2013summarryofcases SPL

8/18/2019 2013summarryofcases SPL

1/106

2013 UPDATES IN CRIMINAL LAW

& SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

by:

OSCAR B. PIMENTELJudge (Ret.) / Professor

Ateneo Law School

University of Faculty Law

Arellano Law School


2/106

PEOPLE vs. REY MONTICALVO Y MAGNO

G.R. No. 193507, January 30, 2013

MENTAL RETARDATION OF THE VICTIM

NEED NOT BE ALLEGED IN RAPE AS

LONG AS THERE IS A FINDING IN THE

RESOLUTION, WHICH WAS ATTACHEDTO THE INFORMATION.

x x x In People v. Rosare, the information did not allege that the victim was amental retardate which is an essential element of the crime of statutory rape. ThisCourt however sustained the trial court’s judgment of conviction holding that theresolution of the investigating prosecutor which formed the asis of the information,a copy of which is attached thereto, stated that the offended party is suffering frommental retardation. It ruled that there was sustantial compliance with the mandatethat an accused e informed of the nature of the charge against him. Thus!

"ppellant contends that he cannot e convicted of statutory rape ecause the factthat the victim was a mental retardate was never alleged in the information and,asent this element, the acts charged negate the commission of the offense forwhich he was convicted y the lower court.

Pursuant to #ection $, Rule %%& of the Rules of Court, we have decided to motuproprio ta'e cogni(ance of the resolution issued y the investigating prosecutor inI.#. )o. *&+%*- dated une &, %**&, which formed the asis of and a copy of which was attached to the information for rape filed against herein appellant.Therein, it is clearly stated that the offended party is suffering from mentalretardation. /e hold, therefore, that this should e deemed a sustantialcompliance with the constitutional mandate that an accused e informed of thenature of the charge against him x x x 0citation omitted1. 23mphasis supplied4.

In this case, oth the Complaint and the Resolution of the 5unicipal Trial Court of

)orthern #amar, which formed the asis of the Information and copies of whichwere attached in the records, stated that """ is suffering from mentalanormalities 6 she loo'ed li'e a retardate and her focus is not normal. 3ven, theResolution of the "cting Provincial Prosecutor concurred with the aforesaid findings.7rom the aforesaid, it can e gleaned that """’s mental disorder or mentaldisaility is that of eing a mentally retarded and not demented. Thus, there wassustantial compliance with the mandate to inform the accused of the nature of theaccusation. 5ore so, as discussed hereunder, the prosecution was ale to prove

&


3/106

that """ is, indeed, a mental retardate. 3ven the appellant affirmed the saidmental condition of the victim.

WHAT COMPRISES “DEPRIVED OF

REASON IN RAPE?”

To repeat, the term 8deprived of reason8 has een construed to encompass thosesuffering from mental anormality, deficiency or retardation. 9ence, carnal'nowledge of a mental retardate is rape under suparagraph 01 not suparagraph0d1 of "rticle &::+"0%1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

PENALTY FOR RAPE OF A RETARDATE

"s to penalty. ;nder "rticle &::+< in relation to "rticle &::+"0%1 of the RevisedPenal Code, as amended, simple rape is punishale y reclusion perpetua. 9owever,when rape is committed y an assailant who has 'nowledge of the victim’s mentalretardation, the penalty is increased to death.


4/106

under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of article $ of this Code, thefollowing rules shall e oserved!

SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE UNDER RA 9344, AS AMENDED

#3C. @$. "utomatic #uspension of #entence. 6 Bnce the child who is undereighteen 0%$1 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is foundguilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civilliaility which may have resulted from the offense committed. 9owever, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflictwith the law under suspended sentence, without need of application! Provided,however, That suspension of sentence shall still e applied even if the juvenile isalready eighteen 0%$1 of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of hisherguilt.

;pon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of thechild, the court shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in

the #upreme Court Rule on uveniles in Conflict with the ?aw. 23mphasis supplied4.

