March 2014 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law

March 2014 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal law and Procedure1. REVISED PENAL CODE Conspiracy; liability of conspirators. Assuming that the prosecution witnesses failed to identify exactly who inflicted the fatal wounds on Joey during the commotion, Erwin’s liability is not diminished since he and the others with him acted with concert in beating up and ultimately killing Joey. Conspiracy makes all the assailants equally liable as co-principals by direct participation. Since about 15 men, including accused Erwin, pounced on their one helpless victim, relentlessly bludgeoned him on the head, and stabbed him on the stomach until he was dead, there is no question that the accused took advantage of their superior strength. The Supreme Court thus affirmed the decision of the lower courts finding accused Erwin guilty of murder. People of the Philippines v. Erwin Tamayo y Bautisa, G.R. No. 196960, March 12, 2014. Rape; rape victim with a mental disability either deprived of reason or demented. Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides for two circumstances when having carnal knowledge of a woman with a mental disability is considered rape, to wit: paragraph 1(b) – when the offended party is deprived of reason; and paragraph 1(d) – when the offended party is demented. Under paragraph 1(d), the term demented refers to a person who has dementia, which is a condition of deteriorated mentality, characterized by marked decline from the individual’s former intellectual level and often by emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. On the other hand, under paragraph 1(b), the phrase deprived of reason has been interpreted to include those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation. People of the Philippines v. Ernesto Ventura Sr., G.R. No. 205230, March 12, 2014. Rape; when rape victim is deprived of reason but not demented. Since AAA is mentally deficient, she should properly be classified as a person who is “deprived of reason,” and not one who is “demented.” Hence, carnal knowledge of a mentally deficient individual is rape under subparagraph (b) and not subparagraph (d) of Article 266-A(1) of the RPC, as amended. Nevertheless, the erroneous reference to paragraph 1(d) in the Information will not exonerate Ventura because he failed to raise this as an objection, and the particular facts stated in the Information were protestation sufficient to inform him of the nature of the charge against him. From the foregoing, all that needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the rapist and his victim, and the latter’s mental retardation. People of the Philippines v. Ernesto Ventura Sr., G.R. No. 205230, March 12, 2014. Rape; exact date of rape incident not an essential element. AAA’s failure to recall the exact date of the first rape and the number of times she was sexually assaulted by Ventura prior to March 24, 2005, does not militate against her credibility since rape victims are not expected to cherish in their memories an accurate account of the dates, number of times and manner they were violated. This is especially true in the case of AAA who obviously cannot be expected to act like an adult who would have the courage and intelligence to disregard the threat to her life and complain immediately that she had been sexually assaulted. AAA’s testimony was clear that every time Ventura would rape her, he would threaten her against revealing the offense. Given AAA’s mental condition, it can well substitute for violence and intimidation enough to cow her into submission. The Supreme Court had repeatedly held that the exact date when the victim was sexually abused is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. Indeed, the precise time of the crime has no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the time or place of commission in rape cases need not be accurately stated. Inconsistencies and discrepancies as to minor matters which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal. Hence, the allegation in the information, which states that the rape was committed on or about March 24, 2005, is sufficient to affirm the conviction of Ventura in the said case. People of the Philippines v. Ernesto Ventura Sr., G.R. No. 205230, March 12, 2014. Statutory rape; elements; proof of force, intimidation or consent not necessary. Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant. People of the Philippines v. Guillermo B. Candano Jr., G.R. No. 207819, March 12, 2014. Statutory rape; elements; proof of force, intimidation or consent not necessary. A judicious review of the records of this case would reveal that the aforementioned elements of statutory rape are present. First, the presentation of AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth showing that she was born on July 25, 1998 has proven that she was below 12 years of age when the three (3) rape incidents happened on December 26 and 27, 1996, and in June 2000, respectively. Second, the prosecution proved that Cadano indeed had carnal knowledge of AAA on three (3) separate occasions through the latter’s positive, categorical, and spontaneous testimony, as corroborated by the medico-legal report. People of the Philippines v. Guillermo B. Candano Jr., G.R. No. 207819, March 12, 2014. 2. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Alias; defined. An alias is a name or names used by a person or intended to be used by him publicly and habitually, usually in business transactions, in addition to the real name by which he was registered at birth or baptized the first time, or to the substitute name authorized by a competent authority; a man’s name is simply the sound or sounds by which he is commonly designated by his fellows and by which they distinguish him, but sometimes a man is known by several different names and these are known as aliases. An alias is thus a name that is different from the individual’s true name, and does not refer to a name that is not different from his true name. Revelina Limson v. Eugenio Juan Gonzalez, G.R. No. 162205, March 31, 2014. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Section 3(g); private persons acting in conspiracy with public officers may be indicted. The only question that needs to be settled in the present petition is whether herein respondent, a private person, may be indicted for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 even if the public officer, with whom he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the Information. Respondent contends that by reason of the death of Secretary Enrile, there is no public officer who was charged in the Information and, as such, prosecution against respondent may not prosper. The Supreme Court was not persuaded. It held that, it is true that by reason of Secretary Enrile’s death, there is no longer any public officer with whom respondent can be charged for violation of R.A. 3019. It does not mean, however, that the allegation of conspiracy between them can no longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent. Stated differently, the death of Secretary Enrile does not mean that there was no public officer who allegedly violated Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. In fact, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause to indict Secretary Enrile for infringement of Sections 3(e) and (g) of R.A. 3019. Were it not for his death, he should have been charged. People of the Philippines v. Henry T. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Section 3(g); private persons acting in conspiracy with public officers may be indicted. The requirement before a private person may be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, is that such private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the present case where the public officer has already died, the private person may be indicted alone. People of the Philippines v. Henry T. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014. Chain of custody rule. The Supreme Court has time and again spoken on the chain of custody rule, a method of authenticating evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. People of the Philippines v. Freddie Ladip y Rubio, G.R. No. 196146, March 12, 2014. Chain of custody rule; buy-bust situation. From the testimonies of the police officers in the case at bench, the prosecution established that they had custody of the drugs seized from the accused from the moment he was arrested, during the time he was transported to the police station, and up to the time the drugs were submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. The same witnesses also identified the seized drugs with certainty when these were presented in court. With regard to the handling of the seized drugs, there are no conflicting testimonies or glaring inconsistencies that would cast doubt on the integrity thereof as evidence presented and scrutinized in court. It is therefore safe to conclude that, to the unprejudiced mind, the testimonies show without a doubt that the evidence seized from the accused at the time of the buy-bust operation was the same one tested, introduced, and testified to in court. In short, there is no question as to the integrity of the evidence against the accused. People of the Philippines v. Freddie Ladip y Rubio, G.R. No. 196146, March 12, 2014. Chain of custody; buy-bust situation. The following links must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turn over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turn over and submission of the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the court. People of the Philippines v. Hermanos Constantino, Jr. y Binayug, a.k.a. “Jojit”, G.R. No. 199689, March 12, 2014. Chain of custody; buy-bust situation. After a careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the Supreme Court found glaring inconsistencies affecting the integrity of the shabu purportedly confiscated from Constantino. The inconsistent testimonies of PO3 Domingo, PO3 Hernandez, and P/SInsp. Tulauan as to who, when, and where the two plastic sachets of shabu were marked lead the court to question whether the two plastic sachets of shabu identified in court were the very same ones confiscated from Constantino. The doubtful markings already broke the chain of custody of the seized shabu at a very early stage. To recall, the first crucial link in the chain of custody is seizure and marking of the illegal drug. In this case, PO3 Domingo, as poseur-buyer, received two plastic sachets of shabu from Constantino in exchange for P1,000. However, PO3 Domingo himself did not put any markings on the two plastic sachets of shabu. Instead, upon arrival of the buy-bust team with Constantino at the police station, PO3 Domingo turned over the two plastic sachets of shabu to the investigator, SPO2 Tamang, who was also a member of the buy-bust team. PO3 Domingo testified that it was SPO2 Tamang who put the marking “NBT” on the said sachets of shabu. However, PO3 Hernandez, another member of the buy-bust team, categorically pointed to SPO2 Taguiam, also a member of the buy-bust team, as the one who put the marking “NBT” on the plastic sachets upon the team’s return to the police station. To complicate things even further, P/SInsp Tulauan, the Forensic Chemist, also declared before the trial court that the marking “NBT” on the two plastic sachets of shabu were made by SPO3 Nelson B. Tamaray, the duty officer who received the specimens at the crime laboratory. On cross-examination, P/SInsp. Tulauan confirmed her previous declaration that SPO3 Tamaray had claimed making the marking on the sachets of shabu. Herein, the prosecution is completely silent as to why PO3 Domingo, the poseur-buyer, despite having immediate custody of the two plastic sachets of shabu purchased from Constantino, failed to immediately mark the seized drugs before turning over the custody of the same to another police officer. This lapse in procedure opened the door for confusion and doubt as to the identity of the drugs actually seized from Constantino during the buy-bust and the ones presented before the trial court, especially considering that three different people, during the interval, supposedly received and marked the same. People of the Philippines v. Hermanos Constantino, Jr. y Binayug, a.k.a. “Jojit”, G.R. No. 199689, March 12, 2014. Illegal use of aliases. On the issue of the alleged use of illegal aliases, the Supreme Court observed that respondent’s aliases involved the names “Eugenio Gonzalez”, “Eugenio Gonzales”, “Eugenio Juan Gonzalez”, “Eugenio Juan Gonzalez y Regalado”, “Eugenio C.R. Gonzalez”, “Eugenio J. Gonzalez”, and – per Limson – “Eugenio Juan Robles Gonzalez.” But these names contained his true names, albeit at times joined with an erroneous middle or second name, or a misspelled family name in one instance. The it cannot be regarded as binding truth. 3. 2014. 197204. appellant attempted to show that he was at barangay Ananong at the time of the rape incident. Danilo O.A. including the Government. the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. or gave any private party unwarranted benefit. As held in People v. Proof of the extent of damage is not essential. People of the Philippines v. proof of the extent of damage is not essential. however. The regularity of the performance of the police officers’ duties leaves much to be desired in this case given the lapses in their handling of the allegedly confiscated shabu. Jerry Caranto y Propeta. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. using their official positions. The third element of the offense – that the act of the accused caused undue injury to any party. No.000. as in this case. For alibi to prosper. Thus.000 supposedly for the purchase of combat clothing and individual equipment (CCIE) items of PNP personnel. procedure lapses in handling of shabu negates presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. Section 3(e). or the misspelling of the family name resulted from error or inadvertence left unchecked and unrectified over time. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts erred in giving weight to the presumption of regularity in the performance that a police officer enjoys in the absence of any taint of irregularity and of ill motive that would induce him to falsify his testimony. whichever is practicable. March 31. However. R.000.records disclose that the erroneous middle or second names. appellant’s assertion that the . the recipients of the P20. No.R.A.000 remains unaccounted for. G. it must not only be shown that appellant was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime but that it was also impossible for him to be present at the crime scene. it can be gleaned that in cases of warrantless seizures. the dismissal of the charge against him was justified in fact and in law. The Supreme Court had previously held that these lapses negate the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers. and not necessarily at the place of seizure. March 31.R. Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. 9165. 9165. Aplat. 193768. In this case. Garcia and Joven SD. March 5.R. From a cursory reading of Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. “marking upon immediate confiscation” does not exclude the possibility that marking can be done at the police station or office of the apprehending team. and up to now the P20. Indeed. especially in the face of allegations of frame-up. People of the Philippines v. Considering that he was not also shown to have used the names for unscrupulous purposes. Once challenged by evidence. 191727. the apprehending team cannot be faulted if the inventory and marking were done at their office where appellant was immediately brought for custody and further investigation. G. Section 21(a) of the IRR of R. 2014. the prosecution’s evidence duly proved that petitioners. facilitated the approval and release of government funds amounting to P20. and that such names were not different from each other.A. Resurreccion. 2014. inventory and marking of seized items in warrantless seizures. However. G. the fact that the inventory and marking of the subject item were not made onsite is of no moment and will not lead to appellant’s exoneration. by dishonesty and breach of sworn duty. Thus. or to deceive or confuse the public. The totality of all the procedural lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. G. It should be noted that the presumption is precisely just that – a presumption.000 turned out to be fictitious PNP personnel. Manuel S. is that such names were not fictitious names within the purview of the Anti-Alias Law. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines. in the present case. What is significant. 2014. Brizuela v. Indeed. No. Eugenio Juan Gonzalez. In the present case. R. March 26. No. as found by the trial court. Hence. 162205.R. as in this case. the distance between barangay Ananong and barangay Ogbong is only four kilometers and could be traversed in one hour or even less. 3019.000. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Alibi. inventory and marking of the seized item can be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending authorities. petitioners should be made liable for their deceit and misrepresentation and should compensate the government for the actual damage the government has suffered. Revelina Limson v. advantage or preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused – was established here. it being sufficient that the injury suffered or the benefit received is perceived to be substantial enough and not merely negligible. 2014. or to deny the said motion. in a motion for reconsideration – for being offensive to the basic rules of fair play. It held that the minor contradictions in Espejo and Arce’s testimonies are inconsequential and do not detract from the proven elements of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.trial court and the appellate court should have considered his alibi must fail. for the first time before the Sandiganbayan when they filed their separate Supplements to Motion for Reconsideration and after a decision had already been rendered by the Sandiganbayan.R. March 10. Petitioners anchor their defense on the nature of their respective positions to prove that they acted within the bounds of their functions. 197204. once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court. (2) Espejo stated that appellant was then wearing basketball shorts while Arce described him as wearing a six-pocket short pants. Evidence. Sherwin Bis y Avellaneda. People of the Philippines v. The trial court even expressed its apprehension that no prosecutor would be willing to prosecute the case should the motion to withdraw be denied. When confronted with a motion to withdraw an Information on the ground of lack of probable cause based on a resolution of the Secretary of Justice. The only matter discussed by the trial court was its concurrence with the Department of Justice relative to the service and conduct of the search for illegal drugs. in a planned buy-bust operation. No. Appellant here pointed out inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Espejo and Arce. No. The Supreme Court was not convinced. theories. People of the Philippines v. The trial . or to quash the Information. and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court are barred by estoppel and cannot be considered by a reviewing court. Sherwin Bis y Avellaneda. do not affect the veracity and weight of their testimonies where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the accused. No. or to withdraw the Information in compliance with the directive of the Secretary of Justice. The settled rule is that issues not raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal – in this case. 191360. issues. The Regional Trial Court here clearly deferred to the finding of probable cause by the Secretary of Justice without doing its own independent evaluation. G. 2014.R.R. 191360. Information.” Significantly. Danilo O. as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. justice and due process. the bounden duty of the trial court is to make an independent assessment of the merits of such motion. March 24. Brizuela v. the ruling of the Secretary of Justice with respect to the existence of probable cause is not binding on the court. 2014. People of the Philippines. as well as to the other surrounding circumstances that transpired during the said operation. No. G.R. the poseur-buyer. The rule applies to a motion to withdraw the Information or to dismiss the case even before or after arraignment of the accused. respectively. It is now too well-settled to require extensive documentation that “inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses. the court has the sole prerogative to resolve motions to withdraw an Information filed by the Secretary of Justice. Jerry Obogne. G. credibility of witnesses not affected by minor inconsistencies. When the trial court grants a motion of the public prosecutor to dismiss the case. People of the Philippines v. G. 2014. G. in the case at bench. Having acquired jurisdiction over the case. and discretion of the trial court. Appeal. Information. Points of law. the trial court is not bound by such resolution but is required to evaluate it before proceeding farther with the trial. when the Information is filed in court. Indeed. to wit: (1) Espejo testified that he found the aluminum foils and the marked money tucked on appellant’s waistline while Arce testified that he saw Espejo frisk appellant and found the specimen in the latter’s pocket. 199740. No. competence. March 26. issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. However. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines. any disposition of the case or dismissal or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the exclusive jurisdiction. Appellant argued that these inconsistent statements render Espejo and Arce incredible witnesses. March 19. the testimonies of the said witnesses for the prosecution were in harmony with respect to their positive identification of appellant as the one who sold the illegal drugs to Espejo. it does so not out of subservience to or defiance of the directive of the Secretary of Justice but in the sound exercise of its judicial prerogative. March 10. Garcia and Joven SD. which refer only to minor details and collateral matters. Garcia and Brizuela only raised their functions as Assistant Regional Director for Comptrollership and Disbursing Officer.R. 189176. Barry Lanier and Perlita Lanier v. Evidence. 2014. credibility of witnesses not affected by minor inconsistencies. Jose Jesus M. While he did not file an appeal before applying for probation. March 19.court declared that the evidence is inadmissible in view of the manner the search warrant was served. While the Secretary’s ruling is persuasive. which seeks to make appeal and probation mutually exclusive remedies. No.. No. all liberties. 2014 by Dominador Maphilindo O. he assailed the validity of the conviction in the guise of a petition supposedly assailing the denial of probation. An accused applying for probation is deemed to have accepted the judgment. Barry Lanier and Perlita Lanier v. Probation. In the absence of legislation tracing the interaction of netizens and their level of responsibility such as in other countries. People of the Philippines. Democracy will be threatened and with it. These forms of aiding or abetting lend themselves to the tests of common sense and human experience. as the petitioners point out. thus casting doubt on the judgment itself. et al. having acquired jurisdiction over the case. it is not binding on courts. and Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography. When a person aids or abets another in destroying a forest. 188191. On the one hand. smuggling merchandise into the country. Disini Jr. The Secretary of Justice. G. G. appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies. 2014. No. Probation. Remedial Law • Here are select February 2014 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on criminal law and procedure: 1.Law. the truth of which can be best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits.R. Section 5. 188191. The application for probation is an admission of guilt on the part of an accused for the crime which led to the judgment of conviction.D. No. The assignment of errors in the Petition before the Supreme Court reflects the diametrically opposed positions taken by accused petitioner. Enrique Almero y Alcantara v. Enrique Almero y Alcantara v. petitioner cannot make up his mind whether to question the judgment. he attempted to circumvent P. appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies. February 2014 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure Posted on March 10. The Supreme Court thus emphasized that the trial court. et al. he persists in his application for probation.R. et al. self-inhibition borne of fear of what sinister predicaments await internet users will suppress otherwise robust discussion of public issues. cannot stand scrutiny. which is necessarily deemed a waiver of his right to appeal. Philippines . If such means are adopted. despite the waiver and admission of guilt implicit in any procedure for probation – precisely the unhealthy wager the law seeks to prevent. Philippines Cases. No. is not bound by such resolution but is required to evaluate it before proceeding further with the trial. 203335. People of the Philippines. In so doing.D. he bewails the defects committed by the trial court during the promulgation of the judgment. 2014. Carrillo • Posted in Criminal Law. In the present case. . et al v. What is more. People of the Philippines. 1990. or apply for probation. REVISED PENAL CODE Aiding or abetting.R. 2014. Aiding or abetting has of course well-defined meaning and application in existing laws. February 11. G.R. Aside from the goals of according expediency and liberality to the accused. Unsolicited Commercial Communications. This was the reason why the Probation Law was amended: precisely to put a stop to the practice of appealing from judgments of conviction – even if the sentence is probationable – for the purpose of securing an acquittal and applying for the probation only if the accused fails in his bid. Yet in the same breath. the rationale for the treatment of appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies is that they rest on diametrically opposed legal positions. 968. 189176. the grounds relied upon by petitioners should be fully explained and threshed out not in a preliminary investigation but during trial as the same are matters of defense involving factual issues. formal crimes such as libel are not punishable unless consummated. or interfering in the peaceful picketing of laborers. G. In the case at bar. in relation to Section 4(c)(4) on Libel. 2014. Settled is the rule that the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense. Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications. March 12. as amended by P. March 12. Child Pornography. his action is essentially physical and so is susceptible to easy assessment as criminal in character. all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.R. In lieu thereof.R. 2014. The culture associated with internet media is distinct from that of print. direct proof. The internet is characterized as encouraging a freewheeling. Cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353. Wilfredo Gunda Alias “Fred”. and (4) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder. 2014.R. 189833. People of the Philippines v. in relation to Article 355 of the Penal Code. reasonably connected to Atienza and his own alleged participation in the above-stated crimes. 170462. elements. No. was instrumental or. the totality of the factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to transport the dangerous drugs. . Consummated homicide. however. People of the Philippines. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. and not for the purpose of indemnification. 2014. 2014. as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault. While direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy as it may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused before. In effect. In a sense. G. existence of conspiracy. The Supreme Court (SC) noted that the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not award actual damages. concerted action. already punishes it. 2014. totality of the factual circumstances doctrine. No. facilitated by one-click reply options offered by the networking site as well as by the speed with which such reactions are disseminated down the line to other internet users.000. bereft of any showing as to how the particular acts of petitioners figured into the common design of taking out the subject volume and inserting the falsified documents therein. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. 2014. February 11. Cyberlibel. G. G. People of the Philippines. the SC awarded temperate damages in the amount of P25. it need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. Frustrated homicide. No. No. In conspiracy. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. 170462. The crime of homicide is committed when: (1) a person is killed. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. design. February 5. 2014. Disini Jr. The Secretary of Justice. February 5. anything goes writing style. February 5.R. People of the Philippines v. et al v. People of the Philippines v. without any other proof of Castro’s participation. and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is present. The crime of frustrated homicide is committed when: (1) an accused intended to kill his victim. 188694.00. (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance.Conspiracy. et al. Jose Jesus M. taken together. unheard of when the penal code provisions on libel were enacted. during and after the commission of the crime which point to a joint purpose. It would be a stretch to conclude that the act of Castro of inviting Atibula to Atienza’s party. G. No. only the author of the libelous statement or article penalized.. the prosecution’s theory of conspiracy does not deserve any merit.R. Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies. Javier Morilla y Avellano. which is presumed. usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which. they are a world apart in terms of quickness of the reader’s reaction to defamatory statements posted in cyberspace. G. The assent of the minds may be and. merely affirms that online defamation constitutes “similar means” for committing libel. To determine conspiracy. from the secrecy of the crime. or by that of parricide or infanticide. Javier Morilla y Avellano. there must be a common design to commit a felony. People of the Philippines. February 12. Castro v. In this case. February 5. This award is adjudicated so that a right which has been violated may be recognized or vindicated. Ricardo L. 203335. In addition. Section 4(c)(4) of R. 189833. (3) the accused had the intention to kill. Atienza and Alfredo A. G.R. February 5. Hence. elements. indicate that they are parts of some complete whole. at the very least. 195525. as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved. Conspiracy. Damages. (2) the accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance. Conspiracy. and community of interests. But the Supreme Court’s acquiescence goes only insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes the author of the libelous statement or article. records are. G. No. No.R.A. methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution. natural. It goes against the grain of human experience for a woman who has been robbed of her honor and chastity not to seize an opportunity to escape from the clutches of her malefactor. or complexed with the same. (b) publication of the charge. 195525.R. There being no other aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery. No. Disini Jr.R. No. the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. People of the Philippines. Qualifying circumstance. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 2014. 195525.R. Saturnino C. The elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another. (c) identity of the person defamed. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. February 11.R. In the case at bar. 176830. 170462. There is “actual malice” or malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory statement with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. 2014. et al. among other things. The conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance in establishing the truth or falsity of the charge of rape. People of the Philippines v. G. 190178. On this point. It must be emphasized. Jose Jesus M. to live with her abuser’s entire family in one roof for eight (8) days sans any attempt to escape. Mervin Gahi. perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense. 202976. 2014. People of the Philippines v. shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. February 5. . the Court of Appeals correctly held that the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The petitioners’ intent to kill was clearly established by the nature and number of wounds sustained by their victims. consequently. Political offense doctrine.R. as amended. 2014. G. No. conviction solely on the testimony of the victim.R. and the nature.A. the killing is not homicide or murder. Gross or even extreme negligence is not sufficient to establish actual malice. Appellant questions the weighty trust placed by the trial court on the singular and uncorroborated testimony of AAA as the basis for his conviction. 4180. It is contrary to normal human behavior for AAA to willingly go with her abuser’s mother.” Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by being absorbed in the crime of rebellion. Under the political offense doctrine. G. No. Ephrem S. February 19. however. treachery. Wilfredo Gunda Alias “Fred”. Ocampo v. G. Thus. at the time of. employing means. location and number of wounds sustained by the victim. Hon. G. Libel.. convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. February 11. 203335. the Supreme Court reminded appellant that it is a fundamental principle in jurisprudence involving rape that the accused may be convicted based solely on the testimony of the victim. et al v. The Secretary of Justice. penalty. or immediately after the killing of the victim. G. Rape. No. Rape. when a killing is committed in furtherance of rebellion. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the accused in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement he published. “common crimes. February 5. or whose sentence will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of this Act. No. 2014. 2014. the killing assumes the political complexion of rebellion as its mere ingredient and must be prosecuted and punished as rebellion alone. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. provided that such testimony is credible. The reckless disregard standard used here requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity. Wilfredo Gunda Alias “Fred”. 2014. et al. concept. otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law. the actuations of AAA after the alleged rape is totally uncharacteristic of one who has been raped. that appellant is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of R. of the means used by the malefactors. Abando. the lower of the two indivisible penalties.’ People of the Philippines v. elements. There is treachery when the offender commits a crime against the person. G. 9346 which states that ‘persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist. to justify the imposition of a graver penalty. Rather. are divested of their character as ‘common’ offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime of which they are mere ingredients. February 12. and. the conduct of the malefactors before. conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault. Felimon Patentes y Zamora. People of the Philippines v. No. Murder.Intent to kill. and (d) existence of malice. cannot be punished separately from the principal offense. February 5. and worse.R. No. ultimately and oftentimes. it should be viewed from the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the . Aaron. Thus. elements. Hence. No. People of the Philippines v. For rape to exist. People of the Philippines v. force or intimidation need not be irresistible in rape. The three (3) penetrations occurred one after the other at an interval of five (5) minutes wherein the appellant would rest after satiating his lust upon his victim and. 202976. and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful manner. the Supreme Court (SC) agreed with the statement made by the Court of Appeals that it is not absurd nor contrary to human experience that AAA gave birth ten (10) months after the alleged sexual assault as there may be cases of long gestations. What is important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter’s will or without her consent. or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. 2014. Manolito Lucena y Velasquez. elements. his conviction for three (3) counts of rape is indubitable. after he has regained his strength. SC dismissed appellant’s contention as immaterial to the case at bar because jurisprudence reveals that impregnation is not an element of rape. The elements necessary to sustain a conviction for rape are: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim. Rape. he would again rape AAA.R. whether ordinary or qualifying. (2) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman. Mervin Gahi. The three insertions into AAA were in satiation of successive but distinct criminal carnality. is automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. which is mandatory in a finding of rape is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion. Hence. but rather by several criminal intent. is of no moment. citing People v. Pregnancy is not an essential element of the crime of rape. 190632. The appellant. insists that he cannot be convicted of three (3) counts of rape despite the three (3) penetrations because he was motivated by a single criminal intent. the award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2230 of the Civil Code if there is an aggravating circumstance. February 19. People of the Philippines v. Rape. 190178. In any event. 199268. February 26. No. Therefore.R. Felimon Patentes y Zamora. impregnation not an element of rape. Rape. and (2) said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation. 2014. 2014. G. G. or by some unknown individual. it is not necessary that the force or intimidation be so great or be of such character as could not be resisted – it is only necessary that the force or intimidationbe sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. 202976. credibility of victim’s testimony. since the qualifying circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon was present in the commission of the crime. The elements of rape (under paragraph 1. G. subparagraph a of Article 266-A) are as follows: (1) that the offender is a man. The force and violence required in rape cases is relative and need not be overpowering or irresistible when applied. Aurelio Jastiva. Mervin Gahi. G. Rape. G. 2014. G. it can be clearly inferredfrom the foregoing that when the appellant decided to commit those separate and distinct acts of sexual assault upon AAA.R. hinges on the credibility of the victim’s testimony. February 19. one count for each separate act of sexual assault. 2014. No. In addition. he was not motivated by a single impulse. The award of moral damages.R. However. With regard to appellant’s first point. In this case. or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. Further. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused. (threat) or intimidation. in this jurisdiction. It is well-entrenched in case law that the rape victim’s pregnancy and resultant childbirth are irrelevant in determining whether or not she was raped. on the other hand. No. it appears from the facts that the appellant thrice succeeded in inserting his penis into the private part of AAA. the appellant’s conviction for three counts of rape is proper. People of the Philippines v. and (3) that such act is accomplished by using force. Civil indemnity. It is jurisprudentially settled that when a woman says she has been raped. February 12. the fate of the accused in a rape case. 2014. People of the Philippines v. Manolito Lucena y Velasquez. Rape. Rape. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused. February 12. 190632. People of the Philippines v.Rape. February 26. damages.R. No.R. 190632. The three guiding principles in rape prosecutions are as follows: (1) an accusation of rape is easy to make. February 26. No. 2014. The defense failed to discharge the burden of proving that AAA and Jackie Gucela had any kind of romantic or sexual relationship which resulted in AAA’s pregnancy. G. such variance on minor details has the net effect of bolstering the truthfulness of AAA’s accusations. the Supreme Court agreed with the assessment made by the Court of Appeals that these are but minor discrepancies that do little to affect the central issue of rape which is involved in this case.R.R. 2014. For the sweetheart theory to be believed when invoked by the accused. 190632.R. Further. 