upon the power of another branch othe government. xxx Xe ‘An argument raised by Dean Jose Mane! |. Dikne, on of our esteemed amici curiae {2 tht the incremental pent provided under Arise 18 of te RPC volta the ual Protecton Clase, ‘The equal protecton clause requres equality among equals, which is determines _ceordng t's vai assteation The lest developed by juseprudence here ana Yonder i tat of esonablenoss which hs four requcos (Q) The csefeaton rests on subtantal Sstnctions; (Q)ite garmane tothe purposes of re aw, {Gs hal ined i edetng corctons only: and (@)Rapplies equal to all members ofthe same cass. ‘According to Daan Diokno, te Incremental Penaly Rule (IPR) does not rest on ‘ibetanal trios ae B¥0,000,00 may havo boon substrtal nthe pat Butt not ‘0 foaay, whieh volans the fist requis; the IPR was devised so that those wh ‘Comm tetafa mowing higher nouns woul feceve ear peneles; however hiss mo longer achieved, because a porson who steals F142, 000.00 woud recive the sameBpaselnoe penal ae someone who stesis hundreds of milons, which vclates the second Feaustes andthe IPR violates requis no. 3, conidring thatthe IPR is li fo ‘Sistng conatione at the time the was promulgated, cordon that no longer exis ‘ea. ‘Accuring tht the Cour submis to the argument of Dean Diokno and decares the Inerementsl penaty in Arce 315 unconsttutonl for vilatng the equal preecton Divas companants txtimoves, was tat petioners action was an impulsive reactor [Sbeing demesed by Aus, he aeration with Naval and Nava’ tempt to summon usa home ‘aanaaly, thi pa of prownetion negates the existence of weachary. This she Pe of provocaton that oes hat end fe te premeditation. The frovecaton h is case feof ikea wich tngges mplsve reactions let unchecked bythe assured and caused him to comm the cima There uss no evidence of 2 modcum ol Premedsaion Indeatig te poss of cholce ana planning fundamental fo achieve the elmerts of ‘weachery ‘The abilty of he offended pares to etaite and protec themes may not by self negate the existence of teacher. The efor ofthe accused to employ means end Mote to ensure his safety ana freedom for relakaion may not have succeeded owaver, inthis cate, the abt ofthe otended parties to fave avoided grate har by runing stray er by being abe to subdue the accused le a tong ndeator that no ‘weachery ents. {rape is commited wit tho uso of doady weapon and by two or more persons only one ‘uaiies he offense, the others not considered ganar approving People v. Ricky Arguta, G.R. No. 243216, Apri 20, 2015 Xx Under the aw above quoted, ether creumstance fs qualifying. When the two Grounstances aro recent, thre Te no fogal bave to concider the romaiing ‘reunstance a a gona appravaingccumstance for eter isnt consiered as such Ghuer Aticle 14 of the Revied Penal Code enumeraing wat sre aggravating ‘Srounetances. People v. Edward Adtiane, G.R. No, 208168, October 8, 2014 ‘A buy bust operation isa form of entrapment, in which he wears caught in faprarte Geleto andthe poles offers conducing the operaton arent oly authorized bt uy ound to apprenend the volater an wo search fi for ayn thal may have teen par (For used ne commision ofthe are." In People. Aguy, we cussed bay but ‘psration as aor ofa vad and elective mode of appeehendina dua pushers‘Syluope eves | ‘A buy-bust operations a form of entrapment which n recent years has boon accepted fsa vaid and eflacbve mode of apprenending rug pushors. Ina Duy-bust operation ‘he loss fo commis etme onginaes fom tne ofender, wrhcut anybody inducing ot [reang hint comm the ofence, cared outwith de rear for onstitaonal and (Spal eafeguards, a buy bust operation desorvesjuscal sanction Use of unicensed firearm as an sgaravating crounstance People v. Noel Enojs, ot a, G.R. No. 204894, March 10,2014 Xx x The use of unloensed fram, on the ober hand, is 2 spacial aggravating {Sreutance that ie not ameng the scunstanece mordoned in Atte 240 of the Rewsee Penal Cage az quafyng 2 homie to murder. Consaquory, the accuse in {hs case may be held labia ont fr homiige,sporavatod by te use of unoenses ‘rears, 2 ezcurstance alleged in the nformat Atemativecicumstane of rlationship People v. Hermonigido Delon, G.. No. 194446, April 21,2018 Xxx Seton 10(8, tse VI of Republic Act No. 7610300 “The Cou, nomaver, cleagrese. We find tha! he penal imposed bythe tal cou needs {2be modifies nce, 25. prevousy cussed, the aflenative creunstance of Felatonchip. te, thatthe acoaed-apostant e the fther of AAA, has Boon ly ‘ctbiched by the prosecution, Absottory cause People v Shirey Casio G.R. No. 211485, December 8, 2014 In People v. Dora, this court discussed the objective test and the subjective test ‘eter whether nee was val entrapment operation American federal cous and a major of state cours use the “subjective” of oign intent tet ld down in Soros, Untied States to determine whatherentapmert ‘ctaty occurred. The foes a the ing is onthe accusedspredeposton fo conn {he ofense charged ne state of mind ond ininaton before hie sl exposure tO ‘goverment agents. Alvtevat fats ech as the accused marta ane character tat, Fe pat offenses, eciviies, is eagemess in commiting the crime, his reputation, et, fre considered to sevens ha eat of mind before the cre. The presepostion test Emphases the aoa propenety to comm the ofl rater tan th offcars Imseonauet and retects an atempt to raw ake Setwoen 9 rap or he unary Sarocent and te ap fort unwary chmanal” If to accused was found to have bee ‘eody and wing to commit the ollerse at any Taverable apport, the onrapmont ‘efenoe lal sven fa poboe agent ues an Uncay persue nduosment Some states, however, have adopted the “objective test... Here, the court considers tha nature ofthe polos arty imoived an the propty ol poles conduct. The nary Is focused onthe inducement used by government apes, en ploe conduct nt ot {he abused ana his predopostion fo cori the ce, For the goal ote defence to [Seto wan police conduc. The tet of errapment je wheter te conduct oe aw eforcomert agent was tly fo duce a normaly laweabiing person, cher than one hols eady and wing, fo comm the offence fr purposes of tis tec. presumed that ata abiding prson woud normaly rest the temptation fo cond a etme thats recentod by the tmp opportunity to act nla ‘Accused argued that in cur jurisprudence, cours usualy aply the cbjcive tet in Geterining te wheter there was an eirapert operation or an instigation However, {he ute of he objective tot should nat preclude cours fom ato apphing te subjective test She pointes out tatorm _Appving the “atjoctve" tet tis worth invoking that accused appellant procures Income ‘fom beng a laundry woman. The prosecution had not shown any proof evidencing Socued appoints hsoryn human trficing or engagemest inary offense She ‘et even familar to the foam wh had Nase} been approhonding human afer for ‘pote some ie. Accused futher argu tha! the pole shuld have conducted a pr sueilanes before ihe esrapment operator ‘Time and again, thie cout has discussed the ference between entrapment and {natgaton.n Chang v. Peope. this cout exptaned rat ‘There is errapmer when law offers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the