9owever, while #ection @$ of Repulic "ct )o. *@DD provides that suspension of sentence can still e applied even if the child in conflict with the law is alreadyeighteen 0%$1 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of hisherguilt, #ection D of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until thesaid child reaches the maximum age of &%, thus!

#3C. D. Return of the Child in Conflict with the ?aw to Court. 6 If the court findsthat the ojective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflictwith the law have not een fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has

willfully failed to comply with the conditions of hisher disposition or rehailitationprogram, the child in conflict with the law shall e rought efore the court forexecution of judgment.

If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen 0%$1 years of age whileunder suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the childin accordance with this "ct, to order execution of sentence, or to extend thesuspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches themaximum age of twenty+one 0&%1 years. 23mphasis supplied4.

"t present, appellant is already &- years of age, and the judgment of the trial court

was promulgated prior to the effectivity of Repulic "ct )o. *@DD. Therefore, theapplication of #ections @$ and D of the said law is already moot and academic.


5/106

productive memer of the community. The age of the child in conflict with the lawat the time of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction is not material. /hatmatters is that the offender committed the offense when heshe was still of tenderage. The appellant, therefore, shall e entitled to appropriate disposition under#ection A% of Repulic "ct )o. *@DD, which provides for the confinement of convicted children as follows!

#3C. A%. Confinement of Convicted Children in "gricultural Camps and BtherTraining 7acilities. 6 " child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and uponorder of the court, e made to serve hisher sentence, in lieu of confinement in aregular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities thatmay e estalished, maintained, supervised and controlled y the #/>.

PEOPLE VS. BENJAMIN PETELUNA, ET AL.,

G.R. No. 187048, January 23, 2013

WHERE OLD AGE (! YEARS OLD" IS A

CIRCUMSTANCE AMOUNTING TO

TREACHERY IF ATTACHED.

Records would show that Palo was fifty+seven 0A-1 years old at the time of hisdeath. "dmittedly, one’s thought processes and reflexes slow with age that Palodid not readily understand the intentions of the appellants. The attac' was,therefore, clearly sudden and unexpected.

In the case of People v. #inda, the Court had the occasion to further illustrate theattendance of treachery in a situation where the defenseless victims had alreadyfallen to the ground and there was no ris' to the assailant against any attac' fromthe victims therey facilitating the execution of the commission of the crime. Thus!

The appellants, in waylaying the victims, oviously employed a mode of attac'which was delierately designed to insure the death of their victims without any ris'they could have made against them. 7elix and Rogelio were oth unarmed at thetime the appellants pelted the two with stones. It must e stressed that when thevictims fell on the ground after the appellants threw stones at them, there was nodanger on the part of the appellants of any attac' from the victims. The victims

were not in a position to defend themselves at the time appellant Easpar hac'edthem on their nec's. In other words, the method employed y the accused insuredhis safety from any defensive or retaliatory act on the part of the victims. 03mphasis supplied1

WHEN EVIDENT PREMEDITATION IS PRESENT

A


6/106

/e agree with the appellants, however, that the prosecution failed to estalish thepresence of the =ualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. #uch could onlye appreciated if there was evidence to show the following!

0%1 the time when the offender 2was4 determined to commit the crimeF 0&1 an act

manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determinationF and

0@1 a sufficient lapse of time etween determination and execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the conse=uences of his act.

PEOPLE VS. RAMIL RARUGAL alias "AMAY BISAYA,"

G.R. No. 188603, January 16, 2013

STABBING A VICTIM WHILE CYCLING IS

TREACHERY

"nent the finding of treachery y the RTC, we agree that appellant’s act of suddenlystaing 7lorendo while he was innocently cycling along #ampaguita #treet,


7/106

judgment, a decision that has ac=uired finality ecomes immutale and unalterale,and may no longer e modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant tocorrect erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it e made y the courtthat rendered it or y the 9ighest Court of the land.8

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.MELBA L. ESPIRITU, PRIMITIVA M. SERASPE,