2014. physical resistance is not an essential element of rape and need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim. For the [“sweetheart”] theory to prosper. The victim’s failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary her submission to the criminal acts of her aggressor. (2) bearing in mind the intrinsic nature of the crime. The second paragraph of Art. as amended. tied. No. although it is a person other than the accused who is claiming to be the victim’s sweetheart and the father of her child.R. thus. slapped and boxed. G. Instead of diminishing AAA’s credibility. both lower courts correctly imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. G. but it is even more difficult to disprove. people react differently. contrary to the prosecution’s claim that AAA was dragged. A few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed testimony. Rape. physical resistance not an essential element of rape.” As it was properly alleged and proved that the appellant used a gun in order to consummate his evil desires. G. penalty. the existence of the supposed relationship must be proven by convincing substantial evidence. 190178. to the rapist’s embrace because of fear for her life and personal safety. People of the Philippines v. as has been consistently held by this Court. 202976. Rape. People of the Philippines v. People of the Philippines v. No. and difficult to prove. there should be a corroboration by their common friends or. Failure to adduce such evidence renders his claim to be self-serving and of no probative value. What is vital is that the force or intimidation be of such degree as to cow the unprotected and vulnerable victim into submission. the latter submits herself. For the satisfaction of the Court. February 19. Manolito Lucena y Velasquez. 2014. it is also a precept that physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put together. Manolito Lucena y Velasquez. In fact. 202976. It has to be noted that the medical examination was conducted the day after AAA’s supposed escape from appellant. Rape. Absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape since proof of injuries is not an essential element of the crime. In the case at bar. Felimon Patentes y Zamora. No. 2014. People of the Philippines v. such an assertion must nonetheless be believably demonstrated by the evidence. physical evidence. Rape. Mervin Gahi.commission of the crime. against her will. pictures and the like. February 12. G. sweetheart theory. The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. gifts. February 26. three guiding principles in rape prosecutions. provides that “[w]henever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon x x x the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. the medical certificate revealed no telltale sign of the prosecution’s allegations. Rape. she cannot be expected to think and act coherently. convincing evidence to prove the existence of the supposed relationship must be presented by the proponent of the theory. No. People of the Philippines v. It bears stressing that not every rape victim can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone. mauled. And. People of the Philippines v. and. 190632. the prosecution failed to present any scintilla of proof to support its claim. Force is sufficient if it produces fear in the victim. No.R. It must be borne in mind that when a rape victim becomes paralyzed with fear. Mervin Gahi. such as when the latter is threatened with death. Manolito Lucena y Velasquez. Anent the inconsistent statements made by AAA in her testimony which were pointed out by appellant. the testimony of the complainant must be . 2014. February 26. In the present case. Rape. February 19. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. G. inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony. if none. a substantiation by tokens of such a relationship such as love letters.R. R. et al. the Supreme Court has held that if the testimony of the rape victim is accurate and credible. 2014. Glenn Salvador y Balverde. chain of custody rule. whether complete or incomplete. non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds. et al. There are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buybust situation. 190621. the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. chain of custody rule. This is because no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit to being raped and. fourth. the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. Glenn Salvador y Balverde. No. the marking of the dangerous drug may be done in the presence of the violator in the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team. By invoking self-defense. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault. the seizure and marking.” In this case. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that the crime of rape was committed. respectively. the most important of all is the element of unlawful aggression. 199268. in fact. G. as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. albeit under circumstances that. February 10. were attended by the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victims. and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the persons resorting to selfdefense. 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. marking. if proven. February 12. the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. 2014. G. It is clear from the earlier cited Sec. a rape victim. elements. Appellant’s contention that the marking of the seized sachets of shabu should have been made in his presence while at the scene of the crime instead of in the police station fails to impress. In a long line of cases. (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression. No.R. People of the Philippines v. People of the Philippines v. admitted to the commission of the acts for which they were charged. 190621. February 10.A. 190621. G. when a woman says that she has been raped. Aurelio Jastiva. when substantial compliance is allowed. the burden of proof shifted to the petitioners to show that the killing and frustrated killing of David and Erwin.scrutinized with utmost care and caution. People of the Philippines v. 2014. Dangerous Drugs Act. With this admission. What is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. if practicable. second. 2014. No. February 5. shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. third. There can be no self-defense.R. G. Appellant should not confuse buy-bust situation from search and seizure conducted by virtue of a court-issued warrant. et al. This is due to the proviso added in the implementing rules stating that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have not been preserved. Self-defense. or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury. thus. upon a person. and (3) the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits.R. It is in the latter case that physical inventory (which includes the marking) is made at the place where the search warrant is served. The element of unlawful aggression must be proven first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded. of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer. namely: “first. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Dangerous Drugs Act. No. in effect. unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. 2. the prosecution established clearly the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. February 10. the petitioners. Dangerous Drugs Act. and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. and. would have exculpated them. run the risk of public contempt unless she is. People of the Philippines v. chain of custody rule. No. G. Nonetheless.R. . People of the Philippines. The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photographed the objects confiscated does not ipso facto result in the unlawful arrest of the accused or render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. 170462. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. a conviction for rape may issue upon the sole basis of the victim’s testimony. So. 2014. Glenn Salvador y Balverde. 9165 that in a buy-bust situation. Of all the burdens the petitioners carried. R. No. With regard to the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. PO2 Martinez saw three other persons already sniffing shabu. in private as well as in public places. G. their joint affidavit of arrest made no mention of any inventory taking or photographing of the same. No. A drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any form or are found. 2014. February 10. Merlita Palomares y Costuna. Its existence may be proved not only by direct evidence but may also be established by proof of facts and circumstances.This uncertainty concerning a vital element of the crime warrants overturning the judgment of conviction. the identity of the prohibited drug seized from the accused must be proved with moral certainty. 198452. (2) such possession is not authorized by law. dangerous and. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction. G. illegal sale of drugs. et al. it is also not clear from the evidence which police officer did the marking since P02 Mallari and P02 Flores gave conflicting testimonies on this point. In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug. neither P02 Mallari nor P02 Flores testified that they conducted a physical inventory and took photos of the article that was seized from Merlita. Indeed. openlydefiant of the law. February 19. 2014. worse. allowed PO2 Martinez to enter his house and directed him to proceed to one of the rooms located at the right side of the sala.Dangerous Drugs Act. Upon entering the said room. illegal possession of drugs. drug den. People of the Philippines v. illegal sale of drugs. illegal sale of drugs. In case after case. illogical. And they did not bother at all to offer some justification for the omission. the evidence is unclear as to where the responsible police officer marked the seized substance and whether it was done in Merlita’s presence. The Supreme Court has ruled that immediate marking could be made at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. 198452.R. coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence. be he a stranger or not. like shabu. the drug pushers have become increasingly daring. elements. who after buying the shabu had told the appellant that he wanted to sniff the same to which the latter responded by requiring the former to pay a rental fee of P10. Dangerous Drugs Act. No. Dangerous Drugs Act.R. the following elements must be proven: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug. 200915. in any place and at any time. In this case. What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. chain of custody. This requires as a minimum that the police mark the seized item (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation. To secure conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. however. what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the . SC observed that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer. Proof of the chain of custody from the time of seizure to the time such evidence is presented in court ensures the absence of doubt concerning the integrity of such vital evidence. February 19. like shabu. People of the Philippines v. Dangerous Drugs Act. illegal sale of drugs. the object.R. G.00. People of the Philippines v.R. including evidence of the general reputation of the house. contrary to reason and highly incredible for no person who is engaged in an illegal transaction would leave the door of the house open after such transaction.” People of the Philippines v. 2014. Dangerous Drugs Act. drug pushers sell to any prospective customer. In fact. the poseur-buyer. The prosecution must establish with such measure of certitude that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered as evidence in court. In fact. The Supreme Court (SC) had occasion to show the unacceptability of the contention of the appellant that the testimony of the poseur-buyer was absurd. Glenn Salvador y Balverde. Dangerous Drugs Act. 190621. the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. Vicente Rom. Here. Vicente Rom. elements. which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place. chain of custody. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. or its general reputation among police officers. Besides. The appellant. February 12. even in the daytime. February 12. Merlita Palomares y Costuna. thereafter. 2014. this fact was proven by none other than the testimony of PO2 Martinez. No. People of the Philippines v. 200915. Hence. and the consideration. No. 2014. G. G. G. which the appellant in this case miserably failed to do. Vicente Rom. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent. 199268. G. February 19. Dangerous Drugs Act. 202976.R. People of the Philippines v. the penalty for illegal transportation of methamphetamine hydrochloride was imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos. G. 150 meters is not too far as to preclude the presence of appellant Jastiva at the farmhouse of AAA. Settled is the rule that 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. “transport” defined. G. Originally. Definitely. 1683. Certainly. Physical impossibility involves the distance and the facility of access between the crime scene and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. Javier Morilla y Avellano. 2014. 2014. 2014.R. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Alibi. February 5. when applicable as a defense. physical impossibility. motive or knowledge. G. 3. who was driving a Starex van going to Manila. but the fact of agreement and the acts constituting the sale and the delivery of the prohibited drugs. 198452. Here. Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. As such. 2014. February 12. People of the Philippines v. Thus. appellant Jastiva utterly failed to satisfy the above-quoted requirements. the penalty was amended to life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty to thirty thousand pesos. It has been held that for the defense of alibi to prosper. The penalty was further amended in Republic Act No.R. 6425. February 19. possession of drugs is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi.R. No. Mervin Gahi. Dangerous Drugs Act. 189833. 2014. and (ii) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. No. February 5.A. February 12. it was shown that the distance between AAA’s farmhouse and appellant Jastiva’s house was only 150 meters. People of the Philippines v. penalty. People of the Philippines v. it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the locus criminis on the occasion of the rapes owing to the relatively short distance. 2014. where the penalty was changed to reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.R. 7659.seller or the time and venue of the sale. the accused must demonstrate that he was so far away and could not have been physically present at the crime scene and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed. Aurelio Jastiva. February 19. Dangerous Drugs Act. People of the Philippines v. No. In the case at bar. Alibi. . the records do not show that the appellant had the legal authority to possess the four heatsealed plastic packets of shabu. the appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. “Transport” as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act means “to carry or convey from one place to another. Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting the dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. No. Alibi. No. G. 198452. the testimony of defense witness Filomeno Suson made known to the trial court that the distance between the scene of the crime and the copra kiln dryer where appellant claimed to have been working the entire time during which the incidents of rape occurred can be traversed in less than an hour. People of the Philippines v.” It was well established during trial that Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra.R. The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. under Section 15 of R. the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. more or less. Vicente Rom. 189833. People of the Philippines v. illegal transportation of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Aurelio Jastiva. Javier Morilla y Avellano. G. 2014. From the testimonies of the witnesses. No. For the defense of alibi to prosper. the accused must prove the following: (i) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime.R. No. 199268. the Sinumpaang Salaysay dated August 9. mere denial.Circumstantial evidence. Denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted. February 12. It is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance. denial as a defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the appellant. contained the missing Volume 266. Ricardo L. 198452. Atienza and Alfredo A. However. the bribery attempt may be deemed as a demonstration of interest on the part of Atienza over said subject matter and in this regard. no matter how strong. Saturnino C. is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the prosecution witness who testified on affirmative matters. or the case has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.R. At best. Verily. presented before the Regional Trial Court during trial. Castro’s purported possession and eventual return of Volume 266 was only premised upon the statement of one Nelson de Castro (Nelson). Ricardo L. the prosecution’s evidence on the matter should be treated as hearsay and. discrepancy of accounts on the subject matter of the crimes charged.R. that is Volume 266. 1995. denial is a weak defense. February 12. they are still classified as hearsay evidence unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon and the adverse party is accorded the opportunity to cross-examine them. unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Abando. as the guilty person. 188694. the test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of circumstances duly proven must be consistent with each other and that each and every circumstance must be consistent with the accused’s guilt and inconsistent with his innocence. Circumstantial evidence. 188694. when sufficient for conviction. Ocampo v. 176830. February 12. February 11. Castro v. The defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution’s evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 2014. Castro told him to pass by his office and there handed him a bag which. was not subjected to any in-court examination. it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused. No. G. G. is not sufficient to support a conviction. who averred that on May 18. Circumstantial evidence. . Vicente Rom. to the exclusion of the others. No. Castro v. 188694. No. People of the Philippines.R. hence. It is settled that while affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are acknowledged before a notary public (here. elements. No. by a competent court in a valid indictment for which the accused has entered a valid plea during arraignment. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be inferred based on reason and common experience. Denial. and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. Double jeopardy. A first jeopardy attaches only after the accused has been acquitted or convicted. People of the Philippines v. inadmissible to establish the truth or falsity of the relevant claims. most especially if there is no other reliable evidence from which it may reasonably be deduced that the accused was the malefactor. 2014. 2014. and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Atienza and Alfredo A. To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. which is not the case here. affidavit is hearsay unless affiant presented in court. While records show that Atienza was positively identified by Atibula as having attempted to bribe him to take out Volume 260 of the CA Original Decisions from the Reporter’s Division. constitutes proof of motive. i. et al. thus. there exists no sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove Castro’s guilt. 2014. No. Hon. People of the Philippines. 2014. G. February 19. People of the Philippines.e. The discrepancy of accounts on the very subject matter of the crimes charged dilutes the strength of the evidence required to produce a conviction. a public officer authorized to administer oaths). it is wellestablished that mere proof of motive. Atienza and Alfredo A. Nelson was not. Ricardo L. Stated differently. Castro v. 1995.R. With the prosecution’s failure to present Nelson to affirm his statement that Castro caused the return of Volume 266. G. as it turned out. Ephrem S. G. Inherently weak. at around 11:50 in the morning. (2) it has been validly terminated. as in this case. the fact is that the alleged intercalation actually occurred in a different document.. however. Consequently. Double jeopardy only applies when: (1) a first jeopardy attached.R. to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto. Evidence. People of the Philippines v. the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the buy-bust team was inspired by improper motive or was not properly performing its duty. there was no proof that the arresting officers improperly performed their duty in arresting appellant and Parcon. Moreover. 2014. Glenn Salvador y Balverde. No. it is incompatible with human experience to keep a sex slave for eight (8) days in a house where the abuser’s entire family. et al. momentary lapse in memory reinforces credibility of the witness. February 19. instead of reporting the . Evidence. 2014. there is no evidence that there was ill motive on the part of the buy-bust team. People of the Philippines v. February 10. However. 2014. People of the Philippines v. an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest. 198452. for.Evidence. 190621. Thus. It must also be considered that aside from the fact that police officers handle numerous cases daily.R. whatever is repugnant to the standards of human knowledge. (2) seizure in plain view. like alibi. Denial cannot prevail against the positive testimony of a prosecution witness. There could therefore be no bad blood between him and the said police officers.R. it can easily be concocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law. Appellant’s claim that the testimony of PO2 Soriano does not deserve credence due to his failure to identify and/or recall the markings he made on the subject specimen fails to convince. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. February 10. Such momentary lapse in memory does not detract from the credibility of his testimony as to the essential details of the incident. testimony. Glenn Salvador y Balverde. he testified three years after appellant’s arrest. 190621. To give full protection to it. Vicente Rom. deserving no weight in law. In fact. No. February 10. they should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is to render justice based on the law. Indeed. G. 2014. the interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute and that warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in the following instances: (1) search of moving vehicles. A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving. No. Glenn Salvador y Balverde. straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative matters. which would have caused worry and anxiety among AAA’s family members. the Rules of Court recognizes permissible warrantless arrest. AAA’s father. No. For several days that AAA had been missing. 190178. The time-honored test in determining the value of the testimony of a witness is its compatibility with human knowledge. defense of denial versus positive identification. (4) waiver or consented searches. testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity. Here. and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. houses. People of the Philippines v. Evidence. To substantiate this defense. February 12. While judges ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation that a rape victim undergoes as she seeks justice. Felimon Patentes y Zamora. The Constitution enshrines in the Bill of Rights the right of the people to be secure in their persons. fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search). G. His failure to immediately recall the markings on the specimens only show that he is an uncoached witness. especially where the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim whose charge is not corroborated and whose conduct during and after the rape is open to conflicting interpretations. 190621. It is therefore understandable that PO2 Soriano could no longer easily remember all the details of the incident. observation and common experience of man. (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit. et al. defense of frame-up. observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial cognizance. People of the Philippines v. 2014. including the abuser’s minor nephews and nieces live.R. No. et al. G. G. The last includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally warrantless arrest. the Bill of Rights also ordains the exclusionary principle that any evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. G. and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing. Courts should be wary of giving undue credibility to a claim of rape. and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. Evidence. (3) customs searches. tests for determining the value of the testimony. while as a rule.R. appellant himself admitted that he did not know the police officers prior to his arrest. Appellant cannot likewise avail of the defense of frame-up which is viewed with disfavor since. Evidence. The testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity should not be received with precipitate credulity for the charge can easily be concocted.R. Further. when affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Supreme Court (SC) found that both the RTC and the CA fully considered the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense. 01-197426 (i. 2014. Clearly. when no glaring errors. more so. Ocampo v. Saturnino C. Felimon Patentes y Zamora. as long as petitioners would not be placed in double jeopardy. amendment or substitution. The reason behind this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. 170462. G. Information. 7691.” as amended by R. February 5. People of the Philippines v. In the absence of any showing that the trial and appellate courts overlooked certain facts and circumstances that could substantially affect the outcome of the present case. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the trial court’s findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. The Regional Trial Court did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of Criminal Case No. if it is shown that the proper charge against petitioners should have been simple rebellion. Morilla primarily cites the provision on Sec. February 11. 1(b). when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. No. jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the law and cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties . Information. People of the Philippines v. G. People of the Philippines v. No. trial court’s assessment of credibility of witnesses.. provided the accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy.A. entitled to great weight and respect. Abando. the issue of defect in the information. otherwise known as the “Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. He pointed out that the Information itself failed to state the word conspiracy. it must be noted that accused Morilla participated and presented his defenses to contradict the allegation of conspiracy before the trial and appellate courts. gross misapprehension of facts. Ephrem S. SC upheld the rulings of the RTC and the CA which found the elements of these crimes fully established during the trial.00. G. 176830. at this point. are entitled to great weight and respect and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record. Javier Morilla y Avellano. Factual findings of the Regional Trial Court. the falsification case) since Falsification of Public Document under Article 172(1) of the RPC. and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. February 12. 2014. It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect. Vicente Rom. Rule 119. 198452.matter to police authorities. went to appellant’s house to discuss AAA and appellant’s marital plans on 7 December 1998. 189833. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts pursuant to Section 32(2) of B. 4 months and 1 day to 6 years) and a fine of not more than P5. Jurisdiction. Section 14. Factual findings of the trial court. arbitrary. 129. defects in the Information should be raised in a motion to quash. February 19. His failure or neglect to assert a right within a reasonable time warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.R.R. but was only inferred from the words used in the Information. the trial court shall dismiss the murder charges upon the filing of the Information for simple rebellion. which is punishable by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (or imprisonment for 2 years. Even assuming that his assertion is correct. No. is deemed to have been waived due to Morilla’s failure to assert it as a ground in a motion to quash before entering his plea. G. 190178. and speculative. this is contrary to human logic and experience.R. et al. G. February 5. Indeed. No. and inconsistent with the prosecution’s claim.P. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. Factual findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). jurisdiction over falsification of public document cases.000. Hon. the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in accordance with Section 19. 2014. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that if it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense. While petitioners raised this jurisdictional defect for the first time in the present petition. Thus. No.R. they are not precluded from questioning the same.e. falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts. People of the Philippines. and they have adequately explained the legal and evidentiary reasons in concluding that the petitioners are guilty of the crimes of frustrated homicide and homicide.R. Rule 115 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure to substantiate his argument that he should have been informed first of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 2014. 2014. February 12. the investigating officer is bound to dismiss the complaint. This is sufficient for due process. No. Section 3(d). Petition for review under Rule 45 generally bars any question pertaining to the factual issues raised. Abando. Hon. In the context of a preliminary investigation. In this case. Ephrem S. 2014. February 5. Ephrem S. No. G. The rule was put in place in order to foil underhanded attempts of a respondent to delay the prosecution of offenses. he finds no probable cause. Hon. issue a warrant of arrest. No. the right to due process of law entails the opportunity to be heard. questions of fact not reviewable in petitions for review. Hence. Preliminary investigation. 188694.R. et al. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. 176830.R. G.R. 170462. A preliminary investigation is “not a casual affair. Ricardo L. the investigating officer shall decide whether the allegations and defenses lead to a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. determination of probable cause.” It is conducted to protect the innocent from the embarrassment. Remedial Law • . definition of probable cause. Warrants of arrest. Ephrem S. No. It serves to accord an opportunity for the presentation of the respondent’s side with regard to the accusation. it is a substantive right and a component of due process in the administration of criminal justice. 176830.R. 2014.Law. People of the Philippines. 2014. February 11. expense and anxiety of a public trial. February 11.R. It was only because a majority of them could no longer be found at their last known addresses that they were not served copies of the complaint and the attached documents or evidence. G.R. February 11. Ocampo v. Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as “such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. Rule 112 of the Rules of Court allows Prosecutor Vivero to resolve the complaint based on the evidence before him if a respondent could not be subpoenaed. the Supreme Court has ruled that a hearing is not necessary for the determination thereof. In fact. G. on the basis of his evaluation. No. Rule 45. January 2014 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure Posted on February 27. The rule is well-settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Ocampo v. 176830. G. Carrillo • Posted in Criminal Law. on the basis thereof. February 11. Abando. Atienza and Alfredo A. Saturnino C. While the right to have a preliminary investigation before trial is statutory rather than constitutional. Philippines Cases. 2014. Ocampo v. and that it was the respondent who committed it. Hon. the lack of sufficient support in evidence of the trial court’s judgment or the appellate court’s misapprehension of the adduced facts. et al. Ocampo v. As long as efforts to reach a respondent were made. and he was given an opportunity to present countervailing evidence. 2014. Abando. Afterwards. the preliminary investigation remains valid. subject only to certain exceptions. 176830.” Saturnino C. if respondent could not be subpoenaed. People of the Philippines. Philippines . The well-settled rule is that questions of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review under Rule 45. among them. to disregard the prosecutor’s resolution and require the submission of additional affidavits of witnesses to aid him in determining its existence. Abando. No. Otherwise. The petitioners failed to convince the Supreme Court that it should review the findings of fact in this case. Warrants of arrest. the judge’s personal examination of the complainant and the witnesses is not mandatory and indispensable for determining the aptness of issuing a warrant of arrest. questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised for the first time on appeal. Ephrem S. It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the prosecutor’s report and supporting documents showing the existence of probable cause for the indictment and. 2014. Saturnino C. et al. 2014 by Dominador Maphilindo O. Hon. Castro v. Saturnino C.or conferred by the acquiescence of the court. G. the Resolution stated that efforts were undertaken to serve subpoenas on the named respondents at their last known addresses. et al. Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be determined by the judge after an examination under oath or an affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses. Preliminary investigation. or if. when awarded when death occurs due to a crime. People of the Philippines v. the award of P75. the weapon actually used was not indispensable considering that the finding of guilt was based on other evidence proving his commission of the crime. Murder. Joel Aquino y Cendana. 2014. and (3) in case the provocation was given by the person attacked. No. It is enshrined in jurisprudence that when death occurs due to a crime.000. Joel Aquino y Cendana. By using force or intimidation.R. (2) the accused killed him. Jr. proof required. No. Hence. People of the Philippines v. the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P75. 201092. The elements of acts of lasciviousness under Art. the following requisites must concur. 161308. (3) the killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. No. (2) actual or compensatory damages. elements. 2014. Ricardo Medina. when present.R. Revised Penal Code Acts of lasciviousness. There being no aggravating circumstance since abuse of superior strength is absorbed in the qualifying circumstance of treachery. No. 2014. Complex crime of carnapping with homicide. elements.00 as moral damages should be decreased to P50. People of the Philippines. G. In order that defense of a relative is to be appreciated in favor of accused Ricardo. appellant is guilty only of simple carnapping. (3) moral damages. No. Damages. (2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances: a. requisites. the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim.100. the Supreme Court imposed interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all damages from the date of finality of this ruling until fully paid. To be convicted of murder. Thus. 2014. G. that the person making the defense took no part in the provocation.000. Like in self-defense.00 is likewise upheld. Jr. Justifying circumstance. G.000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of P30. and (3) That the offended party is another person of either sex. y Oriel v. the establishment beyond reasonable doubt of Ricardo’s guilt for the homicide did not require the production of the weapon used in the killing as evidence in court. People of the Philippines. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.Here are select January 2014 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippine on criminal law and procedure: 1. 336 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness. . January 15. Homicide. Ricardo Medina. (4) exemplary damages. When the offended party is under 12 years of age. January 15. The non-identification and non-presentation of the weapon actually used in the killing did not diminish the merit of the conviction primarily because other competent evidence and the testimonies of witnesses had directly and positively identified and incriminated Ricardo as the assailant of Lino.R. 161308. G. y Oriel v.00 is correct. or c. there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping. For sure. 2014. or b. Finally. guilt beyond reasonable doubt. January 15. (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression. January 15. People of the Philippines v. 201092. for in arriving at its findings on the culpability of Ricardo the trial court clearly looked at.00. January 15. considered and appreciated the entirety of the record and the evidence. the following must be established: (1) a person was killed. and (4) the killing neither constitutes parricide nor infanticide. but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. defense of a relative. 202122.000. No. To prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide. People of the Philippines v. G.R. and (5) temperate damages. non-identification and non-presentation of the weapon. Pursuant to current jurisprudence.R. Joel Aquino y Cendana. The amount of actual damages duly proven in court in the sum of P60. January 15. it is the accused who carries the burden to prove convincingly the attendance and concurrence of these requisites because his invocation of this defense amounts to an admission of having inflicted the fatal injury on the victim. namely: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz. 2014. G.R. The appellate court correctly observed that the killing of Jesus cannot qualify the carnapping into a special complex crime because the carnapping was merely an afterthought when the victim’s death was already fait accompli. 201092. Such an amount is granted even in the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victim’s heirs. it would be almost impossible to copulate with them around even when asleep. Thus. It is also not impossible nor incredible for the family members to be in deep slumber and not be awakened while the sexual assault is being committed.” It includes ownership of telephone services.” SC reasoned that since PLDT encodes.Personal property. G. depriving him of any real chance to defend himself. No. lust is no respecter of time or place. 2014. SC then concluded that the business of providing telecommunications and telephone services is personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. et al. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. enhances. under the circumstances.R. Nos.R. the Supreme Court (SC) reviewed the existing laws and jurisprudence on the generally accepted concept of personal property in civil law as “anything susceptible of appropriation. decodes and transmits telephone calls using its complex communications infrastructure and facilities. treachery may still be appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. World Wide Web Corporation. 201092. People of the Philippines v. January 15. Records disclose that Jesus was stabbed by the group on the lateral part of his body while he was under the impression that they were simply leaving the place where they had a shabu session. cables. there was no way for Jesus to even be forewarned of the intended stabbing of his body both from the people seated in the side car and those seated behind him. No. It should be remembered that accused Pareja threatened to kill her if she told anyone of the incidents. There is no merit in appellant’s contention that there can be no rape in a room where other people are present. copulation does not seem to be a problem despite the presence of other persons around them. The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless. People of the Philippines v. AAA’s delay in reporting the incidents to her mother or the proper authorities is insignificant and does not affect the veracity of her charges.R. rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders’ making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims. People of the Philippines. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain. et al. the use of these communications facilities without its consent constitutes theft. In Laurel v. 2014. Rape. untrue and fabricated. failure of the victim to shout or seek help do not negate rape. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. G. January 15. January 15. G. 161106/161266. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim. 2014. 