prehension ofthe ciminal unten two aeual comminsen of the ctme. There itatoaton when the accused induced to commit the crime. Tho crence inthe ‘ature of the fa stn the oogn of the canna tere. In oirapmet. the ane roa ‘roites fom the mind ofthe enmial ‘Te tea and the reaie ta come the ome ‘comes fom him. In atgaton, the law offer concave the camricion of the ere ‘Spd suggest ta the aroused whe adopt the es and caries tka xecuton. ‘Accuses contends that using the subjocive tot, che was leat instigated by the police fe commit the offense. She denied being 2 pimp and claimed that she eared her ing ‘2a launcrywoman. On ihe avgumert, we agfoe wh the fring of the Cour of ‘peas: It was the aceueed-apalant who commenced the vansaction with POY Luardo and PO Velowo by cag tei aterton on wether hey wantes i fo hat evening and lahon the ofa responded was the accused-spgatlrt who to Hem fo wat whe ‘ho woul etn the gts forthe peru “This shows that accused was predisposed to commit he offense because she inated the taneacton. As teed by PO! Veloso and PO! Luarde aecuced called out ar |Btenton by saying "Chicks mo aang?” accnes ha prepa to coment ‘tenes then she test likely woud fot have askeo POT Veloso ané POT Luar i they wanted gs ‘he srapment woud fil be vals using the ebjectve test, The potoe merely proceeded oD Jakozalem Steet in Barangay Karagayan. twas accused wn askod {hem whether they wanted ge. Theve was no lle inducement onthe pat cf the ples fori aosusego comm the one, Xe ‘Win regard to the ack of por suvellance, price suveilance Is cot 2 candlon for an lenropment operation val. In People v Padua this cout uncerscared te value of ‘exibily in ple operations: A prior survelance s nota prerequisite for the valty of an entrapment or buy bust (peraion, the conduct of which has no go” textoook method. Plexy 2 at of (608 potce wort However the pales cay outs entrapment apart, fr as lng ae {he ng ofthe ns have nt sen welated inthe proces, te courts wil nat pass fn the wisdom thereat The police offers may dedde rat me Is of he essence and Sapence wid te need ("po suvetance ‘This exit is even more important in cases invovng tracking of persons. The Urgency of rescuing te vctms ay atte require mmetiata bit deberata acon an the prt of thew enforcers Pople v. Edward Adriane, G.R. No. 208168, October 8, 2014 A buy-bustoperaton fa frm of entrapment, which he velo is caught in Ragrante Golctoand the polceoffcars conducing the operation ae net only authored but Guy bounce apprehend the vlator and to search hn fr anytng tat may ave been part sor used in the commision ofthe crime In People . Aglay, we scuesed Buy-but ‘psration a a form of valid and eflative mods of apprehending sug pushersSylospe one [A bubust operation i a form of entrapment which in ecant years hac boen accepted sa veld and eiecive mode of apprenencing Sug pushers. In 8 buy-bust operation the tea to commt a cre ogee fom the lender, wihout anybody inducng ot procding ent comm the offense eared eut wih aus regard fr conettuonal and legal sseguards, abuy-bust oparston deserves ud sanction. ean pena is reduced fo recuson perpetue or ite imprisonment witout ely for arate People v. Tomas Dimacuha, etal, G.R. No. 191060, February 2, 2015, Going now to the posable pena, the crime of murder is punished by recsion errata to death. The RTC and the CA wore cored In ru tat fo atendant ‘Sreamstance of treachery quafed the Kling to murder. However, with the aggravating ‘Sroametanes of evident promedttion alc found tobe preset. the greater penay of ‘ath eto imporabe pealypureuar to Ale 68 ofthe RPC. Novara. fof ‘dean pany, ne Impzton spon sppelats of = pena o recto porptua inthis ase proper pursuant to Repub Act No. S346 must ao be added that appalts ‘reno og for parle Inthe application of panaty the reckoning point i the pena of Desh People v. Remes Clasa, 6. No. 211048, August 6, 2014 “The Cout agrees withthe appalate court thatthe accused-appetant was corety anvcte bythe RTC of te ces charged. The death pena having been suspended, {he Cour afrms the sentence frecusion perpetua in Crm. Case Nox. CR-00-9684 ‘and GR 99-0605, but ao to Com, Case No. GRO8.9696, for atlempled rape, the Court Sarees wi the appelate court at the RTC incorecty imposed an indeterminate Eentencs of two (years, for (é) months and one () day of prison comecal, as Smut eight(@) years and one (1) day of pron mayor as maxanum, Under Aisle 51 ofthe Revised Penal Code, the penalty lower by two dogroes than {hat prescribed for the consummated feiony shal be Imposed in the atomptod ‘tage. Death being the statutory penalty for rape committed by 3 person against ins own child, pursuant to Article 266-8 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty lower by two degrees is reclusion temporal, Which hae s range cf twsive (12) years sone (1) ay twenty (20) years. Applying Secton 1 ef the Indeterminate Sentence Gm wien provides thatthe cour shal sarvence tha accuses to an indeterminate fentance the maxemum tem of whisn shal be that when. in lw the standing rounstances, cou be propery imposed under te ules ofthe said Revised Penal Code andthe marian which shal be wahin to ranga of tho penal xt lowar to that prescribed, the accused-appelrt shoud be setenoed to eight) years and one (1), {ay af prstn mayor. as minimum, fo seventeen (17) years and fou (4) mone of ‘clusion temporalas maumum. Fealy. pursuant People. Laag, the award of fexemplry damages i Increased to P30,000.00 per cemoin view ofthe sogravating ‘Sroonetances of mnorty and restership. Contrary Supreme Court ruling: the reckoning pant is recusion peretua and not death penalty People v \Gamboa, et al, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013, Having acted thei mvehement inthe cme ofkidnapring for ransom and coridering the evidence presenta by tne prosection ing accused opel’ paripaton n {he ere, no Jou can be entertained as to thelr ult The CA conuted the scoused {appalares of Kidnapping for ransom and imposed upon thom the supreme penaty of death, applying the provision of Arle 267 ef be Revised Penal Code. Lkwwe, is Court ince accused appellants Qty beyend reasonable deust as pinata the come st ecnapping for ransom. However, pursuant fo RAN. 9546, we modly the pony Imposed by De Val cout and reduce te penalty to Recsion Perpetia, wihot gieiy reaerase nose Unfortunately, at the present age of 31, Perpenian can no longer beef fom the ‘soresaid provision, Because under aricle 40 of RA. No. 9944, the suspension of Sevtence Gan bs Svaed of only vot the ohld in confct win the law reaches the farmer age of enty-one (21) Years Tas leaves the Cou Wh no cheio But fe Pronounce jgenten. Perpenan 's found gully beyond reasonable doubt as an Eccomploe inte erme of crapping for ransom. Sinca he Court has ules that death {2 utleed in Article 71 ofthe Revized Penal Code shall no longer form pat ofthe ‘Seuation in the graduation of penaities pursuant to LA. No. S348, tho penaly imposed by law on aczemples in the commsson of consunmated Karapping for fansam ls Recuson Temporal he pealty one degre lower than what the principals ‘would bear (Reckunon Perpetia). Appying Ace 8 ofthe