SIMPRESUETA M. SERASPE, a.k.a. "Aileen,"

G.R. No. 180919, January 9, 2013

THE MEANING OF INSTIGATION

8Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had nointention to commit, in order to prosecute him.8 It differs from entrapment which isthe employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture a criminal. Ininstigation, the criminal intent to commit an offense originates from the inducer andnot from the accused who had no intention to commit and would not havecommitted it were it not for the prodding of the inducer. In entrapment, thecriminal intent or design originates from the accused and the law enforcers merelyfacilitate the apprehension of the criminal y using ruses and schemes. DA Instigationresults in the ac=uittal of the accused, while entrapment may lead to prosecution

and conviction.

NELSON VALLENO y LUCITO, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R No. 192050, January 9, 2013

WHEN NON#COMPLIANCE OF SEC. $% OF

RA 9%& DOES NOT AFFECT THEINTEGRITY OF EVIDENCE

Petitioner highlights the following acts of non+compliance with the aforementionedrule! %1 there was failure to present the alleged photographs of the sei(edsustance in courtF &1 there were no representatives from the media and the>epartment of ustice 0>B1 during the conduct of the inventory of the sei(editemsF @1 there was a major contradiction from among prosecution witnesses onwho actually rought the sei(ed items to the P)P Crime ?aoratoryF and D1 themanner of conducting the physical inventory of the alleged drugs ta'en from

-

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_180919_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_180919_2013.html#fnt45


8/106

petitioner’s house appeared to e irregular as the sei(ed items were allowed to ehandled y persons not authori(ed to do so.

The Implementing Rules of Repulic "ct )o. *%:A offer some flexiility when aproviso added that 8non+compliance with these re=uirements under justifiale

grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the sei(ed items areproperly preserved y the apprehending officerteam, shall not render void andinvalid such sei(ures of and custody over said items.8

In People v. Concepcion, this Court ruled that the failure to sumit in evidence there=uired physical inventory of the sei(ed drugs and the photograph, as well as theasence of a memer of media or the >B, pursuant to #ection &%, "rticle II of Repulic "ct )o. *%:A is not fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest illegal orthe items sei(edconfiscated from him inadmissile.

/hat is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and theevidentiary value of the sei(ed items, as the same would e utili(ed in the

determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

In the instant case, the chain of custody of the sei(ed illegal drugs was not ro'en.The prosecution estalished that PB@ 3drano recovered the white plastic sachets,later on confirmed positive for traces of shau. PB@ 3drano handed them over toPB@ Hillano, who made mar'ings on the sei(ed items and prepared an inventory of the same while inside petitioner’s house. It was also shown that PB@ Hillanorought the sei(ed illegal drugs to the police station where he himself prepared theinventory. /hile he presented the same to a certain PB@ 5olina, it was still PB@Hillano and #PBD 7aiano who first rought the sei(ed illegal drugs to the court,who in turn ordered him to ring it to the P)P Crime ?aoratory. In the letter

re=uest addressed to the forensic chemist, it was PB@ Hillano who signed as there=uesting party. Clearly therefore, the recovery and handling of the sei(ed illegaldrugs were more than satisfactorily estalished in this case.

MEANING OF THE TWO ($" WITNESSES

RULE IN SEARCH OF PREMISES, ETC. (IDISAGREE"

7inally, there was nothing irregular in the conduct of search of petitioner’s house.There were variations in the witnesses’ testimonies as to whether petitioner wasinside the house during the search. Bne witness testified that petitioner was coming

in and out of the house during the search while the other witnesses claimed thatpetitioner was waiting just outside the house. "ssuming that petitioner was indeedoutside the house, it does not taint the regularity of the search. #ection $, Rule %&:of the Rules of Court allows the asence of the lawful occupant provided that twowitnesses are present.

#ection $. #earch of house, room, or premises to e made in presence of twowitnesses. )o search of a house, room, or any other premises shall e madeexcept in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any memer of his family

$


9/106

or in the asence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretionresiding in the same locality.