202122. People of the Philippines v. Considering the cramped space and meager room for privacy.” and rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest of places. and that the act of engaging in ISR is an act of “subtraction” penalized under said article. No. . January 13. when present. and rape defies constraints of time and space. The courts take judicial notice of the interesting fact that among poor couples with big families living in small quarters. Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge.R.G. treachery. otherwise. Rape. his head is usually higher or at the level of the roof of the side car which leaves his torso exposed to the passengers who are seated in the side car. Joel Aquino y Cendana. Furthermore. Judicial notice can be taken that when the tricycle driver is seated on the motorcycle. and/or air wave frequency and connecting these calls directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where destined. 2014. toll bypass operations could not have been accomplished without the installation of telecommunications equipment to the PLDT telephone lines. Even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person. antennae. Abrogar. concept of. One may also suppose that growing children sleep more soundly than grown-ups and are not easily awakened by adult exertions and suspirations in the night. 202122. augments. which are protected by the penal provisions on theft. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. v./Planet Internet Corporation v. couples perhaps have gotten used to quick and less disturbing modes of sexual congresses which elude the attention of family members. Hence. the trial court’s finding of treachery was affirmed. SC therein upheld the Amended Information charging the petitioner with the crime of theft against PLDT inasmuch as the allegation was that the former was engaged in international simple resale (ISR) or “the unauthorized routing and completing of international long distance calls using lines. which is the unlawful taking of telephone services and business. Qualifying circumstance. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that “lust is no respecter of time and place. and it ruled that under the implementing guidelines of the said Section “non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds. Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) is termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape. petitioners WWC and Cherryll Yu only take issue with categorizing the earnings and business as personal properties of PLDT. force. 2. Abrogar. 9165 may not always be possible. January 15. Theft. In the case at bar. . or why the marking of the seized item was not made at the place of seizure in the presence of Beran. G. rape can be committed in two ways: 1. the child’s consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern good from evil. People of the Philippines v. 2014. the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. 202122. elements. 161106/161266. the very identity of the subject shabu cannot be established with certainty by the testimony alone of P03 Sia since the rules insist upon independent proof of its identity. 199226. more so if she is a minor. because when a woman. 203028. Indeed. No. lapses in the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R. No.” The central element in rape through sexual intercourse is carnal knowledge. when AAA was just nine years old. under the new provision. such as the immediate marking thereof upon seizure.Rape. Article 266-A paragraph 2 refers to rape by sexual assault. AAA’s testimony is not only consistent and straightforward. Here. et al. Roel Vergara y Clavero. and the crime’s expansion to cover genderfree rape. Roel Vergara y Clavero. but is further corroborated by other evidence. However. v. No. also known as “organ rape” or “penile rape. January 15.” SC added that the prosecution bears the burden of proving “justifiable cause. the Supreme Court has already held that the use of PLDT’s communications facilities without its consent constitutes theft of its telephone services and business. 2014./Planet Internet Corporation v. which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accusedappellant had carnal knowledge of AAA in the afternoon of September 12. also called “instrument or object rape. 2014.A. Here. January 15. G.” It must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1. G. the prosecution did not bother to offer an explanation for why an inventory and photograph of the seized evidence was not made either in the place of seizure and arrest or at the police station. revolutionized the concept of rape with the recognition of sexual violence on “sex-related” orifices other than a woman’s organ is included in the crime of rape. No. The enactment of Republic Act No. No. No. Rape. as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz. Thus. 2. chain of custody. January 15. Joselito Beran y Zapanta. People of the Philippines. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 2004. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years. It is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit.R. The Supreme Court recognized that under varied field conditions the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.R. Thus.R.A.G. says that she has been raped. et al. World Wide Web Corporation.” In the present case. The transformation mainly consisted of the reclassification of rape as a crime against persons and the introduction of rape by ‘sexual assault’ as differentiated from the traditional ‘rape through carnal knowledge’ or ‘rape through sexual intercourse. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Nos. G.R. shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. elements. For theft to be committed in this case. two modes of committing rape. Article 266-A paragraph 1 refers to Rape through sexual intercourse.R. January 13. 2014. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. in Laurel v.” or “gender-free rape. as required by the Implementing Rules in case of warrantless arrests. People of the Philippines v. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. 2014. intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations. People of the Philippines v. Special Penal Laws Dangerous Drugs Act. 199226. 9165 must be explained in terms of their justifiable grounds. the following elements must be shown to exist: (1) the taking by petitioners (2) of PLDT’s personal property (3) with intent to gain (4) without the consent of PLDT (5) accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or the use of force upon things. Statutory rape. People of the Philippines v. 2014. Fajardo testified as to the recovery from the appellant of another 12 pieces of plastic sachets of shabu. January 29. No. chain of custody rule. No. illegal possession of drugs. No. the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. 188653. even a less-than-stringent application of the requirement would not suffice to sustain the conviction in this case. breaks in the chain of custody had already taken place. the records also show that P03 Sia submitted the sachet to the laboratory only on the next day. This search resulted to the confiscation of 12 more plastic sachets. and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. January 15. The links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first. However. links to be established.R. People of the Philippines. illegal possession of drugs. chain of custody.A. whereas in seizures covered by search warrants. consistent with the “chain of custody” rule. vis-a-vis the physical inventory and photograph. G.R. January 29. 2014. G. of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer. Here. the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. penalties.Dangerous Drugs Act. mandatory nature. there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this case. 2014. 203028. Dangerous Drugs Act. marking of evidence in seizures covered by search warrants distinguished from marking of evidence in warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation. 188653. People of the Philippines v. the seizure and marking.R. the contents of which also tested positive for shabu. Dangerous Drugs Act. and then as he was transporting it to the precinct. January 15. 200304. in such a way that every person who touched it would describe how and from whom it was received. People of the Philippines v. P/Insp. Dangerous Drugs Act. There was also no showing that markings were made in the presence of the accused in this case. from the moment the object seized was picked up to the time it was offered in evidence. There are occasions when the chain of custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. second. it must be noted that there are distinctions as to time and place under Section 21 of R. Concerning the marking of evidence seized in a buy-bust operation or under a search warrant. the imposable penalty on the appellant . and later mark the sachet at the DAID-WPD office. No. 203028. third. The testimony of P/Insp. Moreover. the physical inventory and photograph must be conducted in the place of the search warrant. No. (2) such possession is not authorized by law. P/Insp. 2014. chain of custody rule. Thus. People of the Philippines v. No. G. 2014. Both police officers also identified in court the twelve plastic sachets of shabu that were confiscated from the appellant. Even granting that P03 Sia did mark the same sachet at the precinct. elements. There was no categorical statement from any of the prosecution witnesses that markings were made. Dangerous Drugs Act. if practicable. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. G. Fajardo was amply corroborated by PO2 Trambulo. It needs no elaboration that the immediate marking of the item seized in a buy-bust operation in the presence of the accused is indispensable to establish its identity in court. where it was and what happened to it while in the possession of the witness. much less immediately upon confiscation of the seized items. Dangerous Drugs Act. 9165. when relaxed. the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan. and fourth. Lito Lopez v. when he confiscated it from Beran without anyone observing him do so and without marking the subject sachet at the place of apprehension.R. thus casting serious doubt upon the value of the said links to prove the corpus delicti. whichever is practicable. first. Joselito Beran y Zapanta. none of the buy-bust team attested that they saw P03 Sia take custody of the confiscated shabu. without explaining how he preserved his exclusive custody thereof overnight. Joselito Beran y Zapanta. People of the Philippines. The chain of custody rule requires that there be testimony about every link in the chain. whose own account dovetailed the former’s narration of events. Lito Lopez v. chain of custody. The elements of illegal possession of drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug. G. January 15. in warrantless seizures such as a buybust operation the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team. Fajardo stated that PO2 Trambulo conducted a body search on the appellant. After the latter was arrested.R. Chua Tan Lee. G. immediately after seizure and confiscation of the illegal item. coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. 6425.000. Article III of Republic Act No. Article 6363 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that when the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime. To secure a conviction for the crime of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs. illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. the white crystalline powder contained in the plastic bags tested positive for shabu. the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court’s imposition of reclusion perpetua.R. from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence. illegal sale of drugs. as minimum. chain of custody. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan. 6425. 2014. G. although they knew these procedures were intended to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized. the following elements should be satisfactorily proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller. As held in People v. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. Article III of Republic Act No. the object.000. the prosecution did not bother to explain why they failed to observe them. January 15. from the testimony of P03 Sia it is clear that the apprehending operatives did not. Joselito Beran y Zapanta. Dangerous Drugs Act.R. the evidence of the corpus delicti. The prosecution must establish by records or testimony the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit. No. She likewise identified the six plastic bags of shabu. physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused. a representative from the media and the Department of Justice. which contained the markings she placed thereon after the same were seized from the appellant. Thus. Fajardo. and the consideration. which is the dangerous drug itself. the Supreme Court ruled that proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti. People of the Philippines v. and an elected public official. January 15. 6425. from the time it came into the possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition. in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received. to four years and two months of prision correccional. 203028. the prosecution must show the chain of custody over the dangerous drug in order to establish the corpus delicti. elements.R. 2014. falls within the range of the proper imposable penalty. In the case at bar. considering that no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attended the appellant’s violation of Section 15. 1998 to entrap the appellant.00 fine imposed by the trial court on the appellant is also in accord with Section 15. No fine was imposed considering that in Republic Act No. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan. No. The chain of custody rule comes into play as a mode of authenticating the seized illegal drug as evidence. Dangerous Drugs Act. the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug. 2014. Dangerous Drugs Act. which is the dangerous drug itself. illegal sale or possession of drugs. a fine can be imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. People of the Philippines v. as maximum.000. illegal sale of drugs. as amended. When subjected to laboratory examination. Moreover. Worse. positively identified the appellant as the one who sold to her six plastic bags of shabu that were contained in a big brown envelope for the price of P250. 200304. People of the Philippines v. No. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan. It includes testimony about every link in the chain. none of the other witnesses of the prosecution could corroborate the culpatory narrative of P03 Sia at any of its material points to create the successive links in the custody of the seized drug. thus. Fajardo and PO2 Trambulo established that a buy-bust operation was legitimately carried out in the wee hours of April 3. penalties. January 15. 200304. the testimonies of P/Insp. where it was and what happened to it while in the . G. 200304. and all the way to the time it is offered in evidence. what is material is proof that the accused peddled illicit drugs. Pagaduan. People of the Philippines v. Dangerous Drugs Act. In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 2014.should be the indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor. notwithstanding that they were supposed to have been conducting a planned sting operation. the evidence of the corpus delicti must be independently established beyond reasonable doubt. No.R. as amended. In the instant case. January 15. the poseur-buyer. The P5. corpus delicti.00. G. his representative or counsel. in this case. In People v. must be independently established beyond reasonable doubt. in a prosecution of illegal sale of drugs. P/Insp. It is well-settled that in the prosecution of cases involving the illegal sale or illegal possession of dangerous drugs. as amended. the lesser penalty shall be applied. Indeed. obviating switching. illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Lito Lopez v. chain of custody. Failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence.witness’ possession. No. he must also convincingly demonstrate the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. Alibi. The rule requires that the marking of the seized items should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence. The conflicting testimonies of the police officers and lack of evidence lead to a reasonable conclusion that no markings were actually made on the seized items. represented by his parents. G. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. Given the short distance between these two places. January 29. where AAA was raped. the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. People of the Philippines v. There being no delict. People of the Philippines. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. January 29.R. Lito Lopez v. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. This instance closes the door to civil liability. if any. accused-appellant himself admitted that his place of work was less than a kilometer or a mere 30-minute walk away from his house. 2014. and the civil action. G. People of the Philippines. In the present case. No. 199226. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. PO3 Desuasido seemingly could not readily identify the plastic sachets he allegedly seized inside petitioner’s house. chain of custody. G. accused-appellant must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. 3.R. and Helita Calapiz. In this case. Dangerous Drugs Act. January 29.R. with different effects on the civil liability of the accused. G. which may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. G. effect of failure to mark. even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established. The Chemistry Report.” or contamination of evidence. civil liability ex delicto is out of the question. No. “planting. Jr. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. The law recognizes two kinds of acquittal. Criminal Procedure Acquittal. he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. 2014. January 15. containing a description of the items seized. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches. 2014. 2004. thus it is vital that the seized contraband is immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. Dangerous Drugs Act. and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft. to have left his work for a short while to go home and commit the rape of AAA. Dr. Hanz Calapiz. Hilario Calapiz.R. 188653. Failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. . during the trial. No. it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant. for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. 188653. however. illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. marking. The acquittal of an accused does not prevent a judgment from still being rendered against him on the civil aspect of the criminal case unless the court finds and declares that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. January 15. Lito Lopez v. For alibi to prosper. warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. 2014. 188653. 163753. 2014.R. No. People of the Philippines. different effects on the civil liability of the accused. does not show or make any mention of any markings made on all the items seized. Roel Vergara y Clavero. Encarnacion C. in the afternoon of September 12. two kinds. it is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused. Lumantas v. As a matter of fact. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed at the end of criminal proceedings. Evidence. civil damages should be assessed once that integrity has been violated. People of the Philippines v. when it is decisive of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 161308. Civil liability. 2014. coupled with the attribution of ill motive against AAA. 201092. no allegation was made nor proven to show that Jefferson had any ill motive to falsely testify against appellant. . Every person is entitled to the physical integrity of his body. Surely. Jr. The usual practice is to award moral damages for the physical injuries sustained. Verily. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. The petitioner’s contention that he could not be held civilly liable because there was no proof of his negligence deserves scant consideration. like the loss or diminution of the use of any part of one’s body. Denial and alibi. The assessment is but an imperfect estimation of the true value of one’s body. Clearly. People of the Philippines v. since when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped. People of the Philippines v. it is jurisprudentially settled that positive identification prevails over alibi since the latter can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable. determination of. coupled with the appalling fact that she got pregnant at her tender age. Although the courts have long advocated the view that any physical injury.R. Denial and improper motive. With the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals (CA) both finding that Hanz had sustained the injurious trauma from the hands of the petitioner on the occasion of or incidental to the circumcision. 202122.R. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz. and experience. Denial and alibi constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness. positive identification prevails over alibi. preponderant evidence of negligence. but also because it is easily fabricated.R. Joel Aquino y Cendana. It is likewise settled that where there is nothing to indicate that a witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive. In the case at bar. Maglaque cannot be considered as a disinterested witness. Roel Vergara y Clavero. the same must be offered preferably by disinterested witnesses. January 15. the issue of credibility. The defense of alibi should be considered with suspicion and always received with caution. AAA’s credibility cannot be diminished or tainted by such imputation of ill motives. No. No.Alibi. The failure of the Prosecution to prove his criminal negligence with moral certainty did not forbid a finding against him that there was preponderant evidence of his negligence to hold him civilly liable. No. Pareja added that these cases were initiated by AAA’s father. 2014. the undesirable outcome of the circumcision performed by the petitioner forced the young child to endure several other procedures on his penis in order to repair his damaged urethra. In Hanz’s case. Nevertheless. 163753. The Supreme Court has consistently assigned less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by friends and relatives since it has established in jurisprudence that. People of the Philippines. January 15.000. G. and that the trauma could have been avoided. the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. and is not susceptible of exact monetary estimation. He claims that AAA filed these cases against him because she was angry that he caused her parents’ separation. It has been appropriately emphasized that there is no test of the truth of human testimony. except its conformity to the human knowledge. Jr. is not equatable to a pecuniary loss. Hilario Calapiz. in order for corroboration to be credible. Ricardo Medina. the Supreme Court (SC) had to concur with their uniform findings. It is highly unthinkable for the victim to falsely accuse her father solely by reason of ill motives or grudge. represented by his parents.R. No. due to his friendship with appellant. G. G. No. is determined by the conformity of the conflicting claims and recollections of the witnesses to common experience and to the observation of mankind as probable under the circumstances. Lumantas v. certainly deserve more credence and greater evidentiary weight than that of accused-appellant’s uncorroborated defenses.R. AAA’s positive testimony that she was sexually ravished by accused-appellant. 2014. 199226. not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable. It is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance. January 15. 2014. January 15. Encarnacion C. as revenge against him. and Helita Calapiz. Hanz Calapiz. January 15.00 awarded as moral damages. 2014. Dr. G. observation. y Oriel v. Accused Pareja sought to escape liability by denying the charges against him. credibility of witnesses. G. his physical and moral sufferings properly warranted the amount of P50. testimony of witnesses. the “date of the commission of the rape becomes relevant only when the accuracy and truthfulness of the complainant’s narration practically hinge on the date of the commission of the crime. particularly when no significant facts and circumstances. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz. the Supreme Court (SC) enumerated the guidelines to determine the credibility of witnesses as follows: First. concept of./Planet Internet Corporation v. are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded. G. People of the Philippines v. Second. January 15. 200304. People of the Philippines. testimony of witnesses. guidelines to determine credibility. not only did he not have any misunderstanding with P/Insp. the date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime. et al. G. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan. No.R. G. the rule is even more stringently applied if the Court of Appeals concurred with the RTC. The inconsistencies mentioned by accused Pareja are trivial and non-consequential matters that merely caused AAA confusion when she was being questioned. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the RTC’s assessments and conclusions. No.G.R. v.” While there are recognized exceptions to the rule. People of the Philippines v. Furthermore. police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. unless there be evidence to the contrary. unless there be evidence to the contrary. No law or rule requires the corroboration of the testimony of a single witness in a rape case. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz. affecting the outcome of the case. January 15. SC gives the highest respect to the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses. The inconsistency regarding the year of the December incident is not even a matter pertaining to AAA’s ordeal. From its vantage point. People of the Philippines v. 2014. General warrant. In other words. testimony of a single witnesses. 202122. No. People of the Philippines v. assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge. January 13. Credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by prosecution witnesses especially so when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. 161106/161266. a vantage point denied appellate courtsand when his findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. when sufficient. In the absence of evidence of such ill motive. Sanchez. Fajardo and PO2 Trambulo prior to his arrest. The date and time of the commission of the crime of rape becomes important only when it creates serious doubt as to the commission of the rape itself or the sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of conviction. People of the Philippines v. Since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions. this Court has found no substantial reason to overturn the identical conclusions of the trial and appellate courts on the matter of AAA’s credibility. A general warrant is defined as “(a) search or arrest warrant that is not particular as to the person to be arrested or the property to be seized. much less satisfactorily prove. 2014. he in fact did not know them at all.Evidence. inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony are generally expected. Evidence. 2014.” Moreover. testimony of witnesses. Evidence. Evidence.R. the RTC is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses. January 15. The recognized rule in this jurisdiction is that the “assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on the witness stand. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz. In People v. No.R. if the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable. that alone would be sufficient to convict the accused. accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness.R.” In the instant case. 202122. any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses as to why they would falsely incriminate him. exceptions. testimony of witnesses. these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court. 2014. World Wide Web Corporation. No. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz. settled is the rule that the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction. January 15. The appellant himself even testified that. none is presumed to exist. considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. 2014. G. Nos. January 15. 2014.” It is one that allows the “seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another” and gives the officer executing the warrant the discretion over which items to take. 202122. G. And third. et al. Evidence. the reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court’s findings. 202122. If credible and convincing. .R. the appellant failed to ascribe. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. thus. deprived accused-appellant of his right to intelligently prepare for his defense and convincingly refute the charges against him. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan. Having failed to move for the quashing of the information against them before their arraignment. Petitioners contend that PLDT had no personality to question the quashal of the search warrants without the conformity of the public prosecutor. Warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in instances of (1) search of moving vehicles. They determine probable cause based on “evidence showing that. (2) seizure in plain view. falls within the ambit of Section 5(a). et al. (3) customs searches. 200304. et al. Rule 110. January 13. while as a rule.” Be that as it may. . His arrest. and the objects in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched. People of the Philippines. When a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is made by a trial judge. Any objection. 200304. e. when objection to must be made.R. for which accused-appellant has to virtually account for his whereabouts. an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest. January 15. (4) waiver or consented searches. as long as there was substantial basis for that determination. a trial judge’s finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is accorded respect by reviewing courts.R. Any irregularity was cured upon their voluntary submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction. People of the Philippines v. The peculiar designation of time in the Information clearly violates Sec. 2014. for. 161106/161266.R. of the Rules Court which requires that the time of the commission of the offense must be alleged as near to the actual date as the information or complaint will permit. a crime has been committed and that it was committed” by the offender. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan. January 15. 2014. No. et al. it runs afoul of the constitutionally protected right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Information. probable cause requires “such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be searched. G. 202122.R. The last includes a valid warrantless arrest. Nos. the failure of the prosecution to allege with particularity the date of the commission of the offense and. v..g. January 15. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. The Information is not sufficiently explicit and certain as to time to inform accused-appellant of the date on which the criminal act is alleged to have been committed. worse. G./Planet Internet Corporation v. 11. definition of.R. the fact of the matter is that the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto of selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer in a buy-bust operation./Planet Internet Corporation v. defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea on arraignment. It is presumed that a judicial function has been regularly performed. to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto. Probable cause. No. The phrase “on or about the year 1992” encompasses not only the twelve (12) months of 1992 but includes the years prior and subsequent to 1992. et al. They argue that it violated Section 5. and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. No. 2014. (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search). People of the Philippines. Hence. 161106/161266. 2014. right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. appellants are now estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest. and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. v. 2014. World Wide Web Corporation. Probable cause. G.Illegal warrantless arrest. In the issuance of a search warrant. the finding is accorded respect by reviewing courts. the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrest. (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit. World Wide Web Corporation. when violated.G.G. Search warrant. 1991 and 1993. Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed. It is a matter wholly dependent on the finding of trial judges in the process of exercising their judicial function. January 13. A magistrate’s determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court. nature of. More importantly. more likely than not. absent a showing to the contrary. Rule 11354 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure when an arrest made without warrant is deemed lawful. People of the Philippines v. Nos. Illegal warrantless searches and seizures. its failure to prove during the trial the date of the commission of the offense as alleged in the Information.” There is no exact test for the determination of probable cause in the issuance of search warrants. exceptions. People of the Philippines v. SC also had occasion to rule that the particularity of the description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized is required “wherever and whenever it is feasible. et al. 2014. by superficial adherence to technicality or farfetched judicial interference. . et al. January 13. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved. but by the filing of an application therefor. 2014. Clearly then.R.G. which states the general rule that the public prosecutor has direction and control of the prosecution of all criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information. The warrant is valid when it enables the police officers to readily identify the properties to be seized and leaves them with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz. there was nothing left to be done by the trial court. the order quashing the warrant (and denial of a motion for reconsideration of the grant) ends the judicial process. and an appeal may be properly taken therefrom. There is nothing more to be done thereafter. 161106/161266./Planet Internet Corporation v. Variance doctrine. especially when these items are technical in nature. when applicable. An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former. Search warrant. Accordingly. An application for a search warrant is a judicial process conducted either as an incident in a main criminal case already filed in court or in anticipation of one yet to be filed. et al. On the other hand./Planet Internet Corporation v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. v. However. Whether the criminal case (of which the search warrant is an incident) has already been filed before the trial court is significant for the purpose of determining the proper remedy from a grant or denial of a motion to quash a search warrant. When there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. January 15.Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Here. 2014. Where the search warrant is issued as an incident in a pending criminal case. People of the Philippines. et al.” A search warrant need not describe the items to be seized in precise and minute detail. et al.e. G. as alleged in the complaint or information. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. Furthermore. considering that items that looked like “innocuous goods” were being used to pursue an illegal operation that amounts to theft. when order quashing a search warrant can be the proper subject of an appeal. the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged. January 13.R. The Supreme Court (SC) has been mindful of the difficulty faced by law enforcement officers in describing the items to be searched. v. 2014. 161106/161266. World Wide Web Corporation. v. which are difficult enough of performance under the best of conditions.G. Thus./Planet Internet Corporation v. an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action. i. the determination of the guilt of the accused therein. and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved. The police should not be hindered in the performance of their duties. the requirement of particularity in the description of things. not by the filing of a complaint or an information. or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.R. There is still “something more to be done in the said criminal case. et al. Supreme Court sustained the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary before an aggrieved party moves for reconsideration of an order granting a motion to quash search warrants. not interlocutory. the applications for search warrants were instituted as principal proceedings and not as incidents to pending criminal actions. PLDT claims that a search warrant already fulfils the requirement of particularity of description when it is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. Nos. Search warrant. Petitioners claim that the subject search warrants were in the nature of general warrants because the descriptions therein of the objects to be seized are so broad and all-encompassing as to give the implementing officers wide discretion over which articles to seize. and when the extent of the illegal operation is largely unknown to them. when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. where a search warrant is applied for and issued in anticipation of a criminal case yet to be filed. 161106/161266. World Wide Web Corporation. a search warrant is obtained. No.R. People of the Philippines.G. the quashal of the search warrants were final orders. When the search warrants issued were subsequently quashed by the Regional Trial Court.” World Wide Web Corporation.People of the Philippines v. In this case. the quashal of a search warrant is merely interlocutory. 202122. People of the Philippines. Nos. law enforcement officers would be hard put to secure a search warrant if they were required to pinpoint items with one hundred percent precision. Nos.” In contrast. January 13.. constitute the latter. Philippines Cases. The relevant question now is whether falsification of public documents is considered as fraud upon government or public funds or property. 2013. privileged communication. 3019. REVISED PENAL CODE Falsification of public documents.A. the act imputed against petitioner constitutes fraud upon government or public funds. December 11. To warrant the suspension of a public officer under section 13 of R. Ludolfo P. Jonathan Con-U and Ramil Maca.. No libel was committed in this case. falsification thereof invariably involves fraud upon public funds. 3019. are official documents. 2014 by Dominador Maphilindo O. or (2) under Title Seven. “why did it take you so long in coming back? We were already tired of waiting for you. his suspension finds no basis in section 13 of R. There are few circumstances wherein malice in law is inapplicable. the Supreme Court (SC) cited Bustillo v. In the same vein. was identified by Alejandro as the one who was addressed by one of the abductors with the statement.A. 184496. G. referring to “an instance or an act of trickery or deceit especially when involving misrepresentation. The testimony of Alejandro and Marvelous sufficiently established the commission of the crime and the accused-appellants’ culpability. All these were proven in the criminal case on review.000. the SC held in said case that the same is understood in its general sense. Sandiganbayan. Elizalde S. on the other hand.R. Con-ui. opened it and took the money in it.R. the existence of malice is essential as it is an element of the crime. . falsification of local budget preparation forms. Maca was positively identified by Marvelous as one of the men who collared her. tied them up and brought them to the mountains of Bagyangon. 3019. Hadjim Hashim Abdul v. (b) he kidnapped or detained or in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty. Co v.” And since vouchers are official documents signifying a cash outflow from government coffers. 205442. as used in government. Their testimony also established the fact that they were deprived of their liberty when they were all hogtied and forcibly brought out of the house and into the mountains. Book II thereof.” Con-ui was also identified by Marvelous as the one who took the key to the drawer. No. In libel. CA and Guingguing v. that is. No. That the deprivation of their liberty was for the purpose of extorting ransom was confirmed by Alejandro who testified that the abductors asked him for money and even let him off so he can come up with the P300. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) states the instances when malice is not presumed. 