Revced Penal Case, he imposable penaty should then be adjusted othe ponay next lower than ha reste byw foraosompices. Ths Court, rere, hss Pat ae 19 Porpenan, be pealy of Paton Mayor the penaty lower than that presonbod by law (Reclsion Temporal) ‘odd be imposed. Appvng the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the msmum penaty ‘ion le one degree ower than the maumum imposatie pera, chal be wit the range of Psion Coreesonal and the maximum penalty shal be wun the mim petod of Prion Mayor, absont any aggravating cfeumetance and there bang one Imspatingcreumstance. Hence the Court imposes the oeorate sentence of 8: (©) mmonthe and ene (7) day of Pasion Corecional, 2 mmr, to sk (8) yours and ene (@)aay ot Pron Mayer, as maximum emphasis supped?” ‘nore the law proserbes @ sgl indivisible penalty, i shal bo apped by the couts regarcese of any ligating or agoravaig crcumstance People . Virgilio Antonio, G.R. No. 208523, July 23, 2014 Nonetheless, his Cour sustains the penalty of reckon Perpetua imposed by the RTC nd CA on the sccused-appelant Tor each of the two courts of rape which Pe omrsted, ‘Te aggravatng Creumstanoes ef miner and commission of he come in Sn unnhabied place wore proce as rogards De fet rape incident. The second ape arom ine cher hae nog by minor) alr ine legal guatanatints al boven The aguravaing ercumstances stendant mn the instant case sre 82 Mery [Generic and not quatying, Genere aggravating cumstances increase the penaly fo fhe ere to te maxima period. bt t cannot inerease the sare tothe nest hgh’ degree In the sccused-appolant's case, te two courts of rape wore. commis ‘Brough the use of force an inition. The erme falls under Ate 258A()a) ofthe Revised Penat Cade. Arto 266-5 ofthe same case provides atthe 2a crime i Dunahable by recusion perpen, wich fe an incveibla pena. Theseor, despta the ‘Stendance of generic aqgravatng counstanoss, the penay imposable upon the accused appear ech Court of ape reins te Same (One segree ower thn reuson temporal prison mayor iguo crea, G.R. No. 181843, July 14,2014 ‘Ace 250 cf the Revised Pera Code provides that aponaty lower ty one degree than {nat wich Shad be Impoced for homide may Be Mnpeced Upon a person guy of ‘tuctatad nome ‘The imposable penalty for homicide ie recuson temporal. Arle 50 ofthe Revised ora Cade provides thal tn penally tbe imposed upon pnp af a Fuststed crime shall be the. ponaly ext lower ih degroe than that presarbod by tw for the ‘oneunmated ems: The penaly net lower in dope is son mayor. ‘rdf em cra fo, 1220 ges (or nee csea Seems auto Re We te Sethe Rina aac nen ec ends Canaeranae eye Sern, "st ne an at ped a sa bn a a ts pry Hwee [etre of dunn fe par nay bene oo pega mgaing Smear omy, ‘Bebe et coum oe pay bo vetoes wake ee” mec poahy SSobotorptr rector peanShae | ‘Applying the indeterinate Sectence Law, the penal to be imposed must have 3 ‘uma tm wich can be propery imposed under the les considering the ationding ‘Sreumetances, Since there no atendng excumstance Inthe case, the penalty ‘icion mayor ine medium fem or eh (6) years and ono (1) Say as macmum should Eiincosed The miu sentanes should be win the ange ofthe pony nox ower {0 that preserbed by to Revied Penal Code. A pana of one (1) year an one (1) day ‘3 minum, prion consesionel shou, therefore, be proper ‘One degree loner than prison coretional meclum maximum is arto mayor inte ‘maximum pevod fo petsion concecona is niu Edigardo Geroche, et ab, G.R. No. 179080, November 26, 2014 Xxx Yet the penalty presented by Article 128 ofthe RPC (prison corectonal in ‘medium and mavimum periods e sargsaod of aly two, not tres, periods, In which ‘Sse, Arla 65 otha bare Code requis the dvaion no wee equal pores the tine ‘Feiidea in the penally, forming one period of each ofthe tee polens. Apphing te ‘revlon, tno minemirm, madirn and maximum pereds of the penalty preseibed by ‘re 18 are Kis ‘On the other hand the minimum term shal be win the range ofthe penaly next ower {ortat precarbod bythe RPC or the crime. The ponaly ret lower fo that pesebed by ‘Atle 126 ecto mayer n fs masiman pti to prsion comeconal ns rm id (r 4 months and day 1 2 years and 4 months) Indterinate Sentence Law ‘Aurora Engeon Francdila, G.R. No. 197562, April 20,2015 VERGE sin’ Ge Stay fo Eevievee (a) Youn are pcr (@ MONTHS of Telus temporal ay minyur fo SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR () MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to TWENTY (20) YEARS of relastn femora ae maximus & Pert lemony ear, Kx 2 considering thatthe clear objective of he Indeterminate Sentence Low is o have {be convet sere the minimum penalty befoe becoming ele for reeace on ple pursuant to the Indeterminate Sengores Law, bo to minim and be Tax Panales must be defn, net ranging. This ebjecive cannat be acrid otherwise, fr Sstemeing nen te convt would be eigbiefr rea on pale would be neaty Imposie he minum andthe msimum were se indo ae the RTC thes the Indotormsnatesertnce. dood thatthe sentence isan determinate one estes oy {0 the fact tat such mpostn woul fave the petod beeen the minum ad the Irasiman penates internat nthe serge tht he may. under te condor sot ttn sat ct, be eleased rom serveg sid pevoa n while ori art The Indeterminate sontonce must have a minimum and a maximum: nota straight penaty Manolite Git Zaftav. People, G.R. No, 176317, July 23, 2014 Under Seaton 1 ofthe indeterminate Sentence Lav, an indsteminale sentence imposed on the cenger consstng of a maximum term apd a minimum tem. The ‘maximum term ls the penalty under the Revised Penal Code property imposed ar Considering any atending efeumetance, whe the mrimur tam i wih the range of ‘ho ponaty not lowor than that precesbod by the Revised Penal Codefor the oflence ‘One degree ower than recusion tempor i prison mayor Miguel Cirera, GR. No. 181643, July 14,2014Sra ove [Acie 260 of he Reveed Penal Code provides that a pensty lowor by one degree than {fat whieh should be imposed for pomicse may be inpssed upon & prcon guy oF ‘ranates homie ‘The imposable penay for homicide ie eckson temporal. Ace 50 ofthe Revised ena! Code provides thatthe penalty 10 be Imposed upon pripas of a rusted cme Shall be te penaty net lower in gree than that provarbod by aw for the Coneummated Eames, The pray net lower in dope is psion mayor ‘Aetiving tne Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty to be imposed must have & ‘incr tem wien ean be propery mpoced under the rues considering the attending “feonstances, Snoe there 2'no atending circumstance in he case, the penaky of fesion mayor ins meciom tem or eight @) years and one (1) day as maximum should eiimpceed: The minum sertones shouldbe win te ange ef the penalty rex ower to that preserbed by the Revoed Penal Cade. A penalty of one (1) yer and one (1) ay ‘minum, prion coresional shoud, therefore, be ops People . dojo Sumihig, ot al, G.R. No. 178115, July 28, 2044 ‘As regards the fratated murders of Marissa and Mical, te penaky lesser by one ‘gree shal bs Imposed on appellants. Accorsnghy, the penaty that must be imposed is fecuson tempera for each count of frusates murder Apelving the Interminase ‘Sentonoe