The presence of the two arangay officials was not disputed y petitioner. "selucidated y the appellate court!

"s correctly found y the trial court, accused+appellant and his wife were notprevented from entering their house to oserve the search conducted therein. Thisis olstered y the testimonies of police officers. Thus, PB@ Hillano testified oncross+examination that the wife of the accused was inside, watching x x x. ?i'ewise,PC Insp. Perfecto de ?ima, r. Testified that the accused+appellant and his wifewent in and out of their house while the team was conducting a search inside saidhouse! that Halleno and his wife stood outside and sometimes, came in while thesearch was eing conductedF and that efore the search the Halleno spouses werere=uested not to go inside the house ut during the search they 'ept going in andout of said house. In addition, the search was conducted in the presence of twowitnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, in the

persons of


10/106


11/106

Three. "s to the accused’s argument that the )eath of 7lorencio Prior to Bur 7inal udgment 3xtinguishes 9is Criminal?iaility and Civil ?iaility 3x >elicto.

Bn the effect of the death of appellant 7lorencio on his criminal liaility, "rticle$*0%1 of the Revised Penal Code provides that!

"rt. $*. 9ow criminal liaility is totally extinguished. 6 Criminal liaility is totallyextinguished.

%%


12/106

%.


13/106


14/106

THE SEIED DRUGS, NOT

AUTOMATICALLY FATAL.

Eiven the law, rules, and jurisprudence, the failure of the police officers to ma'e aninventory report and to photograph the drugs sei(ed from ?inda and 3li(aeth, as

re=uired y "rticle II, #ection &%, paragraph % of Repulic "ct )o. *%:A, are notautomatically fatal to the prosecutionKs case, as it was ale to trace and prove thechain of custody of the same! after arresting ?inda and 3li(aeth during the uy+ust operation, the police officers rought the two women to the police stationF atthe police station, P& lasco, who acted as the poseur+uyer, mar'ed the sachet of suspected shabu he received from ?inda and 3li(aeth during the uy+ust with hisinitials 83H +?"8 and turned over the same to PInsp. HillanuevaF PInsp. Hillanuevaprepared the Re=uest for ?aoratory 3xamination of the contents of the sachetF P&Iasco delivered the Re=uest for ?aoratory 3xamination and the sachet of suspected shabu to the P)P Crime ?aoratory, CP>C?B, Gue(on City, where theRe=uest and specimen were received y P& PiauF the contents of the sachet wereexamined y 7orensic "nalyst aonillo, who prepared Chemistry Report )o. >+%*$+

&@, confirming that the specimen tested positive for shabu&$ and lastly, duringthe trial, the mar'ed sachet of shabu, as well as the mar'ed money used inpurchasing the same, were presented as evidence and identified y P& Iasco and#PD Reuriano.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. NOEL BARTOLOME y BAJO,

G.R. No. 191726, February 06, 2013

DISTINCTION BETWEEN INSTIGATION

AND ENTRAPMENT.

Instigation is the means y which the accused is lured into the commission of theoffense charged in order to prosecute him. Bn the other hand, entrapment is theemployment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing alawrea'er. Thus, in instigation, officers of the law or their agents incite, induce,instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense which he or she wouldotherwise not commit and has no intention of committing.


15/106

In United States v. Phelps, we ac=uitted the accused from the offense of smo'ingopium after finding that the government employee, a


16/106


17/106


18/106

#ection %%0a1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, whichstates!

#3C. %%. 3ffect of appeal y any of several accused.+

0a1 "n appeal ta'en y one or more of several accused shall not affect those whodid not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favoraleand applicale to the latter.

Private respondent however, contends that said provision is not applicale topetitioner inasmuch as he appealed from his conviction, and the provision statesthat a favorale judgment shall e applicale only to those who did not appeal .

" literal interpretation of the phrase 8did not appeal ,8 as espoused y privaterespondent, will not give justice to the purpose of the provision.