2013. Carrillo • Posted in Criminal Law.A. petitioner in this case was not charged under R. Book II of the RPC as the crime of falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the RPC is covered by Title Four.A. G. 2013. elements. Libel. In proving the crime of kidnapping for ransom. 181986. Marelie and Mae by the bedroom. CA hold that in order to justify a conviction in libel involving privileged communication. hence. he must be charged with an offense (1) under R. Book II of the RPC. People of the Philippines v. Borjal v. this is referred to as malice in law.00 ransom. 3019.A. December 2. Kidnapping for ransom. The Court of Appeals (CA) acquitted Muñoz of libel because his statement constitutes privileged communication. G. Jurisprudence supplements the enumeration in Article 354 of the RPC. Neither was he charged under Title Seven. and (d) the victim was kidnapped or detained for ransom.December 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure Posted on January 20. or (3) involving fraud upon government or public funds or property. Petitioner therein was charged with falsifying municipal vouchers which. He was also identified as the one who left the group when they were on the mountains to buy food after Con-ui refused. No. The law presumes that every imputation is malicious. December 4. the prosecution must establish that the libelous statements were made or published with actual malice or malice in fact – the knowledge that the statement is false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division) and People of the Philippines. Muñoz Jr. He asserted the said offense does not involve “fraud or property”. 3019. (c) the kidnapping or detention was illegal. Admittedly. In construing the term “fraud” as used in section 13 of R.R. the prosecution has to show that: (a) the accused was a private person. Remedial Law • Here are select December 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on criminal law and procedure: 1. To address the issue. there is sufficient basis to conclude that there has been carnal knowledge. People of the Philippines. between the appellant and the offended party that might create a high degree of confidence between them which the appellant abused. December 11. Rape. 2001.R. December 4. (3) the taking was done without the consent of the owner. Particularly. clearly evince intent to gain on the part of the petitioner. Qualified theft. must be the result of the relation by reason of dependence.860. 198904. However. In this case. The CA found that the prosecution failed in this respect. and without violating Munoz’ right against double jeopardy given that the acquittal is essentially anchored on questions of fact. 181986. At first. Anent the fourth element. In the present case. M257-01 dated April 29. People of the Philippines.e. Qualified theft.Libel.For the charge of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). G. Co assails the CA’s ruling by raising arguments that essentially require a review of the CA’s factual and legal findings. with grave abuse of confidence. and that the taking was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons. once Ingan discovered that her story did not check out. 2013.R. or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. the Supreme Court cannot. is duty-bound to remit to Ingan the payments which she collected from the customers of PCS. to prosper. the prosecution must prove that: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman. or vigilance. the subject matter of the libelous remarks was of public interest.90 for the merchandise delivered to it and that she failed to remit the same to Ingan. or force upon things.R. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. (4) the taking was done with intent to gain. review these findings without going against the requirements of Rule 45 with respect to factual matters. (2) the said property belongs to another. coupled with the fact that the petitioner took the money paid by LACS and failed to remit the same to PCS. she changed her story and claimed that she lost the money when she rode a mini-bus. 2013. the petitioner no longer reported for work. as amended. She would not have been able to take the money paid by LACS if it were not for her position in PCS. the appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim. belongs to PCS. or force upon things.. force and intimidation to satisfy his lust. elements. through the present petition. and the context of Munoz’ statements were fair comments. Elizalde S. i. Second. In failing to remit to Ingan the money paid by LACS. as an element of the felony of qualified theft. the petitioner claims that the prosecution failed to show that there was grave abuse of confidence on her part. G. that the amount paid by LACS. The element of grave abuse of confidence is present in this case. the petitioner. The legal conclusion was arrived at from the fact that Co is a public figure. Delia Ines Ringor v. As regards the sixth element. Intent to gain on the part of the petitioner is readily apparent from the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses. G. elements. the prosecution established the elements of rape required under Article 266-A of the RPC. Consequently. The second. Grave abuse of confidence. AAA categorically testified that she resisted when the appellant pulled her . taken by the petitioner without authority and consent. received the payment from LACS in the amount of P66. Delia Ines Ringor v. Muñoz Jr. As to the first element. December 11. No.. Verily. when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. the prosecution was able to establish that the petitioner. reflecting the victim’s non-virgin physical state. Ingan’s brother. Ludolfo P. as part of her duty as sales clerk/agent of PCS. AAA was straightforward when she testified that the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina.All elements for the felony of qualified theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the RPC are present in this case. the petitioner claimed that she was robbed. Her testimony was supported by Medico Legal Report No. third and fifth elements of qualified theft were likewise established by the prosecution. 2013. guardianship. intent to gain on the part of the petitioner was likewise established. the petitioner indubitably gravely abused the confidence reposed on her by PCS. elements. No. 198904. testified that the petitioner told him and his sister that she lost the money she collected from LACS. First. threat or intimidation. (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against person. is not disputed. Co v. and (2) he accomplished this act through force. It has been previously held that when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings. the Court of Appeals (CA) declared that the libelous remarks are privileged. The foregoing circumstances. Later. No. Curiously. the appellant employed threat. privileged communication. as sales clerk/agent of PCS. and (6) the taking was done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC.The elements of qualified theft punishable under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) are as follows: (1) there was a taking of personal property. malice is no longer presumed and the prosecution has the burden of proving that Munoz acted with malice in fact. Ibarra. 205413. People of the Philippines v. G. during the trial. The second element was clearly satisfied when AAA positively and consistently identified Banzuela as her offender. defining or punishing crimes and laws imposing penalties and forfeitures are to be construed strictly against the State or against the party seeking to enforce them. or capriciously quash the information for failing to properly state the fourth element of the violation of section 3(b) of R.” The State here argues that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion resulting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction for applying the interpretation of the term transaction in Soriano Jr. Jurisprudence states that a rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay or inaction in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained.The identity of the accused. People of the Philippines v. threat. by the ‘mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act. People of the Philippines v. considering that the term transaction should be construed more liberally.A. Rape. G. It held that it does not help the State any that the term transaction as used in section 3(b) of R. not being elements of the crime. 2013. G. Dalton Laurian Jr. No. “in connection with a contract or transaction. as once so said in a case. Those conditions do not obtain in the case at bar since. elements. 2013. does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured. December 11. The crime of rape is deemed consummated even when the man’s penis merely enters the labia or lips of the female organ or.. This element was proven when AAA detailed in open court how Banzuela forcefully inserted his sex organ into her genitalia in February 2003 and how she felt pain during her ordeal. Consented or unconsented sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age is punishable as rape. These facts sufficiently indicate that the appellant’s acts were against AAA’s will. the Supreme Court (SC) pronounced that “the investigation conducted by the petitioner was not a contract. Rogelio Manicat y De Guzman. AAA testified that she did not tell anyone in her boarding house about what happened to her right after the terrible encounter with appellant because she was afraid of her father. G. People of the . December 11.R. proof of force. 2. People of the Philippines v. Rape. rape charge doubtful only when the delay or inaction in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained. 202060.The carnal knowledge between the accused and the complainant.R. or intimidation is unnecessary in cases of statutory rape. 3019.A. it is instructive to define “carnal knowledge” in the context it is used in the Revised Penal Code: ‘Carnal knowledge. y Pugsot. and 3. No. and liberally against the party sought to be charged. v. Ferdinand Banzuela. or whimsically. Instead.A. Hence. statutory rape. 2013. She also recalled that she cried when the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina.” In issuing the questioned resolution. the prosecution must prove the following: 1. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. she was only 6 years old when the rape was committed in February 2003. A transaction. like a contract. statutory rape.inside his house. 2013. 199868.R.R. Rape. December 2. Ferdinand Banzuela. the SC ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not arbitrarily. As regards the third element. Hence. considering that laws creating. 202060. 1996. 3019 is susceptible of being interpreted both restrictively and liberally. Nonetheless. they. This candid statement from the victim not only discloses a plausible justification for the delay but it also further manifests her youth or immaturity which is a personal circumstance that has never prevented the Supreme Court from upholding the credibility of a witness. 2.’ unlike its ordinary connotation of sexual intercourse. In Soriano Jr. The first element was established by the prosecution upon the presentation and submission to the court of a Certification from the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong City dated August24. she was helpless and afraid to make further noise because the appellant threatened to kill her. the Sandiganbayan applied the restrictive meaning of the term transaction as used in section 3(b) of R. No. Sandiganbayan. the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed as the law supposes that a woman below this age does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.The age of the complainant. When the complainant is below 12 years old. Neither was it a transaction because this term must be construed as analogous to the term which precedes it. December 11. such a condition has been considered as a cornerstone of a testimony that is worthy of belief. is one which involves some consideration as in credit transactions and this element (consideration) is absent in the investigation conducted by the petitioner. No. elements. 2004 stating that AAA was born on September 10. As such. The SC did not give credence to the State’s position. 3019 adopted in Soriano Jr. In order to successfully convict an accused of statutory rape. Third. concluded that the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti have been compromised. (2) such possession is not authorized by law. 9165 and its IRR would not necessarily void the seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs for as long as there is a justifiable ground for it and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Hence. thus. Due to the gross disregard of the buy-bust team of the procedural safeguards mandated by section 21 of R.R. Here.R. In prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under section 11. December 11. the prosecution also presented the testimony of P/Insp. Rosario Perez. No. No..Philippines v.A. Ferdinand Bautista y Sinaon. First Division and Third Division Hernando Benito Perez.R. Second. PO1 Montefrio positively identified the appellant as the person who sold to him one plastic sachet of shabu worth P100 in a buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers in this case. the following elements must concur: “(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object. appellant did not adduce evidence showing his legal authority to possess the shabu. First. Evidence.What determines if there was. the SC stressed that the step-by-step procedure outlined under R. appellant was correctly charged and convicted for illegal possession of shabu. Illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. G. Although the prosecution witnesses averred that the physical inventory of the seized items was recorded in the police blotter. Enest Escaler and Ramon Castillo Arceo. 188165/G. It must be remembered that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a warrant. the buy-bust team did not bother to show that they “intended to comply with the procedure but where thwarted by some justifiable reason or consideration. which the prosecution has satisfactorily established. elements. they failed to produce any such photograph. both PO1 Tadeo and PO1 Viesca were uncertain regarding whether they photographed the seized items. 189840. 2013. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Sandiganbayan. buy-bust operation. December 11. and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. No. a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. PO1 Montefrio also identified in court the plastic sachet of shabu he bought from the appellant. G. Here. December 11. however.R. which cannot be simply brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. As a result. After the operation. 9165. to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller.A. which is identified as a prohibited drug. To further prove that a buy-bust operation was actually conducted. Ramon Arceo and Enest Escaler/People of the Philippines v. despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. Hon. People of the Philippines v. First Division and Third Division Hernando Benito Perez. the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti. Ramon Arceo. What is more. Illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Article II of R. Sandiganbayan. 198113. The Supreme Court (SC) has of course held that non-compliance with the procedural safeguards provided in section 21 of R. indeed.” All the elements in the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs were established in this case. it did not bother to present a copy of the same with the required signatures or submit some valid justification for the omission. In this case. G. a member of the buy-bust team who also categorically pointed to the appellant as the person whom he saw PO1 Montefrio bought illegal drugs from. Jay Montevirgen y Ozaraga. the SC. Calabocal testified that he dusted the P100 bill buy-bust money with ultraviolet fluorescent powder prior to the conduct of the buy-bust operation. The testimony of PO1 Montefrio was in turn corroborated by the testimony of PO3 Antonio. The prosecution should not have filed the case absent proof of compliance with what the law requires. People of the Philippines v. Hon. P/Insp. Jr. 9165 and its IRR.A.” Accordingly. the forensic chemist assigned to the case. appellant’s act of allowing the poseur-buyer to choose one from among the three sachets and putting back into his pocket the two sachets of shabu not chosen clearly shows that he freely and consciously possessed the illegal drugs. 2013. as well as the living persons of PO1 Montefrio and the appellant . non-compliance of chain of custody rule does not necessarily void the seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs.A. Rosario Perez. No. 189063. Calabocal.the State was unable to discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. the two plastic sachets containing shabu subject of the case for the illegal possession of drugs were found in appellant’s pocket after a search on his person was made following his arrest in flagrante delicto for the illegal sale of shabu. 9165 is a matter of substantive law. This is either sloppy police work or utter refusal to comply with what is required of them. the prosecution satisfactorily proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented in court the evidence of corpus delicti. and the consideration. In fact. elements. and its failure to give justifiable reasons for it. 2013. he again examined the P100 bill buy-bust money. the object. Both police officers also identified the said items in court. PO1 Montuno. PO3 Antonio gave similar account of the events that led to the discovery and seizure of the three remaining plastic sachets of shabu. (2) such possession is not authorized by law. “Linda. elements. People of the Philippines v. December 11. and there is an ensuing exchange between them involving the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the police officer. The elements of sexual abuse under section 5(b). Sexual abuse under R.for the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder. People of the Philippines v. the latter took out from his pocket four plastic sachets.People of the Philippines v.” G. G. 2013 Illegal sale of shabu. the following elements must concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug. Article III of R. The recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the Information that was filed against Roallos clearly makes out a case for the offense of sexual abuse under section 5(b). and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.R.A. If a police officer goes through the operation as a buyer. Roselito Taculod y Elle. December 11. Article II of RA 9165. 198108. corpus delicti. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. No. PO1 Montefrio testified that when he bought shabu from the appellant. the promise or payment of the consideration and the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. is committed upon the consummation of the sale transaction which happens at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. under section 5. elements. 206738. Article III of R. Erlinda Mali y Quimno a. What is material is the proof showing that the transaction or sale actually took place. which PO3 Antonio marked accordingly.k. He stated that he found traces of said powder on the hands of both PO1 Montefrio and the appellant. The straightforward testimony of PO1 Montuno about the details of her transaction with the accused-appellant passed the “objective” test in buy-bust operations. 7610. G. 7610. No. which in this case meant that the P100 buy-bust money was indeed passed on from PO1 Montefrio to the appellant. 189840. G. Illegal sale of prohibited drugs. coupled with the presentation in court of the thing sold as evidence of the corpus delicti. After the arrest of the appellant.a. No. 2013. December 11. 2013. People of the Philippines v. What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. the object and the consideration. In this case. positively identified appellant as the person he caught in flagrante delicto selling a white crystalline substance believed to be shabu in the entrapment operation conducted by the police and MADAC operatives. . 198108. the offer to purchase. buy-bust operation. the crime is consummated when he makes an offer to buy that is accepted by the accused. Jay Montevirgen y Ozaraga. 2013. To prove the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. PO1 Montefrio relayed this information to PO3 Antonio and the latter ordered the appellant to empty the contents of his pocket.R. like shabu. Upon receipt of the P200 buy-bust money. elements. December 11. For an accused to be convicted of illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs. appellant handed to PO3 Ruiz the sachet containing 0. elements. who positively testified that the illegal sale actually took place when she gave the P100 marked money to the accused-appellant in exchange for the shabu. It is clear from her narration that the following elements occurred: the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher. and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing. Illegal sale of prohibited drugs. The appellant then brought out the three remaining plastic sachets of shabu. “Linda. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction. PO3 Ruiz. Roselito Taculod y Elle. Illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.” G. corpus delicti. the successful prosecution of the offense must be anchored on a proof beyond reasonable doubt of two elements.A.In every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu. Erlinda Mali y Quimno a. December 11. elements. coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti” or the illicit drug in evidence.R.k. No. the following elements must be proved: “(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller.R.04 gram of white crystalline substance which later tested positive for shabu. The appellant gave one sachet to PO1 Montefrio and put the rest back in his left pocket. In any case. the identity of the object and the consideration of the sale. the poseur-buyer. all the elements for the illegal sale of shabu were established. No.a. The confluence of the above requisites is unmistakable from the testimony of the poseur-buyer herself.R.A. Illegal sale of prohibited drugs. 206738. People of the Philippines v. to wit: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller. 2013. However. 2013.7610 are as follows: 1. No. No. 7610 are set out in the Information that was filed against Roallos.R. While there are recognized exceptions to such strict observance. Castaneda Jr. accused-appellant failed to do. People of the Philippines v. and. but he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time. G. Suffice it to say. the failure to identify the accused in court. The last paragraph of section 2. . that he mashed the breasts and kissed the cheeks of the latter. G. In contrast. Rule 111 of the ROC applies only if the civil liability ex delicto is separately instituted or when the right to file it separately was properly reserved. on the part of an office tasked to effectively curb smuggling activities which rob the government of millions of revenue every year. People of the Philippines v. order or resolution sought to be assailed. the lawyers representing the offices under the executive branch should be reminded that they still remain as officers of the court from whom a high sense of competence and fervor is expected. Muñoz claims that the last paragraph of section 2. if not lack of zeal. there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules. December 11. reglementary period to file certiorari. 198389. Although defense witness Guinonoy testified that he was with accused-appellant in Chapeh on March 10. accusedappellant proffered the defense of denial and alibi.A. People of the Philippines. but it will also sanction a seeming rudimentary attempt to circumvent standing rules of procedure. Clearly. he also acknowledged that the travel time of one to two hours from Chapeh to does not pose an insurmountable barrier for accused-appellant to actually take the trip from Chapeh to and back after committing the crime. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. worse. 2001. or almost a month late from the due date which fell on July 16. G. Notably. The Supreme Court had consistently held that for alibi to prosper.e. 2013. Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit in stating that certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment. totally denying that he was at their house in when the rape happened. To counter the clear and categorical declarations of AAA that accused-appellant raped her. 2013.. Juanito C. No. December 11. which states: The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. all the elements of sexual abuse under section 5(b). no convincing justification for the belated filing of the petition was advanced to warrant the relaxation of the Rules. was only 15 years of age. are tell-tale signs of a reluctant and subdued attitude in pursuing the case. Clearly. the records show that the petition was filed only on August 12. 2013. Section 4. The Hon. it is not enough to prove that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed. recognized exceptions.R. Vivencio Roallos y Trillanes v. 3. Certiorari. Clearly. at the time she was subjected to sexual abuse by Roallos. 200515. is below 18 years of age. was doomed by design from the start. To excuse this grave procedural lapse will not only be unfair to the other party. Co claims that Muñoz’ acquittal of the crime of libel did not extinguish the civil aspect of the case because Muñoz’ utterance of the libelous remarks remains undisputed. This stance taken by the lawyers in government service rouses the Supreme Court’s vigilance against inefficiency in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court rejected Muñoz’ claim. et al. whether male or female. The display of patent violations of even the elementary rules leads the Court to suspect that the case against Garcia and Vestidas Jr. Article III of R. It likewise alleged that AAA. Lino Paldo. This. The parties here have conflicting interpretations of the last paragraph of section 2. No. In the case at bench. 208290. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Alibi. and 3. The Information that was filed against Roallos alleged that he committed lascivious acts towards AAA. Verily. December 11. the failure to file this petition on time challenging a judgment of acquittal. i.R. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court (ROC). 2.. the reasons proffered by the petitioner do not carry even a tinge of merit that would deserve leniency. The child. this is an admission of inefficiency. 2013. The failure to present the certified true copies of documentary evidence. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. the failure to competently and properly identify the misdeclared goods. Civil liability of the accused. it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to be present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. appeal of by private party. The late filing of the petition was borne out of the petitioner’s failure to monitor incoming court processes that needed to be addressed by the office. Co v. especially child victims. The charge of acts of lasciviousness against Roallos is specifically delimited to that committed in relation to section 5(b). Enest Escaler and Ramon Castillo Arceo. 2013. The Supreme Court here held that Roallos’ claim that he was denied due process since he was arrested without any warrant of arrest and that he was not afforded a preliminary investigation is untenable. The designation of the crime in the Information is clear – Roallos was charged with the crime of acts of lasciviousness in relation to section 5(b). 1. Ombudsman. the last paragraph. Jr. People of the Philippines v. says she has been raped.” Consequently. In this case. particularly in cases of incestuous rape. Courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault. conducting cross-examinations and testifying on his own behalf. Chapter 12. That only the Solicitor General may represent the People on appeal or certiorariin the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings is the general rule. People of the Philippines. Article III of R.A.” Despite this wording. Evidence. Article III of R. Ramon Arceo and Enest Escaler/People of the Philippines v. People of the Philippines v. entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment and actively participated in the trial on the merits by attending the scheduled hearings. Respondents contend that the Office of the Ombudsman has no authority to file the petitions for certioraribecause only the Solicitor General could file the petitions in this Court pursuant to section 35. but the rule admits the exception concerning “all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court.R. she says. Rosario Perez. December 4. was authorized by law. in effect. Sandiganbayan.A. Jr.R. The mention of the phrase “acts of lasciviousness” in the Information does not mean that Roallos was charged with the felony of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC. he never raised this issue again. but by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with [E. Ludolfo P. 189063.O. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. by its terms. In a litany of cases. especially a minor. Sandiganbayan. 2. 2013. all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. However. hence. The Supreme Court here held that Roallos’ claim that the Information filed against him is duplicitous as it charged him with the commission of two crimes is plainly untenable.R. Elizalde S.A. Ramon Arceo. G. He accepted the Ombudsman’s verdict. 200515. No. December 11. Lino Paldo. It was only after the trial court rendered judgment against him that he once again assailed the conduct of the preliminary investigation in . Ombudsman can file appeal or certiorari from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court. Book IV of the Administrative Code as amended by E. December 11. humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished. Criminal complaint. which are mere conclusions of law. viz: “c.R. 7610. Well-established is the rule that testimonies of rape victims. testimonies of rape victims given full weight and credit. 7610. or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated. Here. 198389.O.. 2. because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame. are given full weight and credit. the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information. governs all claims for civil liability ex delicto. 14 and 14-A.O. In any case. 2013. G. 14 and 14-A. its title “When separate civil action is suspended. No. when the Ombudsman denied the motion. except in cases filed pursuant to E. Preliminary investigation. Vivencio Roallos y Trillanes v. more so if she is a minor..R. The Supreme Court found respondents’ contention grossly erroneous. Rule 111 of the ROC governs situations when the offended party opts to institute the civil action separately from the criminal action. issued in 1986. Title III. the filing of the petitions in these cases by the Office of the Ombudsman. No. No. No. it is conceded that Villarin raised the issue of lack of a preliminary investigation in his Motion for Reinvestigation. issued in 1986.Rule 111 of the ROC applies to civil actions to claim civil liability arising from the offense charged regardless if the action is instituted with or filed separately from the criminal action. section 2. shall represent the People of the Philippines. December 11. Rosario Perez. through the Office of the Special Prosecutor. G. the Office of the Ombudsman. 292. Muñoz. through its special prosecutor. 2013. Undoubtedly. 188165/G. the victim AAA was barely eight years old when raped by accused-appellant. Hon. G. First Division and Third Division Hernando Benito Perez. Hon. 8249 authorizes the exception. section 4(c) of R. the Supreme Court has ruled that when a woman. First Division and Third Division Hernando Benito Perez. 181986. lack of timely objection.] 1. crime charged determined by allegations in the complaint or information.” More specifically. 2013 by Dominador Maphilindo O. People of the Philippines. the person to be arrested has committed. as it is hereby granted. G.00.000. When death occurs due to a crime. G.” The heirs of the victim are likewise entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50. By entering his plea. November 13. Appellant conspired with his co-accused in killing the victim. Indeed. In addition. Warrantless arrests. No. without a warrant. given that the officers were in a patrol car and a tricycle. Indeed. The overt act constituting the crime is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Philippines . December 11. George Antiquera y Codes v. Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a “peace officer or a private person may. The circumstances here do not make out a case of arrest made in flagrante delicto. and (5) temperate damages. in lieu thereof.Law.00 may be granted.R. Such unity of mind and purpose is shown by the twelve stab wounds and several abrasions found on different parts of the body of the victim that led to his instantaneous death. Pasay City. Basilio Villarmea y Echavez.00. all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of . Philippines Cases. No. Clearly. et al. is actually committing. Thus. in view of the aggravating circumstance of treachery. by way of temperate damages as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the [victim] suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved. Section 5(a). Roallos did not raise any objection to the supposed illegality of his arrest and the lack of a proper preliminary investigation. 2013.It is undisputed that. arrest a person when. Carrillo • Posted in Criminal Law. no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting officers that authorized the arrest of accused Antiquera without warrant under the above-mentioned rule. the police officers did not notice anything amiss going on in the house from the street where they stood. damages to be awarded. They ganged up on the victim and took turns in stabbing and mauling him – animated by the same purpose and criminal intent to kill. Whatever argument Villarin may have regarding the alleged absence of a preliminary investigation has therefore been mooted. the stabbings were not separate but were geared towards the consummation of the same end – to attack and kill the victim.000. to wit: (1) The police officers claim that they were alerted when they saw two unidentified men suddenly rush out of 107 David Street. he is deemed to have waived any perceived irregularity in his arrest and has effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the RTC. he actively participated in the proceedings before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). and actively participating in the trial. is likewise proper and in line with prevailing jurisprudence. the natural thing for them to do was to give chase to the jeep that the two fleeing men boarded. arrests in flagrante delicto.000. at the time of his arraignment. or is attempting to commit an offense. Murder. 200029. Remedial Law • Here are select November 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on criminal law and procedure: 1. Moreover. in his presence. Running after the fleeing suspects was the more urgent task but the officers instead gave priority to the house even when they heard no cry for help from it. December 11.the Motion for Reconsideration. even as they peeked through its partially opened door. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that while there may be no evidence of an appreciable time that these persons agreed on the criminal resolution prior to the incident. G. 180661. the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim. No. People of the Philippines v. People of the Philippines. they saw no activity that warranted their entering it. He is likewise deemed to have waived his right to preliminary investigation. 2013.R. The award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30. (2) Admittedly. Appellant’s positive identification by Candelada as one of those persons who stabbed the victim makes him criminally responsible as principal by indispensable cooperation. Since they suspected that a crime had been committed. 198389. while actual damages cannot be awarded since there was no evidence of actual expenses incurred for the death of the victim. November 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure Posted on December 4. (4) exemplary damages. he is deemed to have waived his right to preliminary investigation.” This is an arrest in flagrante delicto. REVISED PENAL CODE Conspiracy. the sum of P25. imposable penalty.R. Vivencio Roallos y Trillanes v. 2013. (3) moral damages. (2) actual or compensatory damages. minor victim’s act of crying indicates lack of consent. Andy Zulueta. 201105. convincing. Indeed. To warrant the conviction and. but just enough to bring about the desired result. it must be proven that the accused simultaneously assaulted the deceased. 2013. consent. it must establish beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged since the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished. 192183. 2013. Also.finality of the decision until fully paid. she could not reasonably be expected to resist in the same manner that an adult would under the same or similar circumstances.G. As an element of rape.R. In the present case. they cannot be said to have taken advantage of their superior strength. No. People of the Philippines v. Qualifying circumstance. or material possession of. In other words. November 25. People of the Philippines. Bogarts. He was already about to escape when he was struck by appellant on the head with a beer bottle. the unidentified companions of appellant punched Claro first. petitioner can only be held accountable for the crime of simple theft under Art. AAA testified that she cried when the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. Jonas Guillen y Atienza. 191756. No. consent. 2013. 309 of the RPC. People of the Philippines v. the stolen goods. Such threat of immediate danger to her life cowed “AAA” to submit to the carnal desires of the appellant. Javier Canaveras. where the accused had never been vested physical access to. Nonetheless. advantage of superior strength. 193839.R. Rape. People of the Philippines v. and appellant and his companions on the other. November 11. In this case. Some may show aggressive resistance while others may opt to remain passive. Ryan Viray v. Roberto Velasco. hence. Rape. immediately after appellant left. there was no blatant disparity in strength between Claro. 2013. the fact that Claro would have been able to escape showed that the initial attack was not that overwhelming. When appreciating this qualifying circumstance.R. Lastly. G. G. 205180. the police authorities were able to apprehend appellant because “AAA” immediately reported the incident to them. force. 308 in relation to Art. it may not be said that he or she exploited such access or material possession thereby committing such grave abuse of confidence in taking the property. and manner of testifying of witnesses. . However. by minor inconsistencies in her testimony. a.R. as implied by the defense. In fact.k. it is axiomatic that when it comes to evaluating the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses.R. failure of victim to shout for help is not consent. November 11. Superiority in number does not necessarily amount to the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength. People of the Philippines v. November 27. conviction based on rape victim’s testimony alone. Clearly. the attack mounted by the unidentified persons had already ceased when appellant took over. November 24. in order for a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal. great respect is accorded to the findings of the trial judge who is in a better position to observe the demeanor. when assailants attack a victim alternately. on the one hand. Qualified theft. As a child of tender years. G. The failure of “AAA” to shout for help should not be taken against her.R. No. No. considering that there were three of them attacking. Natalio Hilarion y Laliag. and to decide who among them is telling the truth. Rape. AAA’s act of crying during the rape is sufficient indication that the appellant’s act was against her will. No.a. 2013. It is settled in jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape. or as voluntarily engaging in an illicit relationship with the appellant. AAA also revealed that the appellant threatened to kill her parents if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Furthermore. 2013. threat or intimidation need not be irresistible. let alone impaired. The failure of “AAA” to shout for help and seek assistance should not be construed as consent. G. imposition of the penalty for qualified theft. facial expression. It would be recalled that appellant poked a knife at “AAA’s” neck. People react differently when confronted with a shocking or startling situation. grave abuse of confidence. Thus. People of the Philippines v. November 27. G. there must be an allegation in the information and proof that there existed between the offended party and the accused such high degree of confidence or that the stolen goods have been entrusted to the custody or vigilance of the accused. the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible. “AAA” lost no time in seeking the help of her sister-in-law and in reporting the incident to the police authorities. Without the circumstance of a grave abuse of confidence and considering that the use of force in breaking the door was not alleged in the Information. 