Law and inthe absence of modlying eounetancos ther than te Ualying ‘Sreumtance of treachery the maximum ena shall be akan fem the mosium par ‘SFrecusion tener when has a range of fourteen (12) yeas, eight (@) onthe and ‘ne (day fo sevenicen (17) years and feu (6) month, whe the minum shal be {ken rom tne penalty next lower im degfee which pasen rayon any offs porde, the range of wc om a (6) years, one (1) Gay to elve (12)years. The san term Impoeed bythe CA on sppelrta masttereore bo moatied to i () years and one (1) ‘day of prion mayoras minimum o fourteen (14) years, aah (6) monins ana one () ‘day of recuaon temporal a maximum, hon fe wt ese ranges, fer cath cour of ‘One degree lower than prsen mayor minimum Is prson carectinal maximum Arnltlo Jabacan v. People, G.R. No. 184386, March 23,2018. Xxx Under PD 1866, 5 amended by RA 8294, the penalty fo legal posession of ‘ronrns classed se high poweted, tke eal 4, picon mayor mnenur and 2 fr of 50,000.00. Appyng Ase 6 ofthe Revised Penal Codo, te maximum period othe ‘posable pena cannot exceed prison mayor minimum ints medium period, ere ‘eing no mligatng or aggravstng Greumetanos, 2. rie (@) years. en (6) mosh 398 ‘ne (1) cay fo seven (7) years and feu (8) morins, The minum petod 23 provided in {he Indeterminate Sentence Law, shall be win the range of prison sovecsonal in Ee ‘avium pelo, Lo. four (8) yaar, to (2) month and oe (1) day tos (8) oars, the nay pet ower in degree to prin mye minut. Xx ‘Te incremental penalty in Ectato/ Theft taken into consideration in datemining the ‘mxinu of he determinate sentence Nenita Carganilo, 6. No. 182424, Septomber 22,2014 We ate the comaciess ofthe penalty imposed by the CA 2 sul in accordance vith te nw, We exlaned in People. Temporada tat “The preserbed penaly for estat under Article 315, par. 26) ofthe RPC, when the ‘ameurt defrauded exceeds 22,000.00, fe pion correccnal maximum to pron ‘mayor minimum. The minimum frm is taken trom the penal next lover or angers ithe prin eonecional minimum and medun(.e, rom 8 months end 1 6a) To 4 Sears and'2 mots). ox (on the cher hand, the oakimum tam is tken fom the prescribed pany of prin Comecional maximum lo pasion mayor minimam ints maximum potoa, adda 1 earimprisonment for every P210,000.00 in excess of 222,000.00, provid thatthe ttl ponaky erat ot excoed 20 years, mat To. compute the maximum period of the Precesbed penalty, presen cozosonal maximum to prlinmayor minimum should be ‘fadcd nto oe caval povvone ofeach of which podion shal be deemed to Frm ‘one period in accordance wih Arce 65 of tho RPC. Following tis procedure, the ‘num ped ef pen comeccioal maximum to prion mayer minum is fom 6 oar, months and 21 ays ta€ years, The incremental pana, when proper, call thus be added to anyarnere from @ years, & months and 21 days to 8 years, st the ‘Fearon ofthe cour In computing the ieremertl penalty, the amount dfrauded shad be subtracted by ££22.006 00, and tho efference shal be digea by 10,000.00. Any faction of a year “hal be discarded. as was. cone staring wh the cave of Peopo v. Pabalan In aneonance wth te ett ule that poral laws et be consrued berlin favor ‘he secured 03" In the computation of incremental penal, the excess amount which isnot dvisble by Pxt000.00' ascared ‘Soledad Tri v. People, G.. No, 204755, September 17, 2014 ‘Considering however that he mount in exoess of #22,000.0 is ely #t.370.00 or short She P10 000.00 set By lw fo tty the Impaaton of eremertal pera, isnot Sppropiate to add an adltona one (1) yoar to the maximum teh ofthe penalty Imposable upon the peioner because Ow excess amount of 1.37000 shoud be fact the rule evan sanctions substantial complanoa wie the proedure to esabish 2 ‘Bio cusocy, te kg ae the ntogty ana evsendary value oft oozed fore ae propery preserved by the appranonding oficers, In People v. Pringas, the Court Fecognted that the etic compliance wih ime Tequromects of Secion 21 tay not ‘Sinaye be posse under ld sonaions: the pobce operates undor varied condone, {3nd cannot sta ties atlend toll tbe cetes ofthe procedures inthe handling of ‘Sonfscated evidonos ‘As correct ruled bythe CA, the proceuton was able to establish the intogrty of corpus ete and the unbroken cain of custody. AGty noting te findings of te al cour: It was sufsienty etabianed that repeesertaes fom the media and Department of ‘itee and even two (2) barangay loca ofits wore present dung tne Beating 2c ven untl the conduct of the sentry. And tht immediatly after eeaure and ‘onfcation of the dangerous drugs, th same were invertors and photographed ithe ‘presence of appellant and said persone, wo oven signed copies ofthe invertor. The Eoted flog! croge wre marked at accused's residonce and in his presence. PIS Iso, ‘isis tates that he sees toms he recaved fom Aguiar already cortained the Trarkings, "PBA" Besldst. he aio placed hie own ials and sgaaures in blue Imarkngs to preserve and maintain th eagrty ofthe speomens, Ths, tee was no {ogant reason why the court shoud doubt the users and creity of the {ealmonies ofthe prosecution witesees, ‘The inteoy ofthe evidence Is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad ‘ath. il wi, oF proof thal the eigenen has been ‘ampetod wih ‘Aceusee-appelant bear the burden of showing hat We evdenoe was tampered oF ‘eles wisn order Wo cvereome the presumption of regulary inthe hansing of ‘Biibte by pube offers ans the presumoton (hat puble offers propery lecharged {heir dues! Acousee-appelant this case fled & peesent any plausble Teasan 1O pute a she Pos pa of the nating ofere Thus, the tstmanina af the foprenendng offea's deserve ful fath end creat in fac accused sppotant id Pot ‘ven Question the credy ofthe prosoctenwnesses. He ancheres hs apa! sly ‘Shs alegation of femaup and denial and on te alleged broken chan of he cutody ofthe seed one People v. Reynaldo Batun, G.R No. 189612, September 1, 2014 Failure to tty comply wth the Chain of Custody Rule not Fata ‘The Cour ls not perunded by appollants avormert that the prosecution fad to ata thatthe shabu alegedly sted rom fi was the same shabu submited for \Sboratoy examnaton. The floning negates appelan’s cain” () the pole ofieor invertorea the confiscated shabu Wmedataly afer fs cozure fom appollat, The frocess was witnesved by barangay oles ana a meta reresantave who sffxod thor eignaturce in he Certcata of Iverary: (2) the invertor taking was photographed 2nd th photogreohe show thatthe actual conduct of Inventory wee winessed by ‘Spent heel (3) tb unlspued that appelant was ake to alc hs signature {he Corttcato ofiwontory bt he refused () twas shown Dat 2 PDEA personel thorer prepared formal requect and te white eystatine granules conaned inthe Paste sadhele etzed fom appasant were indeed and delvered prom by POS Nelasquez to Pins, Rodeos tote ce abort Issuance of Unjust Interocutory Order Romeo Arlo ¥ Office ofthe Ombudeman, G.R No. 194957, July 30, 2014 Specicly forthe charge of violation of Article 206 ofthe RPC which penalizes the issuance of unt felt) cde, & was neveseary to show that feet he orders Issued bythe respondents tos compat were unjust, and second he sad orders Were knovinahy rendered