It should e read in its entirety and should not e myopically construed so as to

defeat its reason, i.e., to enefit an accused who did not join in the appeal of hisco+accused in case where the appellate judgment is favorale. In fact, several casesrendered y the Court applied the foregoing provision without regard as to the filingor non+filing of an appeal y a coaccused, so long as the judgment was favorale tohim.

In People v. Artellero, the Court extended the ac=uittal of Rodrigue(’s co+accused tohim despite the withdrawal of his appeal, applying the Rule %&&, #ection %%0a1, andconsidering that the evidence against oth are inextricaly lin'ed, to wit!

"lthough it is only appellant who persisted with the present appeal, the well+

estalished rule is that an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole caseopen for review of all its aspects, including those not raised y the parties. Therecords show that Rodrigue( had withdrawn his appeal due to financial reasons.9owever, #ection %% 0a1 of Rule %&& of the Rules of Court provides that 8an appealta'en y one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal,except insofar as the judgment of the appellant court is favorale and applicale tothe latter.8 "s we have elucidated, the evidence against and the conviction of othappellant and Rodrigue( are inextricaly lin'ed. 9ence, appellant’s ac=uittal, whichis favorale and applicale to Rodrigue(, should enefit the latter.

In People v. Arondain, the Court found accused "rondain guilty only of homicide.

#uch verdict was applied to his co+accused, ose Precioso, who was previouslyfound guilty y the trial court of roery with homicide, despite the fact thatPrecioso appealed ut failed to file an appellant’s rief. The Court also modifiedPrecioso’s civil liaility although the additional monetary award imposed on"rondain was not extended to Precioso since it was not favorale to him and he didnot pursue the appeal efore the Court.

%$


19/106

In People v. De ara, 3duardo Hillas, together with several coaccused, were foundy the trial court guilty of forcile aduction. >uring pendency of the review eforethe Court, Hillas withdrew his appeal, hence his conviction ecame final andexecutory. Thereafter, the Court found Hillas’ co+accused guilty only of gravecoercion. "pplying Rule %&&, #ection %%0a1, the Court also found Hillas guilty of thelesser offense of grave coercion since it is eneficial to him.

In People v. Esca"o, the Court granted a motion filed y accused ulian >een3scaLo, praying that the Court’s >ecision dated anuary &$, &, ac=uitting his co+accused Hirgilio T. ;sana and erry C. ?ope( in Criminal Case )o. *A+*@: forviolation of #ection D, "rticle II of Repulic "ct )o. :D&A, as amended, e appliedto him. 3scaLo originally filed a )otice of "ppeal with the trial court ut laterwithdrew the same.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. MARK JOSEPH ZAPUIZ Y RAMOS @ "JAYMART",

G.R. No. 199713, February 20, 2013

SHOOTING A VICTIM AT THE BAC OF

THE HEAD IS TREACHERY

#hird , the 'illing of 3mmanuel was attended y treachery. The law provides that anoffender acts with treachery when he 8commits any of the crimes against a person,

employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directlyand specially to insure its execution, without ris' to himself arising from thedefense which the offended party might ma'e.8 Thus, there is treachery when theattac' against an unarmed victim is so sudden that he had clearly no in'ling of what the assailant was aout to do. In this case, 3mmanuel was sitting downefore a tale, usily writing, when aymart came up ehind him and, withoutwarning, shot him at the ac' of the head. 3vidently, 3mmanuel, who was unarmedand unaware, had no opportunity at all to defend himself.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. TOMASTEODORO y ANGELES,

G.R. No. 175876, February 20, 2013

CARNAL NOWLEDGE IN STATUTORY RAPE

In ojective terms, carnal 'nowledge, the other essential element in consummatedstatutory rape, does not re=uire full penile penetration of the female. The Court hasclarified in People v. Ca!puhan that the mere touching of the external genitalia y