190318. and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. No. It must be shown that the aggressors combined forces in order to secure advantage from their superiority in strength. Rape. rape through sexual intercourse and rape through sexual assault distinguished. Rape can be committed either through sexual intercourse or through sexual assault. whether fresh or healed. the courts may fix the value of the property taken based on the attendant circumstances of the case or impose the minimum penalty under Art. 2013. G. is not an element of the crime of rape. 181473. If there is no available evidence to prove the value of the stolen property or that the prosecution failed to prove it. without any provocation or prior argument. Thus. In this case. Even AAA’s own testimony on cross examination that she was six (6) years old at the time of the incident would not suffice to prove her minority since her age was not expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. minor inconsistencies in the testimony of “AAA” are to be expected because (1) she was a minor child during her defloration. the Supreme Court found the same to be irrelevant and immaterial. and. November 11. No. 2013. hence the victim’s age must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself. Rape. No.R. No. No.Rape. G. He was merely sitting on the bench in front of a sarisari store eating bananas when appellant. November 11.” it bears stressing that victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated. November 25. the corresponding penalty to be imposed on the accused-appellant should be the minimum penalty corresponding to theft involving the value of P5. deliberate. proof of healed hymenal lacerations is immaterial in rape. November 24. Furthermore. Doney Gaduyon y Tapispisan. statutory rape. On the other hand. in this case. (2) she was to testify on a painful and humiliating experience. No. People of the Philippines v. The fact of rape in this case was satisfactorily established by the testimony of “AAA” alone. Theft.R. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person. methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution. and unexpected manner. should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation. Verily. an errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness. Rape. employing means. This is also referred to as “organ rape” or “penile rape” and must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift. While AAA’s mother. especially when she is recounting details from an experience as humiliating and painful as rape. Age is an essential element of statutory rape. and not merely stroked the external surface thereof. 205180. It is also called “instrument or object rape”. especially child victims. to ensure his conviction of rape by sexual intercourse. Ryan Viray v. 201105. Hymenal laceration. People of the Philippines v. rape victims. proof of victim’s age is required. or the narrower “homosexual rape. Treachery. People of the Philippines. and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. affording the hapless. 2013. 309 of the RPC. Natalio Hilarion y Laliag. 191756. (3) she was sexually assaulted several times.” People of the Philippines v. Jonas Guillen y Atienza. 2013. or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. inconsistencies in the testimony of a minor rape victim. Anent appellant’s contention that “AAA’s” healed hymenal laceration does not prove rape. BBB. penalty when amount of property taken not established. People of the Philippines v. the victim Labando was totally unaware of the threat. (4) she was examined on details and events that happened almost six months before she testified.R.R. There must be evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator’s penis touched the labia of the victim or slid into her female organ. In rape through sexual intercourse. in rape by sexual assault. it had not been previously established that the certificate of live birth or other similar authentic document such as the baptismal certificate or school records have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable. 181473.00. Since the amount of the property taken was not established by an independent and reliable estimate. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. suddenly stabbed him . G. under any of the attendant circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1.R. the perpetrator. also “gender-free rape”. commits this kind of rape by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice. 2013. unarmed. With regard to the inconsistencies on the part of “AAA. carnal knowledge is the crucial element which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. G. November 11. Doney Gaduyon y Tapispisan. Even a medical examination is not necessary as it is merely corroborative. G. testified that her daughter was six (6) years old at the time of the rape. R. unexpected. and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused was acquitted. 2013. It should also be shown that the mode of attack has knowingly been intended to accomplish the wicked intent.R. People of the Philippines v. November 27. or manner of execution affording the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation. absence of premeditation. There was treachery in the case at bar. The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its accompanying civil liability. method. Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. piercing the right ventricle of his heart thus causing his instantaneous death. The victim was utterly defenseless. The civil action based on the delict is extinguished if there is a finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him. 2. or when the killing is done at the spur of the moment. G. surprise. treachery is not present when the killing is not premeditated. . People of the Philippines v. 192183.R. Felipe.R. or suddenness of an attack upon an unsuspecting victim. affording the hapless. 199067. civil action deemed instituted in the criminal case. Javier Canaveras. or where the sudden attack is not preconceived and deliberately adopted. November 13.G. employing means. Bogarts. Basilio Villarmea y Echavez. it does not necessarily mean that he will not likewise be held civilly liable because extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. Thus. there was no time for appellant and his companions to plan and agree to deliberately adopt a particular means to kill Claro.on his chest. The stabbing was deliberate. method.k. 200029. without risk to the offender arising from the defense that the offended party might make. rendering the victim defenseless. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons. This rule more specifically applies when (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required. The numerical superiority of the assailants also gave him no opportunity to retaliate. Purification F. November 11. it is explicitly clear that the corresponding civil action is deemed included and that a reservation to file such separately is not allowed. et al. resistance or defense coming from the victim. 2013. is not found to be criminally liable. or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution. The civil aspect of every criminal case is based on the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. methods. 2013. Andy Zulueta. Javier Canaveras.G. a beer bottle readily available and within grabbing range at the table as appellant followed outside. It means that the accused must have made some preparation to kill the deceased in a manner that would insure the execution of the crime or render it impossible or hard for the person attacked to resort to self-defense or retaliation. Treachery is appreciated as a qualifying circumstance when the following elements are shown: a) the malefactor employed means. If the accused. 193839. methods or forms in the execution thereof. 2013. Even the choice of weapon. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons. done swiftly and unexpectedly. No. shows that the intent to harm came about spontaneously. however. employing means. therefore. a. (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil. G. With respect to criminal actions for violation of BP 22. but is just triggered by a sudden infuriation on the part of the accused as a result of a provocative act of the victim. or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. People of the Philippines v. November 27. No. Treachery. and b) the means.G. unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. No. Treachery. November 11. Treachery. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS BP 22. No. must have been planned by the offender and must not have sprung from an unexpected turn of events. No. 2013.R. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning. Treachery involves not only the swiftness.a. In this case. People of the Philippines v. unarmed and taken by surprise by the sudden and unexpected attack from his assailants. The mode of attack. 193839. swift and sudden which foreclosed any escape. If the judgment is of acquittal. It must be proved as one of the elements of the crime. the majority assumed that the payment to Dr. Dayco v. Nevertheless. Posadas and Dr. or assist another person to engage in. inner thigh. 2013. Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. the act or omission from which her civil liability arose. causing undue injury. November 11. G. and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value.G. it must be actually proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. November 27.A. inducement. the accused may still be held civilly liable since this does not mean he did not commit the act complained of. intimidation or influence. 169000. 168951 & G.” The Supreme Court has always interpreted “undue injury” as “actual damage. 2013. the imposition of the civil liability will depend on whether or not the act or omission from which it might arise exists. civil liability despite acquittal.500.00 payment to him that the COA Resident Auditor disallowed was deducted from his terminal leave benefits.BP 22. BP 22. and (3) the child. Lascivious conduct means the intentional touching. 181473. 199067. anus. 199067. elements. clearly existed. A person acquitted of a criminal charge. Sexual abuse includes the employment. Thus. Section 2 of BP 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds which. 181473. the second element is the hardest to prove as it involves a state of mind. No. 7610.R. or incest with children. No. No. Dr. It may only be that the facts proved did not constitute the offense charged. 2013. Doney Gaduyon y Tapispisan. The record shows. Accused was acquitted because the element of notice of dishonour was not sufficiently established.R. The element of undue injury cannot be presumed even after the supposed wrong has been established. or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. A finding of “undue injury” cannot be based on flimsy and non-substantial evidence or upon speculation. arises only after it is proved that the issuer had received a written notice of dishonor and that within five (5) days from receipt thereof. a person’s acquittal must be based on the fact he did not commit the offense. conjecture. the following requisites must concur: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. Posadas caused “undue injury” to the government or gave him “unwarranted benefits.A. 2013.A. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.A. sexual abuse. elements.R. either directly or through clothing. People of the Philippines v. If the acquittal is based merely on reasonable doubt. This paragraph “punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuse. No. Felipe. whether male or female is below eighteen (18) years of age. November 11. through coercion. drawer. with an intent to abuse.00 monthly as TMC Project Director caused actual injury to the Government. R. No. which was the making or the issuing of the subject worthless check. ordered the drawee bank to stop payment.R. The essential elements of the offense of violation of BP 22 are the following: (1) The making. of any person. 7610.A. prostitution. persuasion. Rolando P. enticement or coercion of a child to engage in. or buttocks. 3019. Posadas of P30. 7610 defines and penalizes child prostitution and other sexual abuse. Roger R. use. he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment.R. breast. 3019 requires the prosecution to prove that the appointments of Dr. such “actual damage” must not only be capable of proof. bestiality. Her acquittal from the criminal charge of BP 22 was based on reasonable doubt and it did not relieve her of the corresponding civil liability. that the P247. however. (2) The knowledge of the maker. masturbation. the first and third elements were duly proven in the trial. Here. Purification F. No. sexual abuse. Here. In Section 5(b). humiliate. however. degrade. without any valid cause. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines.R. or issuer that at the time of issue there were no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment. Felipe.G. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child. November 11. coverage. Doney Gaduyon y Tapispisan.” People of the Philippines v. groin. and (3) The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or the dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer. (2) the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. Of the three (3) elements. 2013. 7610. Article III of R. November 11. R. R.” What is more. or the introduction of any object into the genitalia. is not necessarily civilly free because the quantum of proof required in criminal prosecution (proof beyond reasonable doubt) is greater than that required for civil liability (mere preponderance of evidence). however. G. whether of the same or opposite sex. In order to be completely free from civil liability. harass.000. of the genitalia. engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. or guesswork. G. Purification F. drawing. Section 3(e) of R.A. R. anus or mouth. . lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person. sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation. retractions of testimonies previously given in court disfavored. it is too late in the day for his recantation without portraying himself as a liar. Marilyn Santos. Dangerous Drug Act. a perusal of section 21.R. whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with section 21 will remain unknown. However. the elements of the crime charged had been sufficiently established. G. Only when there exist special circumstances in the case which when coupled with the retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the testimony or statement given. sale of illegal drugs. section 21(1) of R. 9165 ensures that the chain of custody of the seized drugs to be used in evidence must be complete and unbroken. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated. 190180. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. November 13. the following essential elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. et al. 193190. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Affidavits of desistance. G. At most. Moreover. No. Indeed. appellant’s argument that the arresting officers involved were not able to strictly comply with the procedural guidelines stated in section 21(1) did not absolve her because. November 13. G. the Supreme Court found that the testimonial evidence of the prosecution duly established the fact that appellants sold to PO2 Aninias. It is settled that an affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction of the accused is not reliable. when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered. The Supreme Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court.” What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. The seemingly incompatible statements of PO2 Aninias and SPO2 Male did not destroy their credibility. notwithstanding the procedural error.A. No. the integrity and the evidentiary value of the illegal drugs used in this case were duly preserved and the chain of custody of said evidence was shown to be unbroken. People of the Philippines v. the poseur-buyer. and deserves only scant attention. six heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets that contained white crystalline substance that later tested positive for shabu. can retractions be considered and upheld. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu. the police officers’ alleged violations of sections 21 and 86 of R.A. November 27. where non-compliance with mandatory chain of custody rules may be excused. No. Dangerous Drug Act. the object of the sale and the consideration. 9165 reveals the existence of a clause which may render non-compliance with said procedural rule non-prejudicial to the prosecution of drug offenses. The rationale for the rule is obvious: affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses. . P/Supt. Recantations are viewed with suspicion and reservation. Marilyn Santos. Artemio E. The law excuses noncompliance under justifiable grounds. et al. Non-compliance with section 21 does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible because what is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved which would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. et al. chain of custody. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. 9165.. 9165. elements. R. No.A. 193190. usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. People of the Philippines v. 2013. despite the seemingly mandatory language used in the procedural rule at issue. Brushing aside the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. procedural requirements.A.R. because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. People of the Philippines v. Thus. Especially when the affidavit of retraction is executed by a prosecution witness after the judgment of conviction has already been rendered. Essentially. Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. 198338. 9165. the retraction is an afterthought which should not be given probative value. In the case at bar. coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. 3. G. R. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. People of the Philippines v. Dangerous Drug Act. Marissa Castillo y Alignay.A. he must so state in the form of objection.A. 2013.R. 2013. Lamasen.R. 2013. November 13.R. pointing to appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. 2013. the reference is to facts. Bulacan with his nephew Roderick Palconet. Thus.Alibi. probable cause. Moreover. No. Aside from claiming that he was at Galas. its issuance being. as invalid corroboration unworthy of belief. weight of corroborating testimony of witnesses. G. in legal contemplation. Appellant argued that her denial is not entirely unsubstantiated because the same is corroborated by the testimony of her daughter.R. November 11. Denial. 191756. appellant failed to impute any ill motive to Pascua. As implied by the words . A core requisite before a warrant shall validly issue is the existence of a probable cause. People of the Philippines v. November 27. G. the same having been offered preferably by disinterested witnesses. data or information personally known to the applicant and the witnesses he may present. Alibi. Cagayan de Oro City could be traversed from Gingoog City within two hours. a. Jonas Guillen y Atienza. it must necessarily come from disinterested witnesses. Bogarts. Besides. the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Quezon City when the rape incident happened.R. appellant’s alibi crumbles in the face of his apprehension near the scene of the crime immediately after “AAA” reported the incident to the police authorities. Aside from having been positively identified by prosecution witness Pascua. the corroborating testimony made by appellant’s daughter is given lesser probative value than that of the prosecution’s witnesses since it has consistently been held that the defense of denial or frame-up. Malolos City. No. meaning “the existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched. No. Appellant’s alibi. he failed to submit any proof to show that it is physically impossible for him to be at Sampaloc. Manila where and when the rape happened.R. being inherently weak.” And when the law speaks of facts. 190318. In the case at bar. which in no way can be considered as disinterested and unbiased. Besides. in order for a corroboration of an alibi to be considered credible. it is not physically impossible for appellant to commit the crime in Cagayan de Oro City and still go home to Gingoog City after its commission. 192183. the Supreme Court repeated the legal doctrine that for alibi to prosper. Marissa Castillo y Alignay. appellant failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene at the time of its commission. Furthermore. Roberto Velasco. However. the testimony of appellant’s sole corroborating witness reveals that the distance between the construction site and the appellant’s house where the instances of rape and acts of lasciviousness occurred is relatively short and can be covered by a mere five-minute travel by motor vehicle.a. People of the Philippines v. 2013. Alibi and denial. like alibi. it must be proved that during the commission of the crime. November 27. he was working at a construction site in Barangay Caingin. it is necessary that the corroboration is credible.k. Marinell Castillo. However. 190180. hence.R. has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified. appellant provided an alibi. 2013. nobody corroborated appellant’s alibi other than his wife who is obviously biased in his favor thus making her testimony self-serving. at the time of the three rape incidents as well as the one instance of acts of lasciviousness. Time and again. The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. we regard the testimony of appellant’s daughter. Appellant could only offer alibi and denial as his defenses. alibi and denial are weak defenses especially when measured up against the positive identification made by the victim pointing to appellant as the malefactor. Andy Zulueta. 2013. the warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and is a nullity. People of the Philippines v. Besides. People of the Philippines v. As observed by the Court of Appeals. appellant failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission.G. He maintains that. contrasted with the credible and positive testimony of P02 Santos and POI Chavez. For the defense of denial to prosper. personal knowledge of applicant or witnesses. As his principal defense against all these criminal charges. No. arbitrary. Search warrants. deserves no credence at all especially when measured up against the positive identification by the prosecution witness Bryan Pascua (Pascua). the Supreme Court upheld trial court’s lending credence to Pascua’s testimony. In so doing. G. November 25. . November 13.R. Jonas Guillen y Atienza. “probable cause” is concerned with probability. 188526. the objection is deemed waived. No. G. irregularity of arrest must be raised before arraignment. Philippines Cases. in his affidavit to support his application for the issuance of the search warrants. not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. viz: “Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice…” When appellant remained silent when confronted by the accusation of “AAA” at the police station. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. et al. What is important is that the testimonies agree on the essential facts and that the respective versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other to make a consistent and coherent whole. thus.Law • .. 188526. November 25. People of the Philippines v.G. November 27. Century Chinese Medicine Co. Carrillo • Posted in Criminal Law. These inconsistencies. When appellant was brought to the police station. People of the Philippines v. Roberto Velasco. Philippines . et a. this right cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel and any admission obtained in violation of this rule shall be inadmissible in evidence. Warrantless arrest. G. 2013. et al. November 11.R.” Hence. Search warrants. otherwise. v. November 11. October 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Jurisprudence Posted on November 4. Also. even tend to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of the prosecution witnesses because they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. Marilyn Santos. he was already under custodial investigation. The Rules on the Issuance of the Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights is not applicable in this case as the search warrants were not applied based thereon. 2013. The variance in the statements of SPO2 Male as to the role(s) played by appellants does not detract from the fact that both accused were involved in the transaction with the poseur-buyer.R. Silence of the accused. which may be caused by the natural fickleness of memory. Neither did the same mean that the police officers in this case were guilty of prevarication or otherwise in bad faith in their testimonies. G. Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure applies. 193190. Century Chinese Medicine Co. G. he was already a suspect to the crime of rape. Section 12. credibility of witnesses. 2013 by Dominador Maphilindo O. v. Even if appellant’s warrantless arrest were proven to be indeed invalid. 2013. 190318. 2013.R. trademark infringement and unfair competition. It was established that respondent had asked the NBI for assistance to conduct investigation and search warrant implementation for possible apprehension of several drugstore owners selling imitation or counterfeit TOP GEL T. No. silence not an admission of guilt when under custodial investigation. No. 8293. Article III of the Constitution explicitly provides. As such. People of the Philippines and Ling Na Lau. 2013. but in anticipation of criminal actions for violation of intellectual property rights under R. In fact. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man. his silence should not be taken against him. At that stage.R.themselves. not absolute or even moral certainty. it was error on the part of the trial court to state that appellant’s silence should be deemed as implied admission of guilt. 191756. Thus. Witnesses. No. Settled is the rule that discrepancies on minor matters do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnesses’ honesty.A. People of the Philippines v. People of the Philippines and Ling Na Lau. No. NBI Agent Furing stated that “the items to be seized will be used as relevant evidence in the criminal actions that are likely to be instituted. & DEVICE OF A LEAF papaya whitening soap. any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea. An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. he was exercising his basic and fundamental right to remain silent. such a scenario would still not provide salvation to appellant’s cause because jurisprudence also instructs us that the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. G. Seeing that conspiracy among Gambao. The testimonies. Delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief. 202842. Karim. accused-appellants changed shifts in guarding the victim. The fact that they shouted for help also showed their loss of hope in the face of what was coming – rapid gunfire from long firearms. Murder. concept. The Supreme Court held otherwise. the testimony of Police Inspector Ouano sufficiently established that Ronas and Evad were two of those who were arrested during the rescue operation. without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. when taken together. the crime is properly denominated as murder. There were testimonies proving that (1) before the incident. 2013. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons. insofar as they were concerned. G. Paulino Luage and Wilfredo Toledo. Porferia and Analiza. (2) during the kidnapping. Many victims of rape would choose to suffer in silence rather than put the life of their loved ones in danger. Dukilman. delay in reporting the crime. It is well entrenched that delay in reporting rape cases does not by itself undermine the charge.R. treachery. The SC has ruled that treachery is present when an assailant takes advantage of a situation in which the victim is asleep. reveal the common purpose of the accused-appellants and how they were all united in its execution from beginning to end. No. October 9. Ronas and Evad argue in their respective briefs that conspiracy. .Here are select October 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on criminal law and jurisprudence: 1. the testimony of Police Inspector Arnado sufficiently established that he was one of the four people apprehended when the police intercepted the Tamaraw FX at the Nichols Tollgate. To be precise. In any case. G. Likewise. Ronas and Evad was established beyond reasonable doubt based on the proffered evidence of the prosecution. People of the Philippines v. proof of the conspiracy need not rest on direct evidence. People of the Philippines v. October 9. Jr. having been rudely awakened by the shooting of their companion. that the victims were sleeping when they were shot. the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. proof of conspiracy need not rest on direct evidence. or has just awakened. during or after the commission of the crime indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. It has been established by the prosecution. Ronas and Evad base their argument on the fact that they had no participation whatsoever in the negotiation for the ransom money. considering that the women were able to cry for help before the rapid firing that silenced them. et al. Abao. where the delay is grounded in threats from the accused. he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. Mandao. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny.R. 172707.R. No. The Supreme Court (SC) found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated by the lower courts. Once conspiracy is shown. methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution. Dukilman hinges his argument on the fact that he was not one of those arrested during the rescue operation based on the testimony of Inspector Ouano. Further. On the other hand. two of the accused-appellants kept coming back to the victim’s house. REVISED PENAL CODE Conspiracy. employing means. and (3) the accused appellants were those present when the ransom money was recovered and when the rescue operation was conducted. The failure of AAA to report her ordeal is not unique in her case. It has been held that to be a conspirator. it was Emeterio who was asleep when he was shot.. 190862. Udal. was not convincingly established. Florentino Galagar. unaware of the evil design. Macalinbol. Although Dukilman was not one of those apprehended at the cottage during the rescue operation. it was clear that the women were in no position to defend themselves. People of the Philippines v. Rape. Thus. October 1. and even confirmed by the defense. 2013. Dilangalen. G. 2013. Halil Gambao. as the same may be inferred from the collective conduct of the parties before. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant. Ricardo Dearo. No. one need not participate in every detail of the execution. the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. Accused-appellants Dukilman. it has been established that appellants killed Emeterio. Appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance. that “AAA” suffered hymenal lacerations. In this case. chain of custody. when appeal is to be taken. It was only in November 2010 or more than a year later since the RTC denied her motion that the petitioner filed . It must be stressed that the examining physician was presented to testify only on the fact that he examined the victim and on the results of such examination. The elements of statutory rape are that: (a) the victim is a female under 12 years or is demented. October 7. This refers to the location and nature of the wounds suffered by the victim.2204 gram of shabu for laboratory testing. and the failure of the laboratory to take into account the weight of the sachet container. however. Section 6. a 45% difference in the reported weight of the drugs from the time of the arrest to the time of the receipt by the laboratory for testing implies tampering of evidence. 2013. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. People of the Philippines v. The Court of Appeals said that the chain of custody of the seized drugs does not appear to be unbroken. G. medical examination as corroborative evidence. 2013. In this case.R. It is likewise beyond dispute that “AAA” was only 11 years of age at the time she was raped. The lower courts therefore correctly held appellant guilty of the crime of statutory rape and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. threat or intimidation on the female. the police and the crime laboratory used different weighing scales. 190622. At best. Rape of a minor under 12 years of age is statutory rape. the medical examination would only serve as corroborative evidence. Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. People of the Philippines v. 3. The PDEA report to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office.” He could only surmise that the lacerations could have been caused “by activities like cycling. nor the employment on the female of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority is necessary to commit statutory rape. Rape. No. the SC did not affirm the conviction of Pornillos. Dr. the prosecution satisfactorily established the fact of carnal knowledge. October 2. and 2) that the woman is below 12 years of age. Her Certificate of Live Birth showed that she was born on November 26. It therefore suffered a loss of 45% or nearly half of the original weight. Arnulfo Imperial (Dr. the petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a motion to lift warrant of arrest and to reinstate bail bond three (3) months later. G. This implies tampering with the prosecution evidence. and the laboratory examination request all put down the seized shabu as weighing 0. Imperial could not be expected to establish the cause of such lacerations with particularity because he has no personal knowledge of how these hymenal lacerations were inflicted on “AAA. elements. and (b) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim. Marciano Cial y Lorena. to wit: 1) carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse. 1992. The forensic chemist reported and testified. the examining physician is expected to testify only on the fact that he examined the victim and on the results of the examination.Rape. the judgment convicting the petitioner of the crime of Estafa was promulgated on March 25. In fact. Jovi Pornillos y Hallare. People of the Philippines v. But these are mere speculations since none of those involved was willing to admit having committed weighing error. an accused’s conviction for rape may be anchored solely on the testimony of the victim. extent and location of the wounds.R. there are only two elements that need to be established. No.1796 gram from what the police inventoried. Speculations cannot overcome the concrete evidence that what was seized was not what was forensically tested. The prosecution has three theories: only two chemists served the entire region giving rise to possible error. 191362. Neither the use of force. the booking sheet and arrest report. 2009.R. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Criminal case.” In any case. 2. In statutory rape. No. 2013. October 9. a medical examination is not even indispensable in prosecuting a rape charge. Instead of filing a notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation or notice of judgment.4 gram. statutory rape. Hence. The Supreme Court did not give credence to appellant’s imputation that the examining physician was unsure as to what caused “AAA’s” hymenal lacerations. Rodolfo De Jesus y Mendoza. short by 0. G. that the police actually submitted only 0. nor the female’s deprivation of reason or being otherwise unconscious. 201109. Dr. horseback riding or the insertion of [a] hard object into the vagina of the victim such as the penis. the Certificate of Inventory. The Supreme Court (SC) held otherwise. He is thus expected to testify on the nature. Imperial) found. because of the compromised evidence. among others. The essential elements of this crime are the following: (a) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check is issued. to be guilty of estafa as charged. not the mere issuance of a worthless check. 2013. dangerous drugs. Philippines Cases. the appellate court was already bereft of any jurisdiction to entertain the motion. Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. In every criminal prosecution. Gilbert Reyes Wagas. the identity of the offender. the proof of guilt did not measure up to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt demanded in criminal cases. September 4. Thus. not the mere issuance of the worthless check. Carrillo • Posted in Criminal Law. the CA did not commit any reversible error in denying the petitioner’s motion inasmuch as by the time the petitioner filed the same. G. Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. and that he had talked with him only over the telephone. the Prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused Wagas who had defrauded Ligaray by issuing the check. Ligaray confirmed that he did not himself see or meet Wagas at the time of the transaction and thereafter. October 2. September 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure Posted on October 7.R. Philippines . At that point. what the law punishes is fraud or deceit. Ligaray expressly admitted that he did not personally meet the person with whom he was transacting over the telephone. Thus. estafa. In other words. Evident premeditation.R. Wagas could not be held guilty of estafa simply because he had issued the check used to defraud Ligaray. Even after the dishonor of the check. rape • Here are select September 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on criminal law and procedure: 1. People of the Philippines v. 2013. considering that the circumstances of the identification of Wagas as the person who transacted on the rice did not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake. 157943. and that the check was dishonored when presented for payment because of the insufficiency of funds. and (c) damage to the payee thereof. What the law punishes is the fraud or deceit. It bears stressing that the accused. his brother-in-law. (b) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check. but to somebody else like Cañada. In order to constitute estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. Anita Ramirez v. No. (3) sufficient lapse of time between such . No. the Prosecution must show that the person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted with his money or property were it not for the issuance of the check by the offender. the Prosecution established that Ligaray had released the goods to Cañada because of the postdated check the latter had given to him.Law • Tagged arraignment. No. who then negotiated it to Ligaray. elements. and. The proof of guilt must still clearly show that it had been Wagas as the drawer who had defrauded Ligaray by means of the check. however. REVISED PENAL CODE Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. 157943. People of the Philippines. her judgment of conviction has already attained finality and cannot be modified or set aside anymore in accordance with Section 7. (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination. G. the check delivered to Ligaray was made payable to cash – this type of check was payable to the bearer and could be negotiated by mere delivery without the need of an indorsement. September 4. preliminary investigation. like the crime itself. In this case.with the Court of Appeals (CA) her motion to admit notice of appeal. This rendered it highly probable that Wagas had issued the check not to Ligaray. and expressly stated that the person who signed for and received the stocks of rice was Cañada. In order for evident premeditation to be appreciated. whether dated or postdated.R. the following requisites must concur: (1) the time when accused decided to commit the crime. G. 2013 by Dominador Maphilindo O. This means that the offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party by reason of the issuance of the check. Firstly. 2013. People of the Philippines v. Relevantly. must have used the check in order to defraud the complainant. Ligaray did not personally see and meet whoever he had dealt with and to whom he had made the demand for payment. evident premeditation. qualified rape. Gilbert Reyes Wagas. Secondly. must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In that regard. the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation. 197832. requisites. However. To the Supreme Court’s mind. knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim. He claims it was PO3 Ventinilla who acted in self-defense and. September 18. Bernales that there are more than one assailant in view of the multiple bullet wounds on the body of the victim. As found by the lower courts. Rivera would still be guilty of rape after it was clearly established that he did succeed in having carnal knowledge of her. the alleged pretense made by the appellant and cohorts that they were going to conduct a police operation regarding illegal drugs. the Supreme Court stressed that from the filing of this case until its appeal. granting arguendo that AAA did not suffer any laceration.” He also admitted that “AAA” was known to be mentally retarded in their community. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to a conviction. It was he who supplied the necessary evidence showing that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. No.R. burden of proof in self-defense. No. In the context used in the Revised Penal Code. such knowledge by the rapist should be alleged in the Information since “a crime can only be qualified by circumstances pleaded in the indictment. People of the Philippines v.” unlike its ordinary connotation of sexual intercourse. appellant insists it was only PO3 Ventinilla who killed the victim. therefore. appellant’s knowledge of the mental disability of “AAA” at the time of the commission of the crime of rape was properly alleged in the Amended Information. 200508. 2013. even the Office of the Solicitor General admitted that the lapse of time from the moment the victim was fetched until the shooting cannot be considered sufficient for appellant to reflect upon the consequences of his act. September 4. he regarded “AAA” as his niece. the lack of lacerated wounds in the vagina is not a defense. Rivera pointed out that the records were bereft of evidence to prove that AAA suffered vaginal lacerations. In an effort to secure his exoneration from the charge of rape. evident premeditation cannot be considered. reflection or persistent attempt. G. Appellant faults the Court of Appeals (CA) when it imposed on him the burden of proving the elements of self-defense. however. Further. 2013. Jojie Suansing. Accordingly. as well as the telephone call made by the victim to his friend Reyes before the incident. Contrary to the undisputed finding of Dr. In this case. He avers that his defense is denial as found by the trial court. Knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim during the commission of the crime of rape qualifies and makes it punishable by death. The low intellect of “AAA” was easily noticeable to the trial court from the answers she gave to the questions propounded to her in the course of her testimony.R. even if considered the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of sexual assault. 187731. however. these circumstances are indicative only of conspiracy among the accused. The Supreme Court held that the lack of lacerated wounds in the vagina. Christopher Rivera y Royo. September 2. Self-defense. G. It must be noted that he was the only witness who testified on the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of the victim. neither PO3 Ventinilla nor the victim could be resurrected from their graves to controvert appellant’s version of the story. it was incumbent upon the latter to establish such fact. the courts below based their finding of evident premeditation on the entries in the Dispatch Logbook. “carnal knowledge. appellant was confused. 2013. Thus. At any rate. Rape. His boarding house was also a few minutes away from the residence of “AAA. SPO1 Alfredo Alawig. No. does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured. People of the Philippines v. it has been repeatedly held that the medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. In this case. 189822. He was treated as a member of their family. Notably. Settled is the rule that when it is not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. appellant’s . appellant did not assail “AAA’s” mental disability and even admitted knowledge of her intellectual inadequacy. In fact. is not always essential to establish the consummation of the crime of rape. in the Counter-Affidavit of SPO4 Miraples. It must appear not only that the accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution but also that this decision was the result of meditation. At most.R. calculation. Appellant is therefore guilty of the crime of qualified rape. the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was aware of the mental retardation of “AAA. G. Laceration of the hymen. does not negate sexual intercourse.” Appellant testified that he knew “AAA” and that he even used to reside with her and her relatives.a determination and the actual execution to allow the accused time to reflect upon the consequences of his act. Qualified rape. However. these circumstances do not constitute clear and positive evidence of outward acts showing a premeditation to kill. Besides. appellant’s knowledge of “AAA’s” mental disability at the time of the commission of the crime qualifies the crime of rape. People of the Philippines v. Obviously. The same thing can be said about the act of petitioner in signing the sales invoice and the bank draft knowing that such documents would cause the withdrawal by CKL Enterprises/Dela Cruz of the corresponding amount covered by the Irrevocable Domestic Letter of Credit. 187268. elements. the CKL Enterprises Invoice dated 16 April 1997.R. or by culpa. Section 3(e) offense. G.R. As a Governor. For the aforecited provision to lie against the petitioner. Jovito C. 2013. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. the following elements must concur: 1) The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative. advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. in his Answer to the administrative complaint filed by the victim’s widow. certain established rules. as when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence.666. The Supreme Court.R. 2. 3019.A. including the government. despite non-delivery – an act or omission evidencing bad faith and manifest partiality.A. Section 3(e) of R. September 4. No. 2013. People of the Philippines. and 3) That his action caused undue injury to any party. Section 3(e) offense.R. Plameras v. September 4. On the contrary. The chain of custody rule is a method of authenticating evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by . he proceeded just the same due to the alleged advice of the unnamed DECS representative that there was already a negotiated contract – a representation or misrepresentation he willfully believed in without any verification. 187731.co-accused. 187268. it is his duty to act in a circumspect manner to protect government funds. however. legal effect of failure to prove chain of custody. appellant interposed self-defense by alleging that it was the victim who initiated the attack through unlawful aggression. the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Sandiganbayan committed reversible errors in finding him guilty of the violating section 3(e) of R. the CA committed no error in imposing upon him the burden of proving the elements of self-defense. In all. elements. As the records would bear. evidence of undue injury caused to the Province of Antique and giving of unwarranted benefit. No. G. Chain of custody rule. To do otherwise is gross inexcusable negligence. Hence. Jovito C. evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. People of the Philippines. G. September 4. Plameras v. This is all that the LBP needs in order to release the money alloted for the purchase. People of the Philippines v.” The significance of the customer’s signature on the invoice is that it initiates the process of releasing the payment to the seller. As correctly observed by the Sandiganbayan. G. therefore. 2013. as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality. advantage or preference to CKL Enterprises/DelaCruz committed through gross inexcusable negligence was proven beyond reasonable doubt. 3019 may be committed either by dolo. No. The petitioner admitted in his testimony that he is aware of such requirement. Intentionally or not. that petitioner acted on his own initiative and without authorization from the Provincial School Board. it was almost a year after when delivery of the items was made on a piece meal basis-some of which were even defective. SPO1 Alfredo Alawig. Jovito C. at the very least. Section 3(e) offense. regulations and policies of the Commission on Audit and those mandated under the Local Government Code of 1991 were knowingly sidestepped and ignored by the petitioner which enabled CKLEnterprises/Dela Cruz to successfully get full payment for the school desks and armchairs. despite receipt of payment. No. In signing the draft and sales invoice. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.00 without any delivery of the items. especially so. petitioner made it possible for CKL Enterprises/Dela Cruz to withdraw the entire P5. Plameras v. It must be borne to mind that any procurement or “acquisition of supplies or property by local government units shall be through competitive public bidding”. he stated therein that appellant acted in self-defense when the victim allegedly went berserk. People of the Philippines.600. Unfortunately. Above the customer’s signature is the phrase: “Received and accepted the above items in good condition. 187268. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. elements. September 18. More important. 2013. As it is. was not persuaded that petitioner deserves to be exonerated. there is no public bidding to speak of that has been conducted. he must know that negotiated contract can only be resorted to in case of failure of a public bidding. contains the signature of the accused as customer. or giving any private party unwarranted benefits. 2) He must have acted with manifest partiality. judicial or official functions. It must be noted that any withdrawal with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) must be accompanied by the appropriate document evidencing deliveries. Kummer v. Letecia I. as this was. 1988 to June 19. pertains only to substantial amendments and not to formal amendments that. It is at this stage that the accused. do not charge an offense different from that charged in the original complaint or information. to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 2013. Further. Arraignment. the conviction cannot stand. Letecia I. by reason of passion or personal hostility.R. Preliminary investigation. In this case. was made in the presence of the accused or his representative. September 11. 3. September 11. Arraignment is indispensable in bringing the accused to court and in notifying him of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. depending on the nature of the imputed crime. the Supreme Court found reasonable doubt on the evidence presented to prove an unbroken chain of custody. Kummer v. G. the conduct of preliminary investigation belongs to the public prosecutor. Freddy Salonga y Afiado. Thus. 2013. 194948. the defense under the complaint is still available after the amendment. First. that is. it is not clear from the evidence that the marking. September 2. the rule is that the Supreme Court (SC) will not interfere in the findings of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary on the insufficiency of the evidence presented to establish probable cause unless it is shown that the questioned acts were done in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The gaps in the chain of custody creates a reasonable doubt as to whether the specimens seized from the accused were the same specimens brought to the laboratory and eventually offered in court as evidence. in accordance with the rules. The subsequent amendment could not have conceivably come as a surprise to the accused simply because the amendment did not charge a new offense nor alter the theory of the prosecution. 174461. The party seeking the writ of certiorari must establish that the DOJ Secretary exercised his executive power in an arbitrary and despotic manner. which was done in the police station. Applying these rules and principles to the prevailing case. It is only imperative that he is thus made fully aware of the possible loss of freedom. People of the Philippines. Thus. G. Further. No. and is not prejudicial to the accused. neither was there any justifiable reason propounded for failing to do so. for the first time. Without adequate proof of the corpus delicti. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Arraignment. No. There is nothing in the records that would show at least an attempt to comply with this procedural safeguard. The prosecution of crimes lies with the executive department of the government whose principal power and responsibility is to see that the laws of the land are faithfully executed. in fact. The need for arraignment is equally imperative in an amended information or complaint. an amendment done after the plea and during trial. purpose. No. The well-established rule is that the conduct of preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor. and do not adversely affect the substantial rights of the accused. does not call for a second plea since the amendment is only as to form. Third.R. do not alter the theory of the prosecution. has already been attained when the accused was arraigned the first time. by their very nature. 174461. People of the Philippines v. there is already a gap in determining whether the specimens that entered into the chain were actually the ones examined and offered in evidence. the Supreme Court found conflicting testimony and glaring inconsistencies that would cast doubt on the integrity of the handling of the seized drugs. The purpose of an arraignment. the records of the case evidently show that the amendment in the complaint was from July 19. do not cause any surprise and affect the line of defense. the prosecution failed to duly accomplish the Certificate of Inventory and to take photos of the seized items pursuant to the law. such as an amendment in the date of the commission of the offense.R. People of the Philippines. 1988. Second. the same line of defenses used by the petitioner. This. The material inconsistency of who actually received the specimens in the Crime Laboratory creates a cloud of doubt as to whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. does not affect the essence of the offense nor deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment. G. It is clear that consistent with the rule on amendments. the need for arraignment where the complaint or information is amended. however. 2013. or a difference of only one month. The importance of arraignment is based on the constitutional right of the accused to be informed. is given the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him. the change in the date of the commission of the crime of homicide is a formal amendment – it does not change the nature of the crime. even of his life. and the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as would amount to an . evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law. In the present case, there was no clear evidence of grave abuse of discretion committed by the DOJ when it set aside its March 23, 2000 Resolution and reinstated the July 28, 1998 Resolution of the public prosecutor. The DOJ was correct when it characterized the complaint for attempted murder as already covered by two (2) other criminal cases. As to the other complaints, the SC agreed with the DOJ that they were weak and not adequately supported by credible evidence. Thus, the CA erred in supplanting the prosecutor’s discretion with its own. Evidently, the conclusions arrived at by the DOJ were neither whimsical nor capricious as to be corrected by certiorari. Even on the assumption that the DOJ Secretary made erroneous conclusions, this error alone would not subject his act to correction or annulment by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. After all, not “every erroneous conclusion of law or fact is an abuse of discretion.” Rosalinda Punzalan, Randall Punzalan and Rainier Punzalan v. Michael Gamaliel J. Plata and Ruben Plata, G.R. No. 160316, September 2, 2013. July 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure Posted on August 4, 2013 by Dominador Maphilindo O. Carrillo • Posted in Commercial Law • Here are select July 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on criminal law and procedure: 1. REVISED PENAL CODE Bigamy; elements. The elements of the crime of bigamy are: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. James Walter P. Capili v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013. Bigamy; bigamy committed even if second marriage is subsequently declared void. In the present case, it appears that all the elements of the crime of bigamy were present when the Information was filed on June 28, 2004. It is undisputed that a second marriage between petitioner and private respondent was contracted on December 8, 1999, during the subsistence of a valid first marriage. Notably, the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City itself declared the bigamous nature of the second marriage between petitioner and private respondent. Thus, the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage for being bigamous does not bar the prosecution of petitioner for the crime of bigamy. Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that the accused may still be charged with the crime of bigamy, even if there is a subsequent declaration of the nullity of the second marriage, so long as the first marriage was still subsisting when the second marriage was celebrated. Finally, it is a settled rule that the criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the commission of the offense, and from that instant, liability appends to him until extinguished as provided by law. It is clear then that the crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner from the time he contracted the second marriage with private respondent. Thus, the finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of petitioner’s second marriage does not impede the filing of a criminal charge for bigamy against him. James Walter P. Capili v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013. Estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b); elements. The crime charged was estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Its elements are as follows: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or a denial of the receipt thereof; (3) that the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. Paragraph 1(b) provides liability for estafa committed by misappropriating or converting to the prejudice of another money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though that obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property. Fernando M. Espino v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188217, July 3, 2013. Estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b); elements. This at least, is very clearly shown by the factual allegations of the Informations. First, personal property in the form of the checks was received by the offender in trust or on commission, with the duty to deliver it to Mr. Banaag. Even though the accused misrepresented the existence of a deliverable commission, it is a fact that he was obliged by KN Inc., the injured party, to deliver the check and account for it. Second, the accused rediscounted the checks to his aunt-in-law. Third, this rediscounting resulted in the wrongful encashment of the checks by someone who was not the payee and therefore not lawfully authorized to do so. Finally, this wrongful encashment prejudiced KN Inc., which lost the proceeds of the check. When accounting was demanded from the accused, he could not conjure any justifiable excuse. His series of acts precisely constitutes estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b). Fernando M. Espino v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188217, July 3, 2013. Malversation of public funds; elements. The elements of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are: 1. that the offender is a public officer; 2. that he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; 3. that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and 4. that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. Major Joel G. Cantos v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 184908, July 3, 2013. Malversation of public funds; presumption that missing fund or property have been converted to personal uses. The Sandiganbayan did not commit a reversible error in its decision convicting petitioner of malversation of public funds The Supreme Court (SC) noted that all the above-mentioned elements are here present. Petitioner was a public officer occupying the position of commanding Officer of the 22 nd FSU of the AFP Finance Center, PSG. By reason of his position, he was tasked to supervise the disbursement of the Special Duty Allowances and other Maintenance Operating Funds of the PSG personnel, which are indubitably public funds for which he was accountable. Petitioner in fact admitted in his testimony that he had complete control and custody of these funds. As to the element of misappropriation, indeed petitioner failed to rebut the legal presumption that he had misappropriated the fees to his personal use. In convicting petitioner, the Sandiganbayan cites the presumption in Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which states that the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, is prima facie evidence that he has put such missing fund or property to personal uses. The presumption is, of course, rebuttable. Accordingly, if petitioner is able to present adequate evidence that can nullify any likelihood that he put the funds or property to personal use, then that presumption would be at an end and the prima facie case is effectively negated. In this case, however, petitioner failed to overcome this prima facie evidence of guilt. He failed to explain the missing funds in his account and to restitute the amount upon demand. His claim that the money was taken by robbery or theft is self-serving and has not been supported by evidence. In fact, petitioner even tried to unscrew the safety vault to make it appear that the money was forcibly taken. Moreover, petitioner’s explanation that there is a possibility that the money was taken by another is belied by the fact that there was no sign that the steel cabinet was forcibly opened. The SC also took note of the fact that it was only petitioner who had the keys to the steel cabinet. Thus, the explanation set forth by petitioner is unsatisfactory and does not overcome the presumption that he has put the missing funds to personal use. Major Joel G. Cantos v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 184908, July 3, 2013. Self-defense; elements; unlawful aggression. Accused-appellant Vergara claims self-defense. The following are the essential elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. A person who invokes selfdefense has the burden of proof. He must prove all the elements of self-defense. However, the most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. People of the Philippines v. Garry Vergara y Oriel and Joseph Incencio y Paulino, G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013. Self-defense; elements; unlawful aggression. In the present case, the element of unlawful aggression is absent. By the testimonies of all the witnesses, the victim’s actuations did not constitute unlawful aggression to warrant the use of force employed by accused-appellant Vergara. The records reveal that the victim had been walking home albeit drunk when he passed by accused-appellants. However, there is no indication of any untoward action from him to warrant the treatment that he had by accused-appellant Vergara’s hands. As succinctly stated by the trial court: “The victim was just walking, he was neither uttering invectives words nor provoking the appellants into a fight. Appellant Vergara was the unlawful aggressor. He was the one who put the life of the victim in actual peril. This can be inferred from the wounds sustained by the victim.” It is thus clear that there being no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, the act of accused-appellant Vergara of taking a knife and stabbing the victim was not made in lawful self-defense. People of the Philippines v. Garry Vergara y Oriel and Joseph Incencio y Paulino, G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013. Treachery. The Supreme Court ruled that treachery was correctly appreciated by the lower courts. A treacherous attack is one in which the victim was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or resist the attack. The existence of treachery is not solely determined by the type of weapon used. If it appears that the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure the execution of the crime, and to render the victim defenseless, then treachery may be properly appreciated against the accused. Here, the Condes were unarmed when they were shot by appellant. The use of a 12-gauge shotgun against two unarmed victims is undoubtedly treacherous, as it denies the victims the chance to fend off the offender. People of the Philippines v. Regie Labia, G.R. No. 202867, July 15, 2013. Treachery. The Supreme Court found that the acts of accused-appellant Vergara constituted treachery qualifying the crime committed to murder. Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Here, accused-appellant Vergara after exchanging words with the victim, threw his arm around the victim’s shoulder and proceeded to stab him. The victim was totally unaware of the evil that would befall him. The number and severity of the wounds received by the victim indicated that he was rendered immobile and without any real opportunity to defend himself other than feebly raising his arm to ward off the attack. People of the Philippines v. Garry Vergara y Oriel and Joseph Incencio y Paulino, G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013. Treachery. The killing committed in this case is neither parricide nor infanticide and the same was attended with treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. In this case, treachery is evident from the fact that the victim could not have been aware of the imminent peril to his life. He was unprepared for the sudden, unexpected and unprovoked attack on his person when appellant stabbed his back with a knife then swiftly run away. Clearly, appellant’s execution of the killing left the victim with no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. People of the Philippines v. Joemari Jalbonian alias “Budo,” G.R. No. 180281, July 1, 2013. 2. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; conspiracy to defraud the Government. As found by the Sandiganbayan, petitioners’ acts not only show gross negligence amounting to bad faith, but, when taken together, also show that there was conspiracy in their wilful noncompliance with their duties in order to defraud the government. In order to establish the existence of conspiracy, unity of purpose and unity in the execution of an unlawful objective by the accused must be proven. Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy. It is enough that there be proof that two or more persons acted towards the accomplishment of a common unlawful objective through a chain of circumstances, even if there was no actual meeting among them. As found by the Supreme Court, a cash advance request cannot be approved and disbursed without passing through several offices, including those of petitioners. It is outrageous that they would have us believe that they were not in conspiracy when over hundreds of vouchers were signed and approved by them in a course of 30 months, without their noticing irregularities therein that should have prompted them to refuse to sign the vouchers. Clearly, they were in cahoots in granting the cash advances to Gonzales. By these acts, petitioners defrauded the government of such a large sum of 2004.A. the Supreme Court (SC) explained that there are two (2) ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of R. of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer. Posadas and Dr. Dayco in an OIC capacity was preconceived. 189343/ 189369/ 189553. including the government. the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. People of the Philippines/ Eustaquio B. 202709. including the Government. G. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines. Petitioners. or (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefits. and 3. July 17. second. He must have acted with manifest partiality.A. It should establish the following links in that chain of custody of the confiscated item: first. that petitioners acted in evident bad faith was duly established by the evidence. It was recalled that the Memorandum of Agreement was executed on September 18. chain of custody rule. undue injury to the government. Gaviola v. Posadas and Dr. People of the Philippines. the information charged that petitioners willfully. Dr. 2013. the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. 3019 in the performance of his functions. 168951 & 169000. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines. 168951 & 169000. had they been circumspect in performing their functions. yet he signed the vouchers.A. Posadas in appointing him as TMC Project Director. Cesa himself admitted knowing that Gonzales had unliquidated cash advances. Benilda N. Dr. 1995 and became effective upon the signature of the parties. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Dr. thereby causing undue injury to the Government. Romeo Oniza y Ong and Mercy Oniza y Cabarle. Dangerous Drugs Act. the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. July 17. He also failed to inform the other officials that they should not sign the vouchers and tolerated their negligence when they affixed their signatures thereto. Posadas’ appointment by Dr. and fourth. evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence. advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. so that in his absence. elements. Nos. if practicable.money that should not have been disbursed in the first place. petitioners were charged with committing the offense under both modes. 1995. 3019. There is no question regarding the presence of the first requisite considering that at the time the subject appointments were made. 2013. the seizure and marking. Apparently. No. And yet he waited until the China trip. through their admissions before the Sandiganbayan. The essential elements of the crime defined in section 3(e) of R. Here. The use of the disjunctive term “or” connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R. Upon the entire evidence on record. because they themselves signed the vouchers despite the glaring irregularities therein. all knew that there were irregularities in the vouchers. namely: (a) by causing undue injury to any party. Posadas as TMC Project Director with evident bad faith.R. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines/ Alan C. are: 1. modes of commission. July 3. In this case. judicial or official functions. Bacasmas v. advantage or preference. the designated OIC Chancellor. still they failed to correct one another. Dr. Rolando P. . Dayco. 2013. In Criminal Case No. undue injury to the government. In Cabrera v. People of the Philippines v. G. No. but they were also unified in not reporting the negligence of their cohorts because of their own negligence. in violation of the prohibition against multiple positions and the rule on non-retroactivity of appointments. Dayco v. The accused may be charged under either mode or under both. both petitioners were faculty members and holding administrative positions in UP Diliman. What petitioners dispute is the existence of the second and third requisites.R. Between that date and the China trip scheduled in the first week of November (the invitation was dated July 30. Rolando P. 3019. 2013.R. or giving any private party unwarranted benefits. 1995). July 10. That his action caused any undue injury to any party. Cesa v. G.R. Sandiganbayan. Not only were petitioners unified in defrauding the government. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative. would be the one to issue the appointment. No. proof of chain of custody. the Sandiganbayan was convinced that petitioners were guilty of causing undue injury to the Government. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. unlawfully and criminally gave unwarranted benefits to Dr. G. Dayco v. The SC sustained the decision of the Sandiganbayan holding petitioners liable for causing undue injury to the Government in appointing Dr. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Roger R. Nos. third. Nos. The prosecution carried the burden of establishing the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs that the police allegedly seized from the accused on the night of June 16. Posadas could have already appointed the Project Director and Consultant as indeed the retroactive appointment was even justified by them because supposedly “project activities” have already started by September 18. 2. 25465. Roger R. People of the Philippines v. that (a) there must be justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the procedures. and any elected public official. Still.R. Romeo Oniza y Ong and Mercy Oniza y Cabarle.R. 2013. The procedures outlined in Section 21 of R. 3.R. 172206. De Chavez. the police officers did not bother to offer any sort of reason or justification for their failure to make an inventory and take pictures of the drugs immediately after their seizure in the presence of the accused and the other persons designated by the law. and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved./Edwin N. All that Officer Albarico could say is that his companion. 202709. 9165 are not merely empty formalities—these are safeguards against abuse. Here. Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution) which provides: “All persons shall . July 3. chain of custody rule. No.Dangerous Drugs Act. It is imperative for the prosecution to establish a justifiable cause for non-compliance with the procedural requirements set by law. Dangerous Drugs Act. as recited by the lower courts. private offended party barred from pursuing a civil case based on the delict only if the judgment of acquittal explicitly declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. No. Based on the violation of petitioners’ right to speedy disposition of cases as was discussed here. a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative. Ombudsman. 2013. 202709. Officer Jiro. 2013. July 3.000. the present case stands to be dismissed even before either the prosecution or the defense has been given the chance to present any evidence. et al v. 2013. 191871.R. No. No. Petitioner in this case. The Ombudsman. The accused were therefore absolved of the charges against them because of the police officers’ outright failure without any justification to abide by the law governing the conduct of seizure operations involving dangerous drugs. Since its power to ensure the enforcement of its decision was in danger of being impaired in the case before the lower court. Section 2. and that granting the Office of the Ombudsman the opportunity to be heard in the case pending before the lower court is of primordial importance even though it (the Ombudsman) is not itself a party to the case. the Office of the Ombudsman had a clear legal interest in defending its right to have its judgment carried out.00 in public funds attributable to petitioners’ alleged malfeasance.A. Rafael L. preliminary investigations of Ombudsman subject to petitioners’ right to speedy disposition of cases under the Constitution. The CA patently erred in denying the Office of the Ombudsman’s motion for intervention. People of the Philippines v.R.000. the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. Romeo Oniza y Ong and Mercy Oniza y Cabarle. G. the Province is not precluded from instituting a subsequent civil case based on the delict if only to recover the amount of P20. jurisprudence has established a rare exception with respect to the first required link— immediate seizure and marking of the seized items in the presence of the accused and others —namely. Office of the Ombudsman v. Sandiganbayan. Both the lower courts misapprehended the significance of such omission. et al. marked the plastic sachets with the initials of the accused already at the police station and then turned over the same to the desk officer who prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination. No. the right of the Ombudsman to intervene in a case involving the enforcement of its decisions even though it is not itself a party to the case. safeguard against police abuse and extortion. is that the police officers did not make a physical inventory of the seized drugs nor did they take a picture of the same in the presence of the accused. absent this pronouncement. A person’s right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under section 16. Consequently. G. Sandiganbayan. Yet. et al. Thus. Coscolluela v. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Acquittal in criminal case. July 3. Rule 120 of the Rules of Court. 191411/G. Nacionales. the Supreme Court is unable to make a definite pronouncement as to whether petitioners indeed committed the acts or omissions from which any civil liability on their part might arise as prescribed under Section 2. the Office of the Ombudsman. The Supreme Court held that the assailed Resolution is patently erroneous. someone in the media. Ernesto M. unless the judgment of acquittal explicitly declares that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. et al. the prosecution’s own evidence. G. prosecution has burden of proving justifiable cause for non-compliance with chain of custody rule. G. July 15. prayed that the Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which denied its Motion for Intervention be reversed and set aside. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides that an acquittal in a criminal case does not bar the private offended party from pursuing a subsequent civil case based on the delict. 191871. . 191871. as well as all proceedings.R. et al v. the assailed resolutions must be set aside and the criminal case against petitioners be dismissed. or even without cause or justifiable motive.” Hence. as matter of course. duty of a trial court to make an independent evaluation of the merits of a prosecutor’s motion to withdraw an information and to indicate the bases of its conclusion in its order./Edwin N. or administrative bodies. 2013. 191411/G. result in the acquittal of the petitioners. Nacionales.R. The RTC simply declared that it was denying the motion for being “unmeritorious. Ombudsman. 191411/G./Edwin N. Sandiganbayan. July 15. . There was never any discussion as to how it reached such a conclusion. In this accord. The right to speedy disposition of cases should be understood to be a relative or flexible concept such that a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient. (3) assess if the DOJ’s conclusion is supported by evidence. G. July 15. 2006 Order reiterating its denial of respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration. Coscolluela v. et al. as it ought to determine in this case.R. be it civil or administrative in nature.R. G. 191411/G. the Ombudsman’s failure to resolve cases under preliminary investigation for eight years held to be unjustifiable and violated right of petitioners to a speedy disposition of their cases under the Constitution. (5) embody its assessment in the said Orders. and. et al. Hence. . Sandiganbayan. Nacionales. No. (2) include a discussion on the merits of the case. in its March 10. 2013. the following factors may be considered and balanced: (1) the length of delay.” Here. [T]he foregoing pronouncement should. the RTC in both Orders perfunctorily denied the motion to withdraw as it did not (1) positively state that the evidence against Purita is sufficient to make out a case for estafa.R. a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Sandiganbayan.” This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases. Likewise. Ombudsman. and this assessment must be embodied in a written order disposing of the motion. 191871. it is plain from the said Orders that the . Sandiganbayan. The Supreme Court held: “[I]n view of the unjustified length of time miring the Office of the Ombudsman’s resolution of the case as well as the concomitant prejudice that the delay in this case has caused. the December 9. Sandiganbayan. Jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious. the Office of the Ombudsman should create a system of accountability in order to ensure that cases before it are resolved with reasonable dispatch and to equally expose those who are responsible for its delays. et al. As the institutional vanguard against corruption and bureaucracy. et al. (2) the reasons for the delay. Notably. No./Edwin N. (6) state the reasons in denying the motion to withdraw information. Rafael L. (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused. or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured. the Court finds that it gravely abused its discretion when it denied the quashal of the Information [against petitioners]. Perforce.” Rafael L. and oppressive delays.R. either judicial or quasijudicial. 