or rendered trough inexcusable naglaenes oF Gnorance. On {his mater, th Office ofthe Ombudsman cortecly hei tat LA Ants ever forthequash ofthe wit of execution, andthe NLRC’s resolution ating & wero rt unjust. ‘Sonar te Arauloe tam, the rungs of he labor offeiais were aocordance vith aw ‘Sod the rules ofthe NERC, spsctialy since Rule X1 Sacton 4 ofthe 2005 NLAC Fviens Rules of Procesue Matversation of publ funds trough ftsoton a 9 pubs documont Manolito Git Zafrav. People, GR. No. 476317, July 2, 2014 In conveting an accused ofthe complex cme of mahrsstion of pub funds though faistcaton of 2 puble document, he cours chal Impose tbe penalty forthe oraver felony nthe masdmam pero pursuant to Ari 48 ofthe Rvized Penal Coe, pus fine in the amount of th hinds averse or theta value ofthe propartyembeazled. In ‘ion the courte shal order tha acouees Yo flume te the Govecrment iho funds ‘awerse,orthe value ofthe propery embezoa ‘Section 3(@) FRA. Ma. 3019 Dionisio Coloma v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 205561, Septomber 24,2014 ‘The second element of Secon 3 2) of RA. No. 3018 may be commited in thee ways, that. trough manest parity, evcert bad fait o” gross inexcusable negligence. root of any of tego thee in connection wth te profited acts moroned im Secton S{e) of RA No. S01B is crough to conic. (On the meaning of "paaty* "bad fai eae and "gross negligence," the Court has Partaty’ le synonymous with “bas” which “exces a dsposton to soe and report trates se they are waned for ratber than as ey ae” “Bed fal does not Simply Connote bad judgment or nealgenceE imputes a dshonest purpose or some marl ‘igay snd conesous sing fs won 2 hwanon of mum ety rag sm mate ‘Srintent orb wit prtkee of the nature of faus” “Gros naglganes hoo been so Seance os negigence cnractraed by te wart of even sight eae, acing &emting Te ‘Scrip a shuaon whore there duty to act not inavertorly but wily and Fieatonaly with 2 Conseous inaferenoe to consequeneas neo far ae other persone tray be affected, ts the amision of hat care whch even fy atone ana thoughtass mon neve fait ake on the wn property Dionisio Coloma v. Sandiganbayan, G.. No. 205561, September 24, 2014 “The second element of Section 5 (of R.A. No. 3019 may be commited in hee ways, that through manfest partly, evident bad fath or rose inexcusable nepigonae Proof of any a these bwes In comecion win te poh acts mentioned i Section Bla) of RA No. 3019 i enough to carves ‘on the meaning of “partly.” "bad faith” and "oross negligence” the Cour has Sbodaied “Parity” ie synonymous wih “bias” which “exces a eisposiion to soe and report raters se they are wished for rather than as they ae” “Bad fat doos not sely Connote bad Judgrrent or negligence, imputes a dshonest purpose or some marl ‘Shlguty and conscious doing of 3 wong, 2 brea of eworn Qty trough some motive ‘rintent or wilt prtkos of tho nature of frau” "Gross noghgones Poe been £2 ‘Sefnes 2s nogigence characterzed by tre want a even sight care, acing Oeming o faa ma stuaten where there i 2 duty to acl not iadvereiiy bt wily and Intenionaly wits 2 conacios indfrence Yo consequonces in so far 26 other parsons tay be affected. ts the omission of at care whch even In ater and thoughts ‘on never ao take on ther own propery.” Prior demand to iqutate is not 2 requste for conviction under Arise 218 of the Reweed Pena! Cod,Spteelncnae ‘Aloysius Dat Lumauigv, People, GR. No.168680, July 7, 2014 tice 28 conltsofhe folowing elements: “tet the cffender feb public fee, whether in tho cowie oF separated thererom 2 that must be an aceauntable offer fr publ fonds or property, 3 that he required by iw or regulator trance accourts fot Commision nx Aust or toa provincia aur: and ‘tha fale fo 3 20 fra peed ot wo months afer such counts shoud be Nowhere inthe provision does i equte that hor fst be a Gemand before an accountable act lhe bl ora vlaon of he cia, The wf very ler. Where fone proved, ne bout may not noduce exeeptans of condtions, hei may I nora ho the law qusiioaone not contemplated. Whore te law's Sea” 2nd Unambiguous, t mat be fakanto mean exacy what aye andthe cour has no choice tutto te tok tot te mandate le obeyed. Thee no room Tor lepretation, but oy ppleatn, Prriie People v. George Zapata, G.R. No. 197046, uly 21,2014 In the cine of parce, only the folowing elements sed to be satisfactory testabehed"(1) the cath of te deccased: 2) thal he ocho was kilod by the accused fad () thatthe daceased wae a legitimate ascendant or deceendart. or te legtimste ‘Spouse of te accused" Al hoes elements have Deen peowen beyond UL Murder People v. Daniel Matibag, G.R No. 20638, March 25,2015, inthis case, the prosecution was able to prove that Mag, whe was aed wth 2. gun Conented Dunan, and wi any peowocaion punched ana shat im en the host ‘ough the tack wae frontal the susden and unexpected manne? by wtih kas ‘mage rendered t impensse for Duhan to delond Rinse, acdng too that he Was [Ucamed Matinag alo fai to prove that heates exchange of words preceded the ‘ert so a to forewarn Dunen against any mpending stack fom hs aesafant The ‘aiberstonest of Mating’ act & father evs fam his dspoation preceding the ‘momert of execution. As he RTC apty potted ut, Matbag was ready and destned to ‘tect such dastaly 2, consider that he ad an axe te gna when he contented Duan, supled wit the fact hat he da 2, aed wth a leaded handgun Based on ‘hase nangs the Cour concludes that treachery was correct apprecated People v. Tomas Dimacuha, etal, G.R. No. 191060, February 2, 2015, ‘The prosecution evidence show that herein accused, together wih their group deinertely executed tel aggresion wheut any rk araing Fom ee vectn who was ‘aught urawre, Relpless and defenseless AY the time the group commenced thet fggreccon, Nok Agon wee enrely unsuspecting, 26 he was. on board is Misch Pajero wavering a narow svt leasig tote Nghway. Ho (gon) wae surprced whon ‘Theo and George Vian sudden approached from the fight ie of hohe a romp fred at him svccossvely Thee manne: purposely adopod by the uo couples lta tho help gen by tale comrades to encure the commision of the crime clearly Conatites veacheny 3% People v. Vegiio Amora, 6. No. 180322, November 26, 2014, ‘The quattyingcxcunstane of reachery does net requte thatthe perpetrator attack his ‘in fem being “even a frontal attack could be Weacheous When unexpected and On [gr unamedvictm who would bein no poston t epee attack oF avd” People v Jefferson Warrner, 6. No. 208678, June 16,2014Sela ee Given the manner by which the vem was kes by Jferson, both the RTC and CA Are Uhowce correct in hold that the vet's fling was atencea by teacher, a ‘Sreamstancs which qualified the cme to murdar. "The eseence of treachery i tht ‘Slack comes wiveat a'warnng and in a'awf.deiberate. and Unexpected mara ‘orcng fe hapless unarmed. and unsuspecting etm no chance fo resistor escape, Girne stated, an Unexpected and sudden atack which renders the iim unable Sd unprecared to put up a defenses the essence of reachery™ From the records, any animosty between the ‘wo groups. hed waned folowing ‘Gauuinicis oer of apology, hich was easly acoopteg by the grou of