%*


20/106

a penis capable of consu!!atin$ the se%ual act is sufficient to constitute carnal'nowledge. "ll that is necessary to reach the consummated stage of rape is for thepenis of the accused capale of consummating the sexual act to come into contactwith the lips of the pudendum of the victim. This means that the rape isconsummated once the penis of the accused capale of consummating the sexualact touches eitherlabia of the pudendum. "s the Court has explained in People v.&ali'&alita, the touchin$ that constitutes rape does not mean mere epidermalcontact, or stro'ing or gra(ing of organs, or a slight rush or a scrape of the penison the external layer of the victim’s vagina, or the !ons pubis, ut rather the erectpenis touching the labias or sliding into the female genitalia. "ccordingly, theconclusion that touching the labia !a(ora or the labia !inora of the pudendumconstitutes consummated rape proceeds from the physical fact that the labias arephysically situated eneath the !ons pubis or the vaginal surface, such that for thepenis to touch either of them is to attain some degree of penetration eneath thesurface of the female genitalia. It is re=uired, however, that this manner of touchingof the labias must e sufficiently and convincingly estalished.

RULE ON RECANTATION IN CASE OF RAPE


21/106

position to hear first+hand and oserve the deportment, conduct and attitude of thewitnesses.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOSE ALEX SECRETO y VILLANUEVA,

G.R. No. 198115, February 22, 2013

WHEN THERE ARE LAPSES IN

COMPLYING WITH CHAIN OF CUSTODYOF DRUGS.

/hat #ection &% of R.". )o. *%:A and its implementing rule do not expresslyspecify is the matter of 8mar'ing8 of the sei(ed items in warrantless sei(ures toensure that the evidence sei(ed upon apprehension is the same evidence sujectedto inventory and photography when these activities are underta'en at the police

station rather than at the place of arrest. C0*1/7 6*12 12/ 2* 0 :107 ):-/ )/>:*)/ 121 12/ +)*5 0 12/ /*@/ *1/+ 10 1):-7

/:)/ 121 12/7 )/ 12/ +/ *1/+ 121 /1/) 12/ 2* )/

/;/1:--7 12/ 0/ 0/)/ * /;*// 20:- epartment of ustice 0>B1, and anyelected pulic official. In fact, the prosecution failed to present an accomplishedCertificate of Inventory.

In People v. Ancheta, where the sole procedural lapse revolved on the failure toconduct the re=uired physical inventory and the ta'ing of photograph in the

presence of the representatives and pulic officials enumerated in the law despitethe fact that the accused had een under surveillance and his name already on thedrugs watch list, we ruled!

x x x /e further note that, efore the saving clause provided under it can einvo'ed, #ection &%0a1 of the IRR re=uires the prosecution to prove the twinconditions of 0a1 existence of justifiale grounds and 01 preservation of theintegrity and the evidentiary value of the sei(ed items. In this case, the arresting

&%

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_198115_2013.html#fnt44http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_198115_2013.html#fnt45http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_198115_2013.html#fnt44http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_198115_2013.html#fnt45


22/106

officers neither presented nor explained justifiale grounds for their failure to 0%1ma'e a physical inventory of the sei(ed itemsF 0&1 ta'e photographs of the itemsFand 0@1 estalish that a representative each from the media and the >epartment of ustice 0>B1, and any elected pulic official had een contacted and were presentduring the mar'ing of the items. These errors were exacerated y the fact that theofficers had ample time to comply with these legal re=uirements, as they hadalready monitored and put accused+appellants on their watch list. The totality of these circumstances has led us to conclude that the apprehending officersdelierately disregarded the legal procedure under R.". *%:A. T2// -8///1*;/-7 8)0:/ /)*0: 0:


23/106

victim was first shot and fell to the ground. There was no more reason for theaccused to pull the trigger, at least three times more, and continue shooting at thevictim. 03mphasis in the original1

The means employed y a person claiming self+defense must e commensurate to

the nature and the extent of the attac' sought to e averted, and must erationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. In this case, thecontinuous shooting y 7lores which caused the fatal gunshot wounds were notnecessary and reasonale to prevent the claimed unlawful aggression from esus asthe latter was already lying flat on the ground after he was first shot on theshoulder.