2013. Since the proceedings relative to the preliminary investigation of the case against petitioners were terminated by the Ombudsman only after almost eight (8) years after the filing of the complaint.” it is its “bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion. No.” without further elaborating on the bases of its conclusion. Coscolluela v. 2005 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denying the Motion to Withdraw Information failed to state cogent reasons behind the said court’s refusal to grant the withdrawal of the Information. G. Corollarily. Sandiganbayan. The Supreme Court held that its prior decisions regarding the legal effects of a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial apply equally when a person’s constitutional right to the speedy disposition of his case is violated. No. Withdrawal of Information filed in court. et al v. capricious. et al v. Rafael L. quasi-judicial. No. any party to a case may demand expeditious action to all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice. and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay. or how the Department of Justice (DOJ) findings impacted on its ruling. for the [Sandiganbayan’]s patent and utter disregard of the existing laws and jurisprudence surrounding the matter. July 15. When a trial court is confronted with “a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information. the RTC merely stated that the 5% interest is a matter of defense. preliminary investigations of Ombudsman subject to petitioners’ right to speedy disposition of cases under the Constitution. No. in the determination of whether the defendant has been denied his right to a speedy disposition of a case. it is undeniable that petitioners’ constitutional right to due process and speedy disposition of cases had been violated. (4) look at the basis of the DOJ’s recommendation.have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial. Nacionales. et al. the Supreme Court found the delay in the Ombudsman’s resolution of the case to be unjustified. et al. Coscolluela v. R. or pregnant. It must clearly state whether the evidence presented is sufficient to make out a case for estafa and whether the DOJ’s conclusion is supported by evidence. Thus. 176111.R. REVISED PENAL CODE Rape. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed. The Supreme Court disagreed. AAA. 2013. 189324. 2013 by Dominador Maphilindo O. July 17. No. Rape victims react differently. March 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure Posted on April 1. March 20. Rape may be committed not only against single women and children but also against those who are married. Rape. is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. Indeed. G. by itself. physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. this delay belies her cry of rape. if credible. when the delay of the victim in reporting the commission of rape unavailing as a defense. 189324. and threatening the victim with a knife. much more poking it at her. Carolina B. and the victim submits herself to her attacker because of fear. March 20. moral character of the victim is immaterial.R. which is not accepted as a common attribute. Gilbert Penilla y Francia. 2013. the houses thereat were literally only divided by thin walls. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. separated. jurisprudence is replete with holdings that delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief.R. No. is sufficient to bring her into submission. should have been proven outside of the incident on the midnight of 22 October 1999. middle-aged. No. loses significance in light of the dictum that in rape cases. when absence of physical resistance unavailing as a defense. 2013. No. G. Philippines Cases • Here are select March 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on criminal law and procedure: 1. G. the libidinousness of the victim here. This is because the victim may choose to keep . 189324. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim’s submission to the perpetrator’s lust. Penilla asseverates that the prosecution’s story was silent on any physical struggle suggestive of rape. and any commotion could easily be heard. A medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim’s testimony alone. March 20. The Supreme Court thus directed the trial court to make an independent and thorough evaluation of the merits of the case. 2013. Carrillo • Posted in Criminal Law. the moral character of the victim is immaterial. Correlatively and more importantly. Penilla likewise points out that AAA did not put up a fight. No. Gilbert Penilla y Francia. People of the Philippines v. Accused Penilla’s insistence that he was then a virile young man of twenty-three years. The Supreme Court found no credence in Penilla’s arguments. medical examination of victim not indispensable to prove rape. In fact. lusted after by a separated and older woman. when absence of physical resistance unavailing as a defense. Jose v. Purita Suarez.RTC failed to perform its bounden-duty to make an independent evaluation of the merits of the case. People of the Philippines v. 189324. Gilbert Penilla y Francia. Even a prostitute may be a victim of rape.R. March 20. An inconclusive medical report does not negate the finding that the accused (Penilla) raped AAA. it is not an essential element of rape. Gilbert Penilla y Francia. G. Accused-appellant makes much of the fact that AAA did not cry for help given that the area where they lived was densely populated. The use of a weapon. People of the Philippines v. 2013. the law does not impose upon the private complainant the burden of proving resistance. In this regard. G. a doctor’s certificate is merely corroborative in character and not an indispensable requirement in proving the commission of rape. Rape. People of the Philippines v. Besides. as in this case. Relying on a tired defense. Rape. For Penilla. is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation. Rape. Penilla insists that AAA belatedly reported to the barangay authorities that she had been raped. Ret. earthquake. the minimum penalty should be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Ligot. In this case.R. the amount of the timber involved is P57. No. should it become completely necessary for the Republic to further extend the duration of the freeze order. In this case. or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery. it should file the necessary motion before the expiration of the six-month period and explain the reason or reasons for its failure to file an appropriate case and justify the period of extension sought. . extended the freeze order over the Ligots’ various bank accounts and personal properties “until after all the appropriate proceedings and/or investigations being conducted are terminated. the minimum penalty is one degree lower than that prescribed by the law.000. mail matter or large cattle. No. 2013. four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Thus. volcanic eruption. 2013 2. People of the Philippines v. Efren S. Almuete v. March 20. typhoon. The freeze order should remain effective prior to the resolution by the CA. Jacinto C. Lt. Otherwise. vehicular accident or civil disturbance. Qualified Theft. These periods of extension are way beyond the intent and purposes of a freeze order which is intended solely as an interim relief. The Court of Appeals (CA). SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Anti-Money Laundering Act. the proper imposable penalty should be that which is prescribed under Article 309. freeze order cannot be issued for an indefinite period.R. Since the amount exceeds P22. which is anywhere between two (2) years. or any other calamity. as a rule. Thus. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. determination of imposable penalty.quiet rather than expose her defilement to the cruelty of public scrutiny. or b) if the stolen property is motor vehicle. 189324. the Republic should have already filed a case for civil forfeiture against the property owner with the proper courts and accordingly secure an asset preservation order or it should have filed the necessary information. The term of the CA’s extension. G. Ret. G. the civil and criminal trial courts can very well handle the disposition of properties related to a forfeiture case or to a crime charged and need not rely on the interim relief that the appellate court issued as a guarantee against loss of property while the government is preparing its full case. None of these circumstances is present in the instant case. No. Perusal of the records of this case would show that the trial court imposed the penalty as prescribed in Article 310 (Qualified Theft) which is two degrees higher than those specified in Article 309 (Penalties for Theft). A freeze order is both a preservatory and preemptive remedy and meant to have a temporary effect. However. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant. the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods should be imposed in its maximum period plus an additional one (1) year for each additional P10. March 6. People of the Philippines. Thus. which must resolve this kind of motion for extension with reasonable dispatch. 179611.000 pesos in excess of P22. Lt. freeze order cannot be made effective for more than six months unless extended by the court upon motion of the Republic. the remedy is an adjunct of or an incident to the main action – of asking for the issuance of an asset preservation order from the court where the petition is filed is precisely available.00. borders on inflicting a punishment to the Ligots in violation of their constitutionally protected right to be presumed innocent because the unreasonable denial of their property comes before final conviction. 2005 resolution. G. 2013.00 or three more years.00. et al v. the effectivity of a freeze order may be extended by the CA for a period not exceeding six months. The Supreme Court held that this is erroneous considering that the penalty prescribed in Article 310 would apply only if the theft was committed under any the following circumstances: a) by a domestic servant. the correct imposable maximum penalty is anywhere between eleven (11) years. Gen. too. Anti-Money Laundering Act. eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor to thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal. Gilbert Penilla y Francia.012. Before or upon the lapse of this period. et al v. or with grave abuse of confidence. via its September 20.R. ideally.” By its very terms. it was never intended to supplant or replace the actual forfeiture cases where the provisional remedy – which means. Republic of the Philippines represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council. March 12. the property owner should already be able to fully enjoy his property without any legal process affecting it. Gen. Ligot. 176944.000. or c) if the property is taken on the occasion of fire. the CA resolution effectively bars the Ligots from using any of the property covered by the freeze order until after an eventual civil forfeiture proceeding is concluded in their favor and after they shall have been adjudged not guilty of the crimes they are suspected of committing. Jacinto C. Gen. 176944. and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing.00. in resolving the issue of whether probable cause exists. illegal sale of shabu. the prosecution must prove the presence of the following essential elements: “(a) the identities of the buyer and the seller. 2013. Gen.R. elements. as amended by R. is being or has been committed and that the account or any monetary instrument or property subject thereof sought to be frozen is in any way related to said unlawful activity and/or money laundering offense. 2013. Lt. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The only elements necessary to consummate the crime of illegal sale of drugs is proof that the illicit transaction took place. there are only two requisites for the issuance of a freeze order: (1) the application ex parte by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) and (2) the determination of probable cause by the Court of Appeals (CA). it can be gleaned that Lt.000. Ligot and his family amount to more than P54. Ligot himself admitted that his income came from his salary as an officer of the AFP. courts are inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity accorded to them in the performance . requisites for issuance of freeze order. et al v. investments and properties in the name of Lt. Gen. 189843. was reliable.A. 9160. 2013. their testimonies on the operation deserve faith and credit. To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu. 9194. G. requisites for issuance of freeze order. 176944. G. and the consideration. No. Zenaida Soriano y Usi. as amended. et al v. as well as the lack of any evidence that the Ligots have other sources of income. Otherwise stated. coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.R. prudent or cautious man to believe that an unlawful activity and/or a money laundering offense is about to be.” In other words. Anti-Money Laundering Act. No. Dangerous Drugs Act. the delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the seller’s receipt of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. Gen. March 6. and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as evidence. 9160. Ret. Jacinto C. From AMLC’s verified allegations in its ex parte application and the Ombudsman’s complaint. Gen. March 6. Ligot’s income. Jacinto C. as amended. That the sale actually took place and that several sachets were recovered from the accused-appellants were clear from the testimony of PO1 Bernardo in court. Republic of the Philippines represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council.R. were found in their possession – six from Zenaida and one from Myrna. elements. or other monetary instruments sought to be frozen are in any way related to any of the illegal activities enumerated under R. Gen. G. Anti-Money Laundering Act. Ligot. requisites for issuance of freeze order. Ligot. PO1 Bernardo gave a detailed account of the transaction commencing from the introduction made by the confidential informant between him. and Myrna Samonte y Hiolen. Dangerous Drugs Act.A. 2013.A. The Supreme Court has held that when police officers have no motive to testify falsely against the accused. et al v. March 6. In buy-bust operations. Republic of the Philippines represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council. 176944. No. Since these assets are grossly disproportionate to Lt. as the poseur-buyer. Ligot. G. the object of the sale. G.Republic of the Philippines represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council. People of the Philippines v. and accused-appellants to the time the sale was consummated until the latter were arrested and several additional plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances. No. Ret. the CA’s statutorilyguided determination’s focus is not on the probable commission of an unlawful activity (or money laundering) that the Office of the Ombudsman has already determined to exist. 176944. March 6. Based on section 10 of R.” It is necessary to establish that the transaction or sale actually took place. probable cause refers to the sufficiency of the relation between an unlawful activity and the property or monetary instrument which is the focal point of section 10 of RA No. Jacinto C. The probable cause required for the issuance of a freeze order refers to “such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet. 9160. March 20. Lt. Republic of the Philippines represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council. Ret. Yet. supported by evidence. Anti-Money Laundering Act.R. which later tested for shabu. assets. Lt. The credibility of PO1 Bernardo was put to test on cross-examination but his statements were consistent all throughout that the Supreme Court was convinced that his testimony. the Ombudsman’s investigation revealed that the bank accounts. the CA properly found that probable cause exists that these funds have been illegally acquired.000.R. but on whether the bank accounts. 2013. No. Respondent judge based his ruling on a 2004 case. Lagos. He participated in the actual sale transaction.A. while the CI was the one who acted as the poseur-buyer. since it would be merely corroborative of and cumulative with that of the poseur-buyer who was presented in court. People of the Philippines v. 2013. G. Informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identities and preserve their invaluable services to the police. 184658. Judge Rafael R.R. March 6. and who testified on the facts and circumstances of the sale and delivery of the prohibited drug. as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Except when the accused vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers. et al.of their official duties. No. illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 9165. Benedicto Marquez y Rayos v. it is settled that the failure to strictly follow the directives of this section is not fatal and will not necessarily render the items confiscated from an accused inadmissible. the succession of events established by evidence shows that the items seized were the same items tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court. et al. the illegal sale was consummated in their presence. Hence. People of the Philippines.A. or there are reasons to believe that the officers had motives to falsely testify against the accused. one of the witnesses. as it will merely be corroborative of the apprehending officers’ eyewitness accounts. 184658. 2013 Dangerous Drugs Act. Respondent Judge Lagos erred in requiring the testimony of the CI. Thus. 184658. No. 9165. in which respondents were caught in flagrante delicto engaged in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. and the payment therefor – were confirmed. The antecedents of this case involve a unique feature in the sense that . liberal application of chain of custody rule observed where school personnel took initial custody of dangerous drugs. Respondent judge harps on the fact that it was the CI who had personal knowledge of the identity of the seller. the Supreme Court held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized from the petitioner were not compromised. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. People v. People of the Philippines v. Moreover. 2013 Dangerous Drugs Act. Requiring the CI to testify is an added imposition that runs contrary to jurisprudential doctrine. As regards the failure of the police to strictly comply with the provisions on chain of custody under section 21 of R. People of the Philippines v. the Supreme Court (SC) held that there is no basis for this conclusion.R. presentation of an informant not required for the prosecution of drug cases. It is clear from the testimonies of PO2 Frando and the other arresting officers that they conducted the buy-bust operation based on the information from the CI. Lagos. No. Judge Rafael R. That the CI initially provided this information or “tip” does not negate the subsequent consummation of the illegal sale. Senior Police Officer (SPO1) Gonzales. not on the basis of that information. failure of the police to strictly comply with chain of custody rule excused where integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized are preserved. However. March 6. the informant’s testimony may be dispensed with. 2013 Dangerous Drugs Act. Neither was there evidence adduced to show that they neglected to perform their duties properly. the arrest was made. the initial offer to purchase the ecstasy pills. their testimonies as to the conduct of the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credence. March 6. 197207. Ong. His testimony was a first-hand account of what transpired during the buy-bust and thus stemmed from his personal knowledge of the arrest in flagrante delicto.R. there is no contention that the members of AIDSOTF who conducted the buy-bust operation were motivated by ill will or malice. Judge Rafael R. The testimony of the CI is not indispensable. Lagos. the police officers explained during trial the reason for their failure to strictly comply with section 21 of R. In this case.R. Due to the investigative work of the AIDSOTF members. since the SC has long established that the presentation of an informant is not a requisite for the prosecution of drug cases. the delivery of the drugs. PO2 Frando. In the present case. the facts of which purportedly “mirror” those of the present case. However. and the subsequent acceptance of the offer. elements. but of the actual buy-bust operation. G. No. et al. as Ong involved a conviction based on the lone testimony of one apprehending officer. Judge Lagos need not have characterized the CI’s testimony as indispensable to the prosecution’s case. the fact of the illegal sale has already been established by testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team. March 13. was a buy-bust team member who also acted as the poseur-buyer. In the present case. or that it was the informant who acted as the poseur-buyer. Dangerous Drugs Act. G. and the elements of the sale – the identity of the sellers. G. In the present case. The SC found then that SPO1 Gonzales was merely the deliveryman. to 5:00 p. The Supreme Court (SC) in this case found no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the lower courts. factual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. No. It is well-settled that factual findings of the trial court.R. the prosecution failed to establish the existence of an unbroken chain of circumstances that lead to no other logical conclusion but the guilt of the accused.A. on that day. Bagongon’s failure to mark the seized sachets should not in any way weaken the prosecution’s case. the accused is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. what controls is not the title of the information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the information. March 13. No.m. 202020.R. the scenario attending this case is likely to be repeated many times. circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when the concurrence of the following factors obtain: (a) there is more than one circumstance. the SC was convinced that the testimony of AAA positively identifying Pielago as the one who molested her is worthy of belief. Under section 4. 197207. March 13. to 5:00 p. March 13. No. and (c) the soiled garments confiscated from him were identified to have been the same ones he was wearing then. as in this case. 2013. To impose on teachers and other school personnel the observance of the same procedure required of law enforcers (like marking) processes that are unfamiliar to them is to set a dangerous precedent that may eventually lead to the acquittal of many drug peddlers. the designation of the offense in the information against Pielago was changed from the crime of acts of lasciviousness in relation to section 5(b) of R. the fact that Soriano was the only one whom Vicky saw pass through the shortcut to Wao from 3:00p.A. 7610 to the crime of rape by sexual assault penalized under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code. CCC. 2013. Gerald Soriano alias Pedro. Being a child of tender years. 8353. that his right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated. however. Benedicto Marquez y Rayos v. 3.m. more so since she was able to prove that she was also the person who handed the seized sachets to the police when the latter arrived. March 13. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Circumstantial evidence. 191271. the designation in the information of the specific statute violated is imperative to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly.” Mike Alvin Pielago y Ros v.R. People of the Philippines v. are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. It is a mere conjecture that can be refuted by other equally conceivable and rational inferences. Circumstantial evidence. (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven.the person who had initial custody of the dangerous drugs was not a police officer or agent. especially on the credibility of the rape victim. In the case at bar. when circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction. G. People of the Philippines. Contrary to the petitioner’s claim. does not logically lead to any conclusion regarding his participation in the raping and killing of AAA. as amended by R. The circumstances presented by the prosecution do not form a solid and cohesive narrative that proves with moral certainty its contention that accused perpetrated said heinous acts. . The clear. G. People of the Philippines v. were in his custody. and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as would prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. on 31 December 1998. Gerald Soriano alias Pedro. 191271. G. The evidentiary value of the seized specimen remains intact as long as the school personnel who had initial contact with the drug/s was able to establish that the evidence had not been tampered with when he handed it to the police. No. G. consistent and spontaneous testimony of AAA unrelentingly established that Pielago inserted his right hand’s forefinger into her vagina and anus while she and her younger brother. In the instant case. It cannot be said. These circumstances and facts must be absolutely incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis propounding the innocence of the accused.m. To an unprejudiced mind. Rule 133 of the Rules of Court. People of the Philippines. 2013 Criminal Information.m. when circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction.R. but a guidance counselor – a person who was not expected to be familiar with the niceties of the procedures required of law enforcers in the initial handling of the confiscated evidence. After a careful review. Credibility of Witness. (b) Vicky did not see anyone else use that road from 3:00 p. her failure to resist or struggle while Pielago molested her would all the more prove how she felt intimidated by her “Kuya. In this respect.m. 2013. Drug peddling in schools is prevalent. The only circumstances cited to implicate the accused in the crime are the following: (a) he passed through the shortcut to Wao around 3:00 p. It is well-settled that in all criminal prosecutions. et al. 2013 by Dominador Maphilindo O. 2007. 2013. evident premeditation. No. murder. There is conspiracy if two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. words. to have been extinguished by his death prior to final judgment. 2013. Simpresueta M. the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused.” While appellant Florencio died way back on February 7. a minor being four (4) years old. since when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped. People of the Philippines. It was only later that the SC was informed of Florencio’s death through the June 8. or conduct of the alleged conspirators before. As a matter of fact. information. by kissing the vagina and inserting one of his fingers to the vagina of AAA. It is also settled that “upon the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction. It just so happened that she was in the area during the delivery of the drugs. The judgment of conviction is thus set aside insofar as Florencio is concerned. January 9.” Indeed. Carrillo • Posted in Criminal Law. 2012 letter of the Officer-in-Charge of the New Bilibid Prison. The existence of conspiracy in this case was clearly established not only by the prosecution’s evidence but also by appellant’s very own testimony. Conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts. Thus. as well as his civil liability ex delicto. Conspiracy must be proven on the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the agreement of the parties. he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. The argument did not persuade the Supreme Court. accompanied by her categorical identification of Pielago as the malefactor. 180919.Law • Tagged conspiracy. the said information was not timely relayed to the Supreme Court (SC). People of the Philippines v. Philippines Cases. 2013 January 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure Posted on February 8. In the instant case. or any instrument or object. REVISED PENAL CODE Conspiracy. search • 1 Comment Here are select January 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on criminal law and procedure: 1.R. Jurisprudence has it that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. x x x. Due to this development. it therefore became necessary for the SC to declare Florencio’s criminal liability. Seraspe. and as to pecuniary penalties. 177751. Appellant questions the lower courts’ finding of conspiracy between her and co-accused. She claims that she merely accompanied Espiritu in going to the RFC Food Court and had nothing to do with the transaction. She cannot therefore isolate her act of merely accompanying Espiritu to the RFC Food Court or carrying the shabu since in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. as to the personal penalties.The information was worded as follows: “x x x commit an act of lasciviousness upon the person of [AAA]. March 13. People of the Philippines v. Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code explicitly provides that the gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual assault which is the insertion of the penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice. Extinction of criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto upon death of accused. in order to obtain a conviction for rape by sexual assault. As can be gleaned from appellant’s testimony as well as from the testimony of Carla as to what transpired during the actual buybust operation. this element is clearly present when AAA straightforwardly testified in court that Pielago inserted his forefinger in her vagina and anus. . No.R. To be a conspirator. probable cause. G. January 7. 2011 Decision. Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict. G. rape. AAA’s unrelenting narration of what transpired. G. it is essential for the prosecution to establish the elements that constitute such crime. grounded as it is on the criminal. into another person’s genital or anal orifice. No. one need not participate in every detail of the execution. established the case for the prosecution. Florencio Agacer. evidence. the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished. appellant acted in common concert with her co-accused in the illegal sale of shabu. liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.R. Mike Alvin Pielago y Ros v. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. such that the SC was unaware of the same when it rendered its December 14. the shabu was not even found in or recovered from her possession. 202020. Philippines . dangerous drugs. during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose. Here. People of the Philippines v. Appellants maintain that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not attendant in the commission of the crime considering that there was no element of surprise when Pablo was attacked. further argued that even if there was suddenness of the attack. The SC. otherwise. was offered in the instant case. Benjamin Peteluna and Abundio Binondo. Mitigating circumstances.R. This is regardless of the fact that his minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth certificate was belatedly presented for our consideration. minority of accused may be proved on appeal. she was never forced. Appellant Benjamin. the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed on the accused but always in the proper period. 180919. et al. unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. None.R. in his Supplemental Brief. Such could only be appreciated if there was evidence to show the following: (1) the time when the offender was determined to commit the crime. No. evident premeditation. The Supreme Court (SC) was not convinced.R. elements. It differs from entrapment which is the employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture a criminal. Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he. He is therefore entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority embodied in Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code. (3) the killing was with the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. 2013. Florencio Agacer. the criminal intent or design originates from the accused and the law enforcers merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by using ruses and schemes. induced her to commit the offense when they repeatedly approached and asked her to sell them shabu. People of the Philippines v. 187048. This confirms that she had a ready supply of the illegal drugs. appellant was able to quickly produce a sample. distinguished from entrapment. The rationale of the law in extending such leniency and compassion is that because of his age. In instigation. (2) the accused killed him. through the PAOCTF operatives. No. save from the statement that the appellants were whispering to each other before they placed their arms on Pablo’s shoulder. 2013. Instigation results in the acquittal of the accused. Appellant Franklin is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. Simpresueta M. Notably too. affording the hapless. he was merely 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime on April 2. the evidence clearly established that the police operatives employed entrapment. 1998. 187048.” and that it may still exist even if the attack is frontal so long as the same is sudden and unexpected. and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the consequences of his act. People of the Philippines v. The Supreme Court was unswayed. G. the following must be established: (1) a person was killed. No. it was clear that the elderly victim had no inkling of the impending danger . the criminal intent to commit an offense originates from the inducer and not from the accused who had no intention to commit and would not have committed it were it not for the prodding of the inducer. the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. She argues that the government. was confined to the acts that caused the death of the victim. coerced or induced through incessant entreaties to source the prohibited drug for Carla and PO3 Cariño and this she even categorically admitted during her testimony. The SC has time and again declared that “the essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack. Murder. January 23. and (4) the killing neither constitutes parricide nor infanticide. Seraspe. People of the Philippines v. January 23. Appellant raises the defense of instigation to gain her acquittal. (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination. while entrapment may lead to prosecution and conviction. Pablo had the opportunity to defend himself. Franklin’s Certificate of Live Birth shows that he was born on December 20. Pablo could have chosen to retreat. to capture appellant and her cohorts in the act of selling shabu. In this case. 2013. hence. G. The testimony of Romeo. 2013. not instigation. Benjamin Peteluna and Abundio Binondo. in order to prosecute him. Clearly.R. since to rule accordingly will not adversely affect the rights of the state. January 7. It provides that when the offender is a minor over 15 and under 18 years. Murder. for any such circumstance.Instigation. Also. G. however held that. had no intention to commit. In entrapment. appellant testified that she agreed to the transaction of her own free will when she saw the same as an opportunity to earn money. G. 177751. the victim and his heirs. treachery. the accused is presumed to have acted with less discernment. 1981. No. Murder. To be convicted of murder. It must be recalled that it was only upon receipt of a report of the drug trafficking activities of Espiritu from the confidential informant that a buy-bust team was formed and negotiations for the sale of shabu were made. January 9. January 23. 193507. The attack was sudden notwithstanding the prior act of placing the assailants’ arms on the shoulder of the victim because such was done in a friendly manner. As such. No. there would be reason to give her testimony greater weight than usual. which was but only two months prior to the medical examination. particularly appellant’s Certificate of Live Birth containing the fact of birth of the latter. are not indispensable to a successful prosecution for rape. appellant’s conviction is only for simple rape for which he should be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. the penalty is increased to death. People of the Philippines v. stressing that the old healed lacerations. 1999. Northern Samar. Carnal knowledge of a female simply means a male having bodily connections with a female. Benjamin Peteluna and Abundio Binondo. the prosecution failed to allege this fact in the information. he is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code. unquestionably. People of the Philippines v. the resolution of the charge of rape hinges on the credibility of the victim’s testimony. Penalty. it cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. belied AAA’s claim of being raped on April 13. being indicative of the lapse of three months from the time of the alleged sexual assault to the time of the medical examination. Rape. Under Article 266-B in relation to Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code. simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Penalty. upon order of the trial court. Verily. During trial. In the case at bench. as amended.R. 187048. it is merely circumstantial evidence of the commission of the rape. or is under 12 years of age. No. Admittedly. 193507. No. therefore. G. are the product of the trial judge’s peculiar opportunity to observe the deportment and demeanor of the witnesses while they personally appear and testify during the trial. G. The essence of rape is the carnal knowledge of a female either against her will (through force or intimidation) or without her consent (where the female is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. This is no less true when the rape victim testifies against her own father. the presence or absence of injury or laceration in the genitalia of the victim is not decisive of whether rape has been committed or not. He insists that the finding that her genitalia showed no fresh laceration or hymenal injury suffered in the previous seven days was inconsistent with BBB’s claim about being raped nine hours prior to her physical examination. otherwise. The attack was. As such. Appellant’s Certificate of Live Birth shows that he was born on 23 February 1985. Rape.R. People of the Philippines v. even if it was proved. a reasonable ground exists in this case that calls for the modification of the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by both lower courts upon the appellant. or is demented). January 30. clearly sudden and unexpected. the Local Civil Registrar of Bobon. Information must allege qualifying circumstance of victim’s mental retardation. privileged mitigating circumstance of minority of accused. Records would show that Pablo was fifty-seven (57) years old at the time of his death. while appellant categorically admitted that he knew AAA to be suffering from mental abnormalities. Thus. Thus.against him. privileged mitigating circumstance of minority of accused considered. 2013. Pedro Buado Jr. However. natural and convincing testimony. 170634. January 8. at the time of the commission of the crime charged on 9 December 2002. G. albeit corroborative of the commission of rape. Nonetheless. Rey Monticalvo y Magno. because the factual findings of the trial court. Indeed. one’s thought processes and reflexes slow with age that Pablo did not readily understand the intentions of the appellants. The Supreme Court found merit in appellant’s assertion that he was a minor during the commission of the crime charged. Ultimately and frequently. appellant was only 17 years old. The accused may then be convicted solely on the basis of the victim’s credible. absence of injuries on genitalia of victim not a defense. The Supreme Court has consistently relied on the assessment of such credibility by the trial court. particularly those bearing on such assessment.R. G. 2013. y Cipriano. a minor. assessment by the trial court of the credibility of the victim’s testimony respected. No. Such injury or laceration is material only if force or intimidation is an element of the rape charged. a medical examination and a medical certificate. when rape is committed by an assailant who has knowledge of the victim’s mental retardation. January 30. Rey Monticalvo y Magno. People of the Philippines v. The Supreme Court held that the arguments of the accused are unwarranted.R. 2013. But this circumstance must be alleged in the information being a qualifying circumstance which increases the penalty to death and changes the nature of the offense from simple to qualified rape. 2013.. The accused argues that the findings of old healed vaginal lacerations during the physical examinations disproved the charges against him. as contrasted with the dependence by the appellate courts . brought before it their office records. . Rape. January 23. the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case. Rolando Cabungan. cannot be taken against the rape victim. Contrary to appellant’s assertion. The alleged contradictions as to whether appellant is her uncle or step-father and whether it was she or her friend who revealed her ordeal to her mother are inconsequential matters that will not affect the determination of whether appellant is innocent of the crime charged or not.R. as in this case. Pedro Buado. 189355. Long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape have not always been construed as indications of a false accusation. G. “AAA’s” delay in filing the Complaint is not without a valid reason. Rape. The Supreme Court (SC) disagreed.R. No. if credible. intimidation is exercised upon the victim who submitted herself to the advances of her assailant because of fear for her life. they correctly appreciated the evidence. The SC thus found her testimony credible. People of the Philippines v. her failure to shout and offer resistance during the rape. No. as in this case. The Supreme Court then stressed the lower court’s observation that BBB. 194236. 