Jefferson. Betense winans Valentine even testified tht defrcon raped te apology by saying, ‘Sige olay lang” No futher exchange tarspwed between the two groupe. unl Jaterson's goup apprcached Lou Artron’s group. onthe pretest that the fomer wae ‘ateaay leaving tne bar. Ghen the cfeuratanona, the cuadon aac of Jefferson upon Tu anthony by ting him hard wi 2 gun wae clearly lho warning and unexboctos ton the pat othe visi, wha was hen mort seats wth hs companions. The Sika pon Lau Anthony caused Pim fof, and even befor ho coulé land upto face his ‘Sczaan,Jvleraon snot nthe frdiead, Cleary, the vem had ne chance to Rol & danas one wo nnd money, a proven byte estrone of be wears.il 208 | 8 Srna wae | Knowledge or conser fhe minal nota defense under Repu Act No, 2208 focused Game that AAA acted engosing in postion even before My 2, 2008. he concludes that ANA nas preceponed to having ex wi eustomers for money. FOr [akty under curio, the argument le ineavart Re detnes unger Sexton Sa) of Republic et No, 6208, trtfeleng in persons canst be commited even te vim (ves concert ‘SEC, 9. Defnton of Terms — As use ints Act: ‘a. Trffeng in Persons = reer fo the recrutmant, transport, transferor harboring, or recebt ef persone win of wihout te vets concert of nowage, win or cross nainal ones by means of tveat a se o face fr oher fame of coerson, abducton aud, deception, abuso of power or of Boston, ting advantage ofthe winerabity ofthe persons, of. tho avg oF Feceving ‘of payments benef to achieve the consent ol @ person having Gonrel over Sether person for the purpose of explotaton which inudes at 3 ‘rin, te expletaton or te prostiuion of ler of ahr fom of soul ‘Spl, fread labor or sonices avery, servlase oF he removal Sale rans. “Te recutment transportation, transfer, harboring or recelp of 2 chi forthe purpose of iplotaton shal io be eonsiered as "walang perars" even Hitdoes nol nvove ‘Sy ef ne means so forth in the preceding paragraph “The vitin's consents rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive ‘nears employed by perprators of human tafcking. Evan witout the vee of coer, [Sbuoe, or dBooptve meane, a minors consent not gon cu of his or her ow es ‘a Xiex Based on the dain of taking n persone andthe enumeration of acs of rffesng Inpereons, accused perlrmad a to sements nthe commission of the oflense wren She peled AAA and BBB and ofered ther senvans fo decoys POT Veloso and PO! persons were mines. Here, AAA teste as to how accused solicited her series forthe customers wating st ‘Guoeneland Motel. AAA also Tested Pat she was ony 17 years ou when socused peddle hor. Her corte Ive bith was presented as evidence fo show that she was Bom on danuary 27,1864 ‘The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable dout hat accused commited the conse of taticking mn persone, qualia by the fac tht one of he vt as 8 GAS ol bythe tal cout: ‘Ihe act of “sexual Intercourse’ need oot have been consummated forthe mere “Yransacton” that ‘soletation' or sex andthe banding over ofthe bust money” of Php. 1,00.00 area consummated the sid ac. Complex enme (i. 48, RPC) of rabery in an inated house by armed men under ‘rte 209 ofthe Revise Penal Code and robbery with vence agains rItittion ‘tparsns under Ail 204 of the Revised Penal Code ‘Aurora Engson Frans, G.R No, 197562, April 20, 2015 Napali v. Court of Appeals conoling in bis caso. To start wh the infomation futy ‘legos the compiex cme of robbery In'an labled house uncer Arie 260, Revised ona! Code, and robbery wth nimigaton or violence under Ace 294, Reviod Penal Cade by evening tat the above-named acoused, cansping fgathe,canfaderating Wo) and mauly elping one another, Ad then and there wily, unautuly an Telos with inten fo goin, and by moans of volonee ad intimisatien spon Person ‘2b tho rosidance x x 1" And, secondly, the Prosocuon competently proved the Commission ofthe complox crme by showing tung the tal thatthe accused, afar tering the rsidental houce of the complananis at No. 248 Mabat St. Teachers Vilage Guazon Cy took away valusble, inducing te vauk containing Cynthiae USSplaielree olarcurences, nd inthe proves commited ats of vole apsnet and intimidation ‘tparsone during he robber by slapping and treating Laine and ying her up and ‘Retcng the cher members ofthe houwehols aie the Bodega fhe hoe, Robbery with romicise People v. Reynaldo Torres, G.. No. 189850, September 22,2014 *Robber wih homicide ents ‘when a homicide ie commited eter by reason, or on ‘occasion at the robbery. To sustain a convicion for robbary wit homie, the prosecuton must prove the folowing clement: (1) the taking of personal propery Eolonging to another: (2) with itent to gas 3) wih the use of violence or intimation ‘garat s persons and (4) on the eoeasion or by reaeon of the robery, te crime of ome, used in te gonoro sence, wae commled. A concn requires cortude {Dat the fobbery & te mam purpose and objctve of the Maetactor ana te kilng Ismerey inccerta tothe robbery ‘The inant to rob must proved te faking of human ie butt ling may cur befor, ding o afer te robbery In thie oa, the proeseutlen aduced proc beyond reasonable doubt that the primary Intention of appelant and his companions was to roo Espino, Uma ard Macapar, the tyewinesvee, presented by the prosecution, tvtied Cat at around 10.00 pum. of ‘Stpomber 21,2001 appelan’s trther and coacsives, Romie blocked Esa car at the comer of CM, Reso Avenue and Vaya Svest When Espino aged fo his Vesicle, Roni etemgtod to grab hi bathag” A egal for posecssion ofthe bal-bag ‘naved was a the urctre that appear ard the ctor co-acuse joined the Fay land etabbod Espino coveraltines h the head and Body. When Espo fell to the pavement om his tsb wounds, appelnt, Romie and tho cohorts got hal ofthe ‘tire walle, betbag. wristwatch and jewelry ten fed ogeter From the foraging, # i clear thatthe primordial intention of appetiant and his Corona wast Epo. Had ty pray ena Ear, ey wal wi applnt for sosceson ofthe bexibg Sty Shweta cana tr was 2 ‘ommtrbban agenet Espino, Tie nterion was confine bythe aocusede taking of Eepin's beltous, wale, rstwaich and jewelries afer he was stabbod to death. The keling wae therfore mere icdentl,resuting by reason or on occasion ofthe robber ‘The sccused who ls charged with Robbery with homicide may be Red Kable for Homicide the Ronbery was ro established People v. Mark Joseph Chavez, G.R. No, 207950, September 22,2014 Inthe specs complex ere of robbery wth homicide, Romicise Is commited in order a) to fecitate the robber o he escape ofthe cul; (0) o preserve te possession by the capt of te ot 2) to prevent aacovery ofthe commiaion ofthe robbery F (2) {0 ebminte wrneaes fo the commision of the cma" 21 stab wounds woul be overt for thase purposes. The shese number of stab wound: inficed on Barbie makes faut to conclude an anginal cominal iter morly taking Barbe’ personal propery In People v. Sanchez this court found acoused-appetiant abe forthe separate crimes homie and thet for fale of the prosscutlon to concushel prove thet homicide Woe commited forthe purpose of robbing the vet: That of damaged property Eduardo Magsumbol, GR, No. 207178, November 26, 2014 ‘To