ENGR. ANTHONY V. ZAPANTA, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

G.R. No. 170863, March 20, 2013

ELEMENTS OF 'UALIFIED THEFT, 0


24/106

G.R. No. 201363, March 18, 2013

CRIM. PRO. WARRANTLESS ARREST

#ec. A. "rrest without warrantF when lawful. 6 " peace officer or a private personmay, without a warrant, arrest a person!

0a1 /hen, in his presence, the person to e arrested has committed, isactually committing, or is attempting to commit an offenseF

01 /hen an offense has just een committed and he has proale cause toelieve ased on personal 'nowledge of facts or circumstances that theperson to e arrested has committed itF and

0c1 /hen the person to e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from apenal estalishment or place where he is serving final judgment or istemporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while eingtransferred from one confinement to another.

x x x

7or the warrantless arrest under paragraph 0a1 of #ection A to operate, twoelements must concur! 0%1 the person to e arrested must execute an overt actindicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting tocommit a crimeF and 0&1 such overt act is done in the presence or within the viewof the arresting officer.%* Bn the other hand, paragraph 01 of #ection A re=uires for

its application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just eencommitted and the arresting officer had personal 'nowledge of facts indicating thatthe appellant had committed it.

In oth instances, the officer’s personal 'nowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense is asolutely re=uired. ;nder paragraph 0a1, the officer himself witnessesthe crime while under paragraph 01, he 'nows for a fact that a crime has just eencommitted.

ILLEGAL ARREST RESULTING TO AC'UITTAL. (RA 9%&"

In fine, appellant’s acts of wal'ing along the street and holding something in hishands, even if they appeared to e duious, coupled with his previous criminalcharge for the same offense, are not y themselves sufficient to incite suspicion of criminal activity or to create proale cause enough to justify a warrantless arrestunder #ection A aove+=uoted. 8Proale cause8 has een understood to mean areasonale ground of suspicion supported y circumstances sufficiently strong inthemselves to warrant a cautious manKs elief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. #pecifically with respect to arrests, it is such

&D

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_201363_2013.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_201363_2013.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_201363_2013.html#fnt19


25/106

facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonaly discreet and prudent man toelieve that an offense has een committed y the person sought to earrested, which clearly do not otain in appellant’s case.

Thus, while it is true that the legality of an arrest depends upon the reasonale

discretion of the officer or functionary to whom the law at the moment leaves thedecision to characteri(e the nature of the act or deed of the person for the urgentpurpose of suspending his lierty, it cannot e aritrarily or capriciously exercisedwithout unduly compromising a citi(en’s constitutionally+guaranteed right to lierty."s the Court succinctly explained in the case of People v. Tudtud!

The right of a person to e secure against any unreasonale sei(ure of his ody andany deprivation of his lierty is a most asic and fundamental one. The statute orrule which allows exceptions to the re=uirement of warrants of arrest is strictlyconstrued. "ny exception must clearly fall within the situations when securing awarrant would e asurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided y the Rule. /ecannot lierally construe the rule on arrests without warrant or extend its

application eyond the cases specifically provided y law. To do so would infringeupon personal lierty and set ac' a asic right so often violated and so deservingof full protection.

Conse=uently, there eing no lawful warrantless arrest, the shau purportedlysei(ed from appellant is rendered inadmissile in evidence for eing the proverialfruit of the poisonous tree. "s the confiscated shau is the very corpus delicti of thecrime charged, appellant must e ac=uitted and exonerated from all criminalliaility.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. GILBERT PENILLA y FRANCIA,G.R. No. 189324, March 20, 2013

PHYSICAL RESISTANCE NEED NOT BE

ESTABLISHED IF THERE ISINTIMIDATION (


26/106

sumission. Thus, the law does not impose upon the private complainant theurden of proving resistance.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ARNEL NOCUM,* REY JOHNNY RAMOS,