2013. allow the examination of her private part. minor inconsistencies in testimony of rape victim. G. is enough to sustain a conviction.R. 2013. not enough reason to discredit her. People of the Philippines v. 189355. January 30. an appellate court will not disturb the credence the trial court accorded to the testimonies of the witnesses unless the trial court is shown to have overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded facts and circumstances of significance in the correct resolution of the case. Here.. 189355. 2013. Accused-appellant tries to undermine the credibility of “AAA” as a rape victim. spontaneous and straightforward manner. AAA and BBB deserved the credence accorded to them. and the several material inconsistencies between her affidavit and her open court testimony. No. the SC found that the same are not material and refer only to minor details. BBB positively identified the appellant as the person who grabbed her and removed her short pants and panty while she was in her room. 2013. He contends that the belated filing of the Complaint. for they were reliable in their recollection of their ordeals at the hands of the accused. delay of victim in reporting of rape not a defense. Instead. Neither does “AAA’s” alleged failure to shout and offer resistance during the incident deserve credence. the Regional Trial Court as the trial court and the Court of Appeals as the intermediately reviewing tribunal did not overlook or disregard any fact or circumstance of significance. Rolando Cabungan. A young girl would not concoct a sordid tale of a crime as serious as rape at the hands of her very own father. there was no prompt revelation of what befell “AAA. according to the SC. 2013. Indeed. the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance especially when. No. is enough to sustain a conviction. and subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial. if her motive were other than a fervent desire to seek justice. Anent the inconsistencies between “AAA’s” affidavit and her testimony in open court as pointed out by the appellant. She was cowed by appellant’s threats which hindered her from immediately reporting her painful ordeal to the authorities. and rightly concluded that the accused committed the rapes of his own daughters. January 8.They regarded and accepted AAA and BBB as credible witnesses whose recollections about their father’s lecherous acts deserved the fullest faith and credence. Thus. This consistent reliance proceeds from the reality that the trial judge is in the best position to detect that frequently thin line between truth and prevarication that determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. lone testimony of victim. spoke in a clear. People of the Philippines v. In this case. y Cipriano. tainted her credibility. The trial records entirely supported the lower courts’ findings in favor of the credibility of AAA and BBB’s recollections. “AAA’s” act of still returning to their house even after she was allegedly raped therein by the appellant. A delay in reporting a rape case for two months or longer.” But this is.on the mute pages of the records of the trial. The SC further held that where no evidence exists to show any convincing reason or improper motive for a witness to falsely testify against an accused. People of the Philippines v. G. January 23. G. Rape. Moreover. the records show that “AAA” tried to resist his advances but was not successful because he is bigger and stronger than her.R. A rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay or inaction in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained. 170634. if credible. Jr.R. and who thereafter inserted his penis into her vagina. In any event. elements. . Indeed. January 23. who was just nine years old when she testified. the testimony deserves faith and credit. lack of resistance of victim. G. Patricio Rayon Sr. No. Rape. People of the Philippines v. Rolando Cabungan. She never wavered in identifying the appellant despite the defense’s gruelling cross-examination. R. Hence.R. and (c) that the evidence for the Prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits. Coreche. the Court of Appeal’s affirmance of the penalty of reclusion perpetua as imposed upon appellant by the Regional Trial Court is proper. Ramil Rarugal Alias “Amay Bisaya. In reviewing rape convictions. the Supreme Court emphasized that the marking of the seized drugs must be done immediately after they are seized from the accused and failure to do so suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and raises reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the corpus delicti.R. Dangerous Drugs Act. or substitution. G. though innocent. and easily susceptible to tampering. No. employing means. The prosecution even admits that the police officers acquired the sachet of shabu presented in court against accused-appellant in a mere “test-buy” operation by SPO1 Rosales. accused. People of the Philippines v. it is difficult for the complainant to prove but more difficult for the accused. January 16. 200165. 2013. the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. et al. et al.R. January 23. The crime committed in this case is simple rape only in view of the failure of the prosecution to prove with clarity the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. special qualifying relationship of victim with the accused should be proved. there must be strict compliance with the prescribed measures to be observed during and after the seizure of dangerous drugs and related paraphernalia. No. or forms in the execution. In this case. appellant surprised Florendo when he suddenly and swiftly attacked and stabbed him in the chest. Sale or possession of a dangerous drug can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug. Barangay Capari. People of the Philippines v. to disprove. 2013. accused-appellant. y Cipriano. there is nothing on record to support the same. definition. People of the Philippines v. there was a total disregard of the requirements of law and jurisprudence. People of the Philippines v. In this case. January 8. G. strict compliance with rules on chain of custody required. either by accident or otherwise. G. sale or possession of dangerous drugs. 188603. 170634.Rape. narcotics substance constitutes corpus delicti. 2013. sale or possession of dangerous drugs. however. People of the Philippines v. The step-father step-daughter relationship as a qualifying circumstance presupposes that the victim’s mother and the accused are married to each other which. the SC sustained the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the commission of the crime. the Court has been guided by three principles. the rapist and the victim. Such measures are described with particularity under section 21(1) of Republic Act No. Reynaldo Nacua. 2013. allowing appellant to commit the crime without risk to his own person. and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. (b) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape as involving only two persons. 2013. methods. namely: (a) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility. Pedro Buado. during the custody and transfer thereof for examination. Thus. Novaliches. Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons. Reynaldo Nacua. Rolando Cabungan.” G. not readily identifiable. In prosecutions involving narcotics. 2. 9165 and section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. and at all times up to their presentation in court. No. Reynaldo Nacua. Quezon City constitutes the qualifying circumstance of treachery. January 30. Moreover. No. accused. 9165. sale or possession of dangerous drugs. the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. January 30. No.. Treachery. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS Dangerous Drugs Act. G. Jr. Rape. 189355. PO3 Luague. While the information alleges that “AAA” is the step-daughter of the appellant. without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Given the unique characteristic of dangerous and illegal drugs which are indistinct. The Supreme Court (SC) here held that appellant’s act of suddenly stabbing Florendo while he was innocently cycling along Sampaguita Street. strict compliance with rules on chain of custody required. in People v. is not obtaining in this case. Dangerous Drugs Act. accused-appellant. and PO1 . which tend directly and specially to insure its execution. principles guiding appellate courts in review of rape convictions. The swift turn of events left Florendo defenseless to protect himself.R. 200165. alteration. Reynaldo Nacua. Here. and only there marked the said item. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. Rule 131 of the Rules of Court. 2005 at the house of the Nacua couple which purportedly yielded more shabu and related paraphernalia and led to the arrest of the couple. and did not intend to do so.Aniñon. There was no original intention to arrest and charge the Nacua couple for the shabu purchase that day. the prosecution chose to indict the Nacua couple for the “test-buy” conducted on September 2. Hong Yen E and Tsien Tsien Chua. left the residence of the Nacua couple. No evidence was offered to show as to how the said specimen was kept and by whom after its forensic examination throughout its presentation in court. without the presence of the accused and/or other disinterested witnesses. elements. there must be compelling and justifiable grounds for the same and it must be shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been properly preserved. With reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the corpus delicti. rather than for the result of the search conducted on September 21. such conditions are not present in the instant case. January 9. The Supreme Court did not agree. 2013. or (2) that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer seeking to expose his criminal act. Applying section 3(j). However. G. or (3) that the police authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisted in its commission. The alleged failure of the apprehending team to inventory and photograph the confiscated items immediately after the operation is not fatal to the prosecution’s cause.00). It may be rebutted by contrary proof that the accused did not in fact exercise power and control over the thing in question. accused. Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. People of the Philippines v. 2005. chain of custody rule. January 9.R. Firstly. The evidence on record clearly established that appellant Chua was in possession of the plastic bags containing prohibited drugs without the requisite authority. This is especially true in that class of cases where the offense is the kind that is habitually committed. and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug. (b) such possession is not authorized by law.R. Legaspi. No. Mere deception by the police officer will not shield the . however. The elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs are as follows: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug. The police officers brought the sachet of suspected shabu all the way back to their police station. No. the prosecution did not offer any explanation as to why the police officers failed to strictly comply with the established procedure for the custody of the suspected shabu. Reynaldo Nacua. buy-bust operations or decoy solicitations are valid. et al.” so that the police officers could secure a search warrant for the house of the Nacua couple. the Supreme Court pronounced that in a prosecution for sale of illicit drugs. 200165. No. even assuming that the PAOCTF operatives repeatedly asked her to sell them shabu.” is not prohibited by law and does not invalidate the buy-bust operation. and the solicitation merely furnished evidence of a course of conduct. The accused argues that the NBI operatives failed to observe the chain of custody rule in dangerous drugs cases. the acquittal of accused-appellant of the crime charged is in order. G. 181826. Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. the prosecution failed to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the sachet of suspected shabu allegedly bought from the Nacua couple during the “test-buy” operation has been properly preserved from the time said item was transmitted to the crime laboratory up to its presentation in court. Hong Yen E and Tsien Tsien Chua. Hence. People of the Philippines v. 2013. The burden of evidence is thus shifted to the possessor to explain absence of animus possidendi.R. In People v. after supposedly buying the sachet of shabu from the Nacua couple for Two Hundred Pesos (P200. G. the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been preserved as there is evidence to account for the crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized shabu. A police officer’s act of soliciting drugs from appellant during the buy-bust operation. People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Nacua. a disputable presumption arises that she is the owner of the bag and its contents. any of the following will not exculpate the accused: (1) that facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his way. The SC thus surmised that the operation on September 2. The police officers. 2013. Here. 2005 was only meant to be a “test-buy. Surprisingly and inexplicably. January 30. as the same would be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Secondly. or what is known as the “decoy solicitation. appellant’s defense of instigation will not prosper. accusedappellant. starting from its confiscation to its presentation as evidence in the Regional Trial Court. Dangerous Drugs. 181826. Chua failed to present evidence to rebut the presumption. without recovering the marked money or effecting the couple’s arrest. While the Supreme Court (SC) allows for relaxation of the rules in some cases. January 9. justifies the award of moral and exemplary damages to respondents. Moreover. the object.” True. 1 of the Public Service Commission adopted on November 27. 1 of the Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court held that it cannot construe the statute in favor of petitioner using the rule of leniency because there is no ambiguity in RA 9262 that would necessitate any construction. evidence that establishes both elements by the required quantum of proof. G. if the offense was committed by him free from the influence or instigation of the police officer. leniency in favor of accused due to ambiguity of the law inapplicable. Dandan positively identified appellant and her co-accused as the sellers of the contraband who sold the same in exchange for the marked money. January 14. 180919. January 7. petitioner is obliged to furnish respondents with a 48hour notice of disconnection. Considering the discovery of the tampered meter by its Fully Phased Inspectors.. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. P. No.R. – Service may be discontinued for the non-payment of bills as provided for in Section 43 hereof. Hence. Section 48 of ERB Resolution No. 48-hour prior notice of disconnection of electricity required. the Supreme Court (SC) found no reason to doubt the above testimony of Carla. et al. the two essential elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller. doing business under the trade name and style of Permanent Light Manufacturing Enterprises. (3) or in case of or to prevent fraud upon the Company. . marked and upon examination was identified as shabu. Therefore. 95-21 expressly provides for the application of the 48-hour notice rule to Section 43 on Payment of Bills.R. 193960. Thus. RA 7832. petitioner Meralco could have disconnected electricity to Permanent Light for no other reason but to prevent fraud upon the Company. RA 9262. i. In the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Court of Appeals here held that petitioner abused its right when it disconnected the electricity of Permanent Light. G.. provided that a forty eight (48)-hour written notice of such disconnection has been given the customer. Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.perpetrator. the legislative intent is to purposely impose a more severe sanction on the offenders whose violent act/s physically harm women with whom they have or had a sexual or dating relationship. et al. G. 95-21. People of the Philippines v. elements. through its Revised Terms and Conditions of Service. damages awarded for improper disconnection of electricity. Section 48 of ERB Resolution No. the said elements were duly proved by the prosecution. adopted said notice requirement in cases where disconnection of service is warranted because (1) the consumer failed to pay the adjusted bill after the meter stopped or failed to register the correct amount of energy consumed. the SC noted that appellant herself corroborated the prosecution’s account of the crime. Branch 59. petitioner Meralco. must be presented. No. January 9. People of the Philippines v. Karlo Angelo Dabalos y San Diego v. the right of a public utility to discontinue its service to a customer is subject to the requirement of a 48-hour written notice of disconnection. No. of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) which superseded and revoked Revised Order No. and the consideration. Seraspe. Aside from the fundamental rule that findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of prosecution witnesses are accorded respect considering that it is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe their conduct and demeanor. 95-21. there is sufficient justification for prescribing a higher penalty for the former. The Supreme Court (SC) took note of Resolution No. violence against women and children. Castillo. and/or their children with the end in view of promoting the protection of women and children. 2013. Here. Clearly. No. reads: “SEC. 1941. Seraspe.M. 2013. a dangerous drug. etc. guilt beyond reasonable doubt. G. Regional Trial Court. (2) or for failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions. Carla provided a detailed testimony as to the delivery and sale of shabu. 2013. It however stressed that under section 97 of Revised Order No. Petitioner’s failure in this regard. 48. The same was subsequently presented in evidence. 182976.R. 95-21. Having failed in this regard.e. 2013. according to the appellate court. Angeles City. Atty. Refusal or Discontinuance of Service. Simpresueta M. or the Standard Rules and Regulations Governing the Operation of Electrical Power Services. The item was seized.R. Carla and P/Chief Insp. However. Simpresueta M. The appellate court upheld the validity of the provision in petitioner’s service contract which allows the utility company to disconnect service upon a customer’s failure to pay the differential billing. the SC found basis for the award of moral and exemplary damages in favor of respondents for the unceremonious disconnection of electricity to Permanent Light. While the degree of physical harm under RA 9262 and Article 2668 of the Revised Penal Code are the same. Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) v. 180919. under the Revised Terms and Conditions of Service vis-à-vis Section 48 of ERB Resolution No. Karlo Angelo Dabalos y San Diego v. Nowhere in the law can such limitation be inferred. clearly. the same being only a kilometer away from his own house and two (2) kilometers away from the farm where he and his father allegedly were on that fateful day. January 7. People of the Philippines v. G. Angeles City. then. (2) The offender. if considered. on the other hand. In convicting the accused. etc. whom he both knew since he was a child. 193960. the SC enumerated the elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment. Denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted. crime of violence against women. It is a time-honored principle that the positive identification of the appellant by a witness destroys the defense of alibi and denial. 194236. and (3) The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her. Its assessment is entitled to respect unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which. Benjamin Peteluna and Abundio Binondo. Certainly. alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. her positive identification of appellant as her assailant and the lack of illmotive on her part to falsely testify against appellant. January 23. Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court. it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship. and who placed his hand inside the latter’s underwear sometime in 2002. 187048... elements. RA 9262. No. Appellant Benjamin’s bare denial. G. The Supreme Court (SC) did not give credence to this argument. et al. violence against women and children.RA 9262. Consequently. neither should the courts. violence against women and children. No. AAA. crime of violence against women need not be a consequence of an existing or present dating relationship. et al. Court of Appeals. Regional Trial Court. 2013. by himself or through another. Denial as a defense crumbles in the light of . Instead. it was not physically impossible for appellant Abundio to be at the hilly portion of Sitio Liki where Pablo was attacked. 2013.” People of the Philippines v. Patricio Rayon Sr. it is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed. XYZ’s testimony was corroborated by the testimony of her daughter XXX who declared that the appellant would embrace AAA and touch her vagina whenever the appellant came home from work. to wit: (1) The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman. Regional Trial Court. January 7. as it was in the better position to observe their candor and behavior on the witness stand. Karlo Angelo Dabalos y San Diego v. No. and attitude. the Supreme Court emphasized the well-settled doctrine that “the Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses. 2013. In light of the straightforward and credible testimony of the victim. is definitely self-serving. G. It cannot stand against the positive identification of an unbiased and credible witness. the SC did not depart from the parallelism in Ang and give credence to petitioner’s assertion that the act of violence should be due to the sexual or dating relationship. Petitioner here insists that the act which resulted in physical injuries to private respondent is not covered by RA 9262 because its proximate cause was not their dating relationship. thereby rendering the defenses of alibi and denial weak. Evidence.R. G. XYZ positively identified the appellant as the person who embraced AAA and spread her legs. applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not distinguish. The lower courts found XYZ’s and XXX’s testimonies credible and convincing. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Alibi and Denial. commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the woman. credibility of witnesses best evaluated by the trial court. who held AAA’s breast. Branch 59. No. the latter’s defense of denial and alibi must necessarily fail. Hence. denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses. Notably. Evidence. might affect the result of the case. Angeles City. while it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman for RA 9262 to be applicable. he claims that the offense committed was only slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code which falls under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court. In this case.. 2013. In Ang v. Branch 59. January 30.R. 3. it had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor. etc.R.R. the punishable acts refer to all acts of violence against women with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship. especially under cross-examination. 193960. conduct. As correctly ruled by the Regional Trial Court. Romeo positively identified the appellants. language of the statute need not be used. Amistoso cannot be convicted of statutory rape. Renato. What is controlling in an Information should not be the title of the complaint. designation of the crime charged not controlling. mere denial. 188603. has complied with the requisites of a dying declaration. Rey Monticalvo y Magno. made to his brother. Clearly. the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the statement of the victim. Evidence.R. it does not mean that Amistoso cannot be convicted of rape committed under any of the other circumstances described by Article 266-A.R.R. It is undisputed that AAA was over 12 years old on July 10. In any event. 2013. despite the appellant’s allegation that he was having a drinking spree and that he was dead drunk at around 6:00 p. paragraph (1)(d). or intimidation. No. paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Philippines v. No. Ramil Rarugal Alias “Amay Bisaya.R. Information. Verily. told Renato that it was appellant who had stabbed him. it is likewise essential that he show physical impossibility for him to be at the locus delicti. 2000. 2013.m of that date. paragraph (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman. designation of the crime charged not controlling. Florendo. still. 188603. or intimidation. (b) it is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a consciousness of impending death. nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated. for the defense of alibi to prosper.positive identification of the accused. alibi is not looked upon with favor by the trial court. there is no impossibility for him to be physically present at the scene of the incident. 193507. There being nothing in the records to show that Florendo was incompetent. It is enough to state that the deceased was at the time competent as a witness. In addition. People of the Philippines v. as long as the facts constituting the same are alleged in the Information and proved during trial. and (d) the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the declarant’s death. January 30. dying declaration. January 16.” G. The elements of rape under Article 266-A. In this case. in relation to Section 266-B. January 16. a perusal of the Information against Amistoso reveals that the allegations therein actually constitute a criminal charge for qualified rape under Article 266-A. G. January 9. the statement made was an expression of the cause and the surrounding circumstances of his death. 2013. under the consciousness of an impending death is a strong evidence indicating the liability of herein appellant. and under the consciousness of impending death. dying declaration. Anastacio Amistoso y Broca. 201447. as in this case. there need not be actual force. Then to raise the crime of simple rape to qualified rape under Article 266-B. language of the statute need not be used. It is important to note that Florendo. requisites. he would have been competent to testify had he survived. paragraph (1)(a). thus. What is required is that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense are stated in ordinary and concise language sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know the offense charged. requisites. threat. is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters. unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. But when the offender is the victim’s father. but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. Nonetheless. after being stabbed by appellant twice on the chest. Here. the twin circumstances of . People of the Philippines v. As such. The positive identification made by the victim before he died. Information. and (2) that such act was accomplished through force. Like denial. the houses of the offended party and the appellant are only divided by a fence and the place of the incident is only at the back of the house of the appellant. No. it is not enough that the accused can prove his presence at another place at the time of its commission. People of the Philippines v. Lastly. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. No. the dying declaration is offered in an inquiry the subject of which involves his death.” G. (c) the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived. of the Revised Penal Code. went home and under labored breathing. paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code. The Rules of Court states that a dying declaration is admissible as evidence if the following circumstances are present: (a) it concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death. 2013. It also cannot prevail over witnesses’ positive identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. the Information need not use the language of the statute in stating the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. these being by and large mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor. which the appellant in this case failed to do. threat. G. Amistoso was specifically charged in the Information with statutory rape under Article 266-A. given its apparent proximity. Here. Ramil Rarugal Alias “Amay Bisaya. Evidence. R. Preliminary investigations. People of the Philippines. paragraph (1). unappealable. the petitioner’s failure to file a petition for review under Rule 45 within the reglementary period rendered the CA’s June 24. the Court of Appeals (CA) may take cognizance of the case via a petition under . Jr.R. although in a mere few exceptional cases showing grave abuse of discretion. courts do not act as prosecutors but as organs of the judiciary that are exercising their mandate under the Constitution. i. Although policy considerations call for the widest latitude of deference to the prosecutors’ findings. this does not preclude courts from intervening and exercising their powers of review with respect to the DOJ’s findings. No. paragraph (1)(a). Petition for Certiorari. (2) AAA was 12 years old on the day of the alleged rape. hence. v. are sufficiently alleged in the Information against Amistoso. 2008 Decision. 192727. Antonio L Tan. courts should not shirk from exercising their power.R. regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved. Raul Escalante v. January 9. People of the Philippines. settled is the rule that courts retain the power to review findings of prosecutors in preliminary investigations. The petitioner committed a serious procedural faux pas by filing before the Supreme Court (SC) a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. a special civil action under Rule 65 cannot cure petitioner’s failure to timely file a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Here. The period to file a petition for review on certiorari is 15 days from notice of the decision appealed from or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. totally refuting the fact of AAA’s rape regardless of how it was purportedly committed. to determine whether prosecutors’ findings are supported by the facts or by the law. when the circumstances warrant. of the Revised Penal Code.” Thus. Petition for Certiorari. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals (CA) should not have taken cognizance of the petitions for certiorari filed before it because criminal proceedings shall not be restrained once probable cause has been determined and the corresponding information has been filed in courts. as modified by its March 4. Failure to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory and. viz: (1) Amistoso succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA against her will and without her consent. In so doing. 2008 Decision and March 4. v. It is settled that a special civil action for certiorari will not lie as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. on May 20. G. However. Decisions. G. The foregoing elements of qualified rape under Article 266-A. thus. courts may review probable-cause findings of public prosecutors where grave abuse of discretion is shown. 2010 Resolution. Rule 65 petition for certiorari distinguished from Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari. 2009 Resolution. final and executory. 201447. which denied his second motion for reconsideration.. People of the Philippines v. The Supreme Court. 179003 & 195816. which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. In the exceptional case in which grave abuse of discretion is committed. G. Anastacio Amistoso y Broca.minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur. January 9. January 9. et al. and remedial rules to settle cases and controversies. may be appealed to the SC by filing a petition for review under Rule 45. This he failed to do. in relation to Article 266-B . 2009 Resolution. 2010 to file a petition for review on certiorari with the SC. 2013. he only had until June 4. held that. Preliminary investigations. “The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory. Tan Jr. Rule 65 petition for certiorari no substitute for a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari. final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in any case. No. Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. While the findings of prosecutors are reviewable by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Raul Escalante v. Yoshitsugu Matsuura and Carolina Tanjutco/Antonio L. Julie O Cua. probable cause. when the proper remedy should have been a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one’s own neglect or error in the choice of remedies. and (3) Amistoso is AAA’s father. invoking its judicial power under Section 1. No.R. probable cause. It is at once evident that the instant certiorari action is merely being used by the petitioner to make up for his failure to promptly interpose an appeal from the CA’s June 24. the petitioner received a copy of the CA’s May 5.e. Amistoso cannot claim that he had been deprived of due process in any way. as when a clear sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence to support a finding of probable cause is ignored. 2013. January 9. G. courts may review probable-cause findings of public prosecutors where grave abuse of discretion is shown. 192727. relevant statutes. et al. 2013. He adequately understood from the Information that he was being charged with the rape of his own daughter AAA to which he proffered the defense of denial and alibi. 2010. Nos. 2013. pertains to facts and circumstances sufficient to incite a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof. Only such facts sufficient to support a prima facie case against the respondent are required. Edna R. Preliminary investigations. such circumstance was not indicative of grave abuse of discretion. Caparas. PO3 Villano testified on cross-examination that the wife of the accused was inside. Thus.. there was a clear issue on the Secretary of Justice’s appreciation of facts. or acts in a manner so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law.Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. v. has the power to reverse. Likewise. Here. determination of probable cause is an essentially executive function. Baron A. No. or when he grossly misapprehends facts. the Secretary’s findings are not subject to interference by the courts. probable cause defined. conduct of house searches. thereby. presence of owner of house during search not indispensable where witnesses present. P/C Insp.e.R. acted outside his jurisdiction. Probable cause. et al v.R. Baron A. Jr. even contrary to the own findings of the Office of the City Prosecutor that conducted the preliminary investigation. Preliminary investigations. G. Julie O Cua. Although by itself. and the NBI autopsy report should best be left for the trial court to determine after a full-blown trial on the merits. 190969. 190969. he effectively assumed the function of a trial judge in the evaluation of the pieces of evidence and. There were variations in the witnesses’ testimonies as to whether petitioner was inside the house during the search. as well as Edna’s complaint-affidavit vis-à-vis the affidavit of Jovita. it does not taint the regularity of the search. 2013. not absolute certainty. Assuming that petitioner was indeed outside the house. The Supreme Court held that there was nothing irregular in the conduct of search of petitioner’s house.R. January 30. 2013. calibrated the evidentiary weight of the NBI opinion vis-à-vis the autopsy report. Villanueva. The prosecutor’s ruling is reviewable by the Secretary of Justice (Secretary) who. As a rule. Section 8. Villanueva. the Supreme Court held that the Secretary of Justice (Secretary) acted with grave abuse of discretion when he reversed the prosecutor’s resolution finding probable cause to charge Villanueva with homicide. determination of probable cause is an essentially executive function. Edna R. G. the appellate court’s exercise of its power to review was also the proper and most prudent course to take after the Secretary had successively issued several resolutions with varying findings of fact and conclusions of law on the existence of probable cause. Antonio L Tan. accused-appellant and his wife were not prevented from entering their house to observe the search conducted therein. January 30. as the final determinative authority on the matter. came in while the search was being conducted. that Valleno and his wife stood outside and sometimes. The determination of probable cause is essentially an executive function. lodged in the first place on the prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation on the offended party’s complaint. for purposes of filing criminal information. No. Whether the alternative scenario on the cause of Renato’s injuries and death (as supported by Jovita’s affidavit and the NBI opinion and which Villanueva proposed by way of defense) is more credible and more likely than the narrations of Edna in her complaint-affidavit. and that before the . Probable cause implies mere probability of guilt. When the Secretary made a determination based on his own appreciation of the pieces of evidence for and against Villanueva. in the affidavit of her witness. As found by the trial court. G. modify or affirm the prosecutor’s determination. watching. The presence of the two barangay officials was not disputed by petitioner. The strict validity and merits of a party’s accusation or defense. testified that the accused-appellant and his wife went in and out of their house while the team was conducting a search inside said house. January 9. already went into the strict merits of Villanueva’s defenses. and in so doing. Nos. save only when he acts with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This is bolstered by the testimonies of police officers. Yoshitsugu Matsuura and Carolina Tanjutco/Antonio L. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court allows the absence of the lawful occupant provided that two witnesses are present. Searches and Seizures. One witness testified that petitioner was coming in and out of the house during the search while the other witnesses claimed that petitioner was waiting just outside the house. Tan Jr. Perfecto de Lima Jr. probable cause defined. v. as well as admissibility of testimonies and pieces of evidence. which commanded a review by the court to determine if grave abuse of discretion attended the discharge of his functions. Based on the grounds raised by the respondents in their petitions with the CA. 179003 & 195816. The Secretary. in this case. are better ventilated during the trial proper of the case. i. 2013. et al v. Caparas. a finding based on more than bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction. or when he acts outside the contemplation of law. 2013. presumption of regularity in the performance of functions. respectively. People of the Philippines. Reynaldo Brito and Chief Tanod Wilfredo Brito. not to peripheral matters. People of the Philippines. People of the Philippines. Nelson Valleno y Lucito v. G. relating to the place where one of the plastic sachets was found and to the person who brought the illegal drugs to the crime laboratory. minor inconsistencies in testimonies not fatal. Indeed. one can hardly expect their testimonies to be in perfect agreement. in fact. January 9. For a successful appeal. Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence. they neither vitiate the essential integrity of the evidence in its material entirety nor reflect adversely on the credibility of witnesses. . The SC however brushed aside these inconsistencies as inconsequential. As held in the past. in the persons of Brgy. thus negating any ill-motive on the part of the police officers. to be expected.R. it is perhaps too much to hope that different eyewitnesses shall give. Testimony of Police Officers.R. 2013. the seized items cannot therefore. January 9. No. but during the search they kept going in and out of said house. the inconsistencies brought up should pertain to that crucial moment when the accused was caught selling shabu. be considered as fruits of the poisonous tree. 192050. 192050.R. the search was conducted in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. minor inconsistencies in testimonies not fatal. at all times. No. presumption of regularity in the performance of functions. The Supreme Court (SC) noted the inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. testimonies that are in all fours with the realities on the ground. their testimonies must be respected and the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties must be upheld. It is well-settled that the testimonies of the police officers in dangerous drugs cases carry with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Minor discrepancies in their testimonies are. G. No. Testimony of Police Officers. Nelson Valleno y Lucito v. January 9.search the Valleno spouses were requested not to go inside the house. 2013. 192050. Petitioner himself testified that he never had any personal encounter with the police prior to his arrest. Nelson Valleno y Lucito v. particularly that of barangay tanod Reynaldo Brito and PO3 Molina. Kgd. The inconsistent testimony of Reynaldo Brito deserves little weight in light of the consonant testimonies of all the police officers who testified in court. Absent any clear showing that the arresting officers had ill-motive to falsely testify against the petitioner. In addition. Resultantly. G.