warrant a convtion under the sforected provision for theft of damaged property, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable tat the aecuted maltcuely damaged the propery belonging fo another and, theres, removed or used the fits or objet ‘Berea! wih intent to oat. Evdery, te of damaged prope Is an itendenal felony for which erninal aby attaches nly when is shown that he maletactor ace ithrae noose | iin! itont or malice, Comin! intent must be cesry etabished wih the chor ‘ements ofthe come thence o cms Is commited X20 Where the prosecution adduced no proof on the value ofthe property scan the court Imay ether apaly the minimum penaty under Arle 209 or fc fe value ofthe propery {taken based on te attandantcreumstances othe case. Ma. Mime Cresencio . People, .R. No. 205018, November 18, 2014 ‘Cea, this evidence does not see. The Court had red that n order fo prove the ‘Shout of te propery taxen fo fing the poatyimposable agate accuses under ‘tcl 209 of ne Revees Pena Code (RPC), he preceeuton must present more than 3 there uncomaborated estimate" of eve fae inthe abeence cf ndepencert ad relable GBreboraton sf seen estate, cours may elie apayy the memum penalty under ‘rte 209 fix the value of he propery taken based onthe atendantcreumstances of {he ease Henos, the lower court eed Ih fnding thal the value of he confiscated lumber [BP9,040,00 orn evidence such value was establshas during to ‘Accordingly, the Court imposes on the peione: the minimum penalty under Arce 50906 ofthe RP, wc aes mayor i is minum an mas poids. XXX Theft commited by an employee qualifies Mel Candelaria v. People, 6. No. 208986, December 8, 2014 Inthe case, thor ie confluence of ll the forecing elrerts. Through the testimony tt the groasouton winesses, # was sffeleny cotablshea that te. 14.000 Hers of ‘eee oleae Ino the tory tuck with plate number PTA345 cven by Candelaria {for dnvery fo Viron on August 23, 2008 was taken by hm, whet he authorty and ‘oneent of Uso, ba ouer othe cess fel, and hat Candelana abused the confidence ‘epeeed upon tim by Lao, as is employer ‘Then commited by te guards and crvers is Quod Joel Yongee, etal. v. People, G.R. No. 208573, July 30,2014 [As comecty abeered bythe appelate cour, al ofthe elements of Quail Thet are bresertin s casa, vz “Tere isn ceput that he tems (rarmision, boom arm, dferetl assembly, an team) wc ae the subset mater ofthe ease belong fo he CEO of igan Cay. There ‘sno apne tat theze fem, ahough consderes "heap of cap," havo Nt Yet Doon Gedlared unconiseable or wast by the proper authorty or offes. Nor have they been mara for proper dsposal Unies propery deposed accordance wih Secon 379 ot the Local Goverment Cade, these tas are sl goverment proparioe o owned by ‘the Cty of figan “There ie iso no digpute that these tems ware token away ffom the CEO and wore ency under complete and efecive conta of to porsons tung the same. This ‘caus those ferme wera loaded onto the garbage tick anven by Tangian and brought to Temnobe at the Datin Junk Store Apparent the taking ofthese toms was without the consent of the CEO of lgan Cy Because there was no gate pase ictuod to that effect Evidence shows that whan the garbage ck ft the premises of the CEO, no gate pas was surendered by Tangan. ‘Yongeo did rat bore to ask for a gale pass onthe pte! that hore was anther guard con ty athe gate. Intent to gain ee animus oranda intemal act hate gresumed rom the unlawtu {aking by be onda f th tng subject fo aspertaon. Actual gain is relevant asthe Impotar consideration ste inert to gain. Since ewe fems wore brought ne ak lore, tnt to gain becomes obvious. The presumption of aimus rand has net been overtume,peters 1 is equally patent tat tne taking of these tems wae done wih grave abuee of Conficenen, The accused in thls ease, tboare eosin, wore uate and drivers wih ‘eoess to the entrance and ext of the CEO premises. oor werds, hay erjoyes the ‘wast and confisence reposea on them by thelr employer (th iy of ligan) fo have Ssozoes thoughout tbe CEO promises on accourt of ther respeive dues. More so ince the primary fureion ofthe CSU io fo guar to rope, incu the sald tems, fe CEO. R was iis Wust and confidence Wat was gravely abused by them thal fakes the te quated het commited by acashiorisqailed People v. Trinidad Cah, G.R. No. 199208, July 30,2014 Ile clear that a the elements of Quified Tet are presentin these cases. Canto took money fem WPESLA and is dopostors by taking aovanlage of her poston Her intent to gain ss seat inthe Use ofa careful Planned and abiborately fxecited scheme io comma the tet. Crave abuse of confdence,a¢ an element of Qualfied Taf, "must be the recut ofthe felon by reason of ependence.guasanshi, or viglanoe,between he appelant and {he offended party that mit crete a high degree of confidence Between ter which {he appoint abused” Cais poston was one reposed wih rust and conience, considering that involves ‘handing, managing, teceiveg, and lsbrang” monay form WEESLATs depostors and ‘her funds of te steocation, Cah ‘esperaibiice as WPESLA cashier requad prudence and valance aver te money errustea int er ear. However, instead of executing her duites, she datberstaly mised the beard of drocors ‘si authrng rntursamarts foe money that eventualy ened up in er Dereon ‘Secount a fat hat Cah is ct cen Estat paragraph 1(0), At. 315, RPC Soledad Tria . People, .R. No. 204755, eptember 17,2014 “The retun of eleven (11) poss ofthe jw tems is inconsequential because she received tuety two (22) tame on covaignmert end bound hore to ret ALL of them ‘Fnaoi The potiner breached het legal duty under Ine consignment contact to {etum or reme the esa proceeds of ALL oF such tem when she wat bl to Yeu oly ha of them whe the eter eleven (11) peces remained urreurmed and unaccounted for, to te damage and prude ofthe consignor, Nether can we land credence to tho pttioner's clam tat her fare to aogunt forthe Jewry Subject of tie inicent was because se sold the tame of cod Such act ‘Srey contravenes ine oxplct tors of the auhorty granted to her because the ‘consignment transaction with Seven Sphere prohibites hee fom saling the ewey on oat ve Soo Misappropriaton and conversion e again palpable rom these creumstances. By seling {he jewelry on cat, the pettoner Used tho property fora purpose oer han tha [greed upon. The worts “convere and "misappropias” connate an ac of USI of ‘Seposing of ancther's property as Awece one's ow oF devaing 10 8 purpose ar use ‘lecer rom that agreed toon ‘Demand not necessary Esala rough abuse of confidence Nenita Corganilo, .R No. 182424, September 22, 2014 We find that all he elements of estafa are present in tis case: that the petitioner received in tst the amount of P1S2.000.00 om Teresa forthe purpose of buyingSntee ease palayand misapropdited when she fae to rtum the said amount to Teresita upon Sermand: Geman not necessary Esafa ough abuse of conldence People v, Jose Go, et a, GR. No 101016, August 6, 2014 Final, on he mate of demand, whl thas net been shown that the bank demanded the ref of ho funds, thas nevertneless boon hot that "jemand int an element of the felony ora conctionprososent to the fling ofa eanal compart fr eeafa,Iaoos, the accused may be conviced ofthe felony under tise 315, paragraph 10) ofthe Revised Penal Code f the prosecution proved misappropriaton or convertion by the ‘Soused of the money of property subien f te nermatn. Ina prosecution fr ena, Semand s not necsseary ware there is evkence of msaporepriaion or conversion ‘Thum sti spesting, demand ic hot an olomert ofthe offence of exatahvough abuse of confidence even a verbal Query calles the Tequirement (ndoed, in several past ‘ing ofthe Cour, demana was nat even included as an slrart ofthe cre o esata (tvough abuse of ecntdance, or uncer paragraph 1b), Synccatod stata Ma, Gracia Hao, eal. v. People, GR. No, 183345, September 17,2016 “Theos ote factual creumstances show the elements of estate by means of deca. The Pulitoners induosd Dy to invest Sate Resouroes promising higher retirs. But Unknown to Dy, bal occured was merely 2 ruse fo secure hie money fo be used in Danny’s construction and reat business. The peters decet became rare Blatant ‘shen they adit tak pion tat as ary as August 1095, State Rewouress has ‘Sreaay been cssoved. Ths admission stern the concusion that the pettone’s ‘misrepresented face regarding themsehes and Sate Resources in erer fo persuade Byte at wth he money forivestmes ity an nexstent corporation. “These crcumstances al serve as incoators of he ptionar’deoat. ‘Dace te flee sepenearnton ofa maton of fat, heer by Words o conduc. fale of Misleeang SiSGatora ob. conosalment of thar wnion shows nave been decowed, which ‘ecetves ori ntondeato deceve anaes at he hal act upon ft i ep uy” Sor "We now address the lsue of whether estate in tis case wae commited though syns UUnaer Section 1 of PO No. 1689, here yndicated esata ihe folowing claments are present 4) exafa or eter for f owning 2s defined in Atel 315 and 316 of the RPC was committed: 2 the esata or suinding was commiod by a syncate of ve ot ‘hore persons” and ) the fraud ress nthe misappropriation of moneye couteutes by stacnolsors, or members of rural banks, cooperates, “eamahang nayors]” of farmers sesocatione or of tanss salted by corporatons/ssociatons om the genera publ “The factual croumstancos ofthe prsent case show tal the fist and socopd sloments of syncealesextafoare present here probate cause or volaion of Ate S151) Sf tho RPC again the pestones. Moreover in Dy supplemental complaint afidav he aloged tat the aud perperstod agaist him was commited, ot oly by NgO and the poblonere, but seo by te other aflcers and decors of Sate Resources, The ‘umber ofthe ocused who loge parpates in defauding Dy exceeded ve. thus ‘Salaying te requremont othe extonco ofa syrcate However, the third element of the crime & patently lacking, The funds taudulrty Salted by te corporation must come fom the gonerl pubic. nthe presi case, no ‘evidence wae presented fo show Dat ase fom Dy, the pebloners trou Sie Fecources, also sought investments rom ether peop. Dy had no co-comtlanants ‘soging that they wore also dosed fo ett the money 10 State Resources. The {General puts lament was not compled wih. Thus, no synaate esata allegedly took Place, on opie esata by means Seca In Estate the accused has juries! possession over th thing misspprepiated, In Then the accused has mae possession anyreap Bowens Margie Balerta, GR. No, 205148, November 26, 2014, “The petitone had no jurial possesion over the allegedly misappropriated funds CChua-2ures ie inatuctve anent what constitutes mere material possession, on one ‘and, and jute possession, on he other, forthe purpose of deraning whether ft lament festa i presentn a particular ca86, vz Have the foregoing elements boon met in the cage at bar? We fd the fst element fbsont When the mone, goods, or ary oer personal propery i received by the Cenaer fom the ‘fended. pary (1) In tuto (2) on commission of (3) fr ‘ministration, the ofender acquis both matrl or physieal posseston and jureal possession af he ting receved, Juridical possession means possession whch aves {he trancferee ght over te bing wesc the ansferse may setup aven against fe ‘owner fn ths case, pttioner was a cash cutocan who was primary responsi for the eash--vaut Her posession ofthe cash belonging fo the Barks akin fo that ofa bank inl both bong mere bank employees. In People v Locson, the receiving toler of @ bank misappropdated the money receved by him forthe ban. He was found labs for qualifies tek on the thoory Dat he fesbescion ofthe tele is the possession of te bank We expres in Larson that — Fine money was nthe posesasion ofthe defen a resting teller of the bark and the povesedion of the efendant war the possession of he ba. When the Sfendant, vt grave abuse of confidence, removed the meney and sporopiteg tos own use ‘rtout te consent of he ban, there wae the taking or apogeramlento cntamPlatas the deinen fhe cme oe” In the subsequent case of Guzman ¥. Court of Appeals, a taveting sales spent ‘isappropited cr faled to return to hi prnopal the proceed of tings of goods Ne ‘ras commissioned o aahorasd to sel He was, however ound able for exafa undor Uri 308 (1) () af he Revised Penal Code. ana not quad het In fhe Guzman fase, we exaned the distncton between posoesson ofa bork tele! at a agent for Purposes of detemining criminal laity ~ "Tho caso ced by tho Court of Appeals {People vs. Locson, 57 Phil 36), support offs theory tat appellant ony hat the ‘material possession of the merchandee he was seling for he pincpal, or thar ‘proceeds isnt polt, neal caze, the fecaing ole of 2 bank who mieaporopratog ‘money received Hy tm fer he bank, was bale guy of quale tat onthe theory that {be possession ofthe feler the possession of the bark. There's 2 essen disncten between the possession by a recaing toler of funds rooehod fom Tits persons paid Yo the bank, and. an agont wo TooeWes the proceeds of cles of Imerchandee devered to him n agency by hi peetpal Inthe former case, payment by {hrs persons fo the tall payment fo the bank Ee, te tor isa mere custodian oF keeper ofthe funds received, ana has no ndependers igh oF ie to rlan or possess {he same a0 against he bank An agent, on te eer hand, can even assert as spare Nis oun rnp, an independert,autonomeus, htt retain Maney or goods received Inconesquence ofthe agency, as when te princi fas to remnbure i for advances fo Ras mado, ad indornty him for damages suffered witout his faut (Ace T815, [Now Cit Goce: Artcle 1730, 08)" In the case at bench, there so question thatthe petioner was handing he funds lent ty Care Philppines to BAM. However she held the funds in bet of BABMPC. Over the funds, sbe fad mere phyciel or matrl possession, but she held no Frdependent ight of Wo, which she can set up against BABMPC. The petione: was rohing more than & mere cash cutodian. Hence, the Court find! tat uric! possession ofthe funds ae an element ofthe come of esata by misappropriation Is Maria Lina Volayo, 6.R. No, 204025, November 26,2014 ‘Yelayo was able to submit the CAR only for TCT No. 142675 but not for TCT No 122250, and thus only TCT No. 142675 was wansfred to WA. Volvo's reliance on Chua-Buree is misplaced, fer unike in Chua-Burce where the peltoner was a mare