CARLOS JUN POSADAS, PANDAO POLING PANGANDAG (all at large), REYNALDOMALLARI,

G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013

SPL CARNAPPING RA &39,

+//


27/106

are 'illed or that aside from the homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, orusurpation of authority, is committed y reason or on the occasion of the crime.?i'ewise immaterial is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the roersF thefelony would still e roery with homicide. Bnce a homicide is committed y or onthe occasion of the roery, the felony committed is roery with homicide. "ll thefelonies committed y reason of or on the occasion of the roery are integratedinto one and indivisile felony of roery with homicide. The word 8homicide8 isused in its generic sense. 9omicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, andinfanticide.

Intent to ro is an internal act ut may e inferred from proof of violent unlawfulta'ing of personal property. /hen the fact of asportation has een estalishedeyond reasonale dout, conviction of the accused is justified even if the propertysuject of the roery is not presented in court. "fter all, the property stolen mayhave een aandoned or thrown away and destroyed y the roer or recovered ythe owner. The prosecution is not urdened to prove the actual value of theproperty stolen or amount stolen from the victim. /hether the roer 'new the

actual amount in the possession of the victim is of no moment ecause the motivefor roery can exist regardless of the exact amount or value involved.

/hen homicide is committed y reason or on the occasion of roery, all those whotoo' part as principals in the roery would also e held liale as principals of thesingle and indivisile felony of roery with homicide although they did not actuallyta'e part in the 'illing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to preventthe same.

If a roer tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of theroery, he is guilty only of roery and not of roery with homicide. "ll those

who conspire to commit roery with homicide are guilty as principals of suchcrime, although not all profited and gained from the roery. Bne who joins acriminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co+conspirators and can nolonger repudiate the conspiracy once it has materiali(ed.

INSTANCES WHEN THERE IS ROBBERY

WITH HOMICIDE

9omicide is said to have een committed y reason or on the occasion of roery if,for instance, it was committed to 0a1 facilitate the roery or the escape of theculpritF 01 to preserve the possession y the culprit of the lootF 0c1 to preventdiscovery of the commission of the roeryF or, 0d1 to eliminate witnesses in thecommission of the crime. "s long as there is a nexus etween the roery and thehomicide, the latter crime may e committed in a place other than the situs of theroery. 03mphases suppliedF citations omitted.1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. GERRY OCTAVIO Y FLORENDO and REYNALDO

CARIÑO Y MARTIR,

&-


28/106

G.R. No. 199219, April 3, 2013

BREA IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY

MUST BE RAISED DURING THE TRIAL,

NOT ON APPEAL, OTHERWISE WAIVED.

7inally, we note and agree with the oservation of the C" that the issue regardingthe rea' in the chain of custody of evidence was raised elatedly and only for thefirst time on appeal. In People v. 5ateo, this Court rushed aside the accusedKselated contention that the illegal drugs confiscated from his person wasinadmissile ecause the arresting officers failed to comply with #ection &% of R.".)o. *%:A. /hatever justifiale grounds may excuse the police officers from literallycomplying with #ection &% will remain un'nown, ecause accused did not =uestionduring trial the safe'eeping of the items sei(ed from him. Bjection to evidencecannot e raised for the first time on appealF when a party desires the court toreject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an ojection. /ithoutsuch ojection, he cannot raise the =uestion for the first time on appeal.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ALBERTO GONZALES y SANTOS, also known

as TAKYO,

G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013

WHEN THERE IS A BREA IN THE CHAINOF CUSTODY 0R *%:A1


29/106


30/106

tires and he did not even as' for proof of ownership of the tires. The entiretransaction, from the proposal to uy until the delivery of tires happened in just oneday. 9is experience from the usiness should have given him dout as to thelegitimate ownership of the tires considering that it was his first time to transactwith Eo and the manner it was sold is as if Eo was just peddling the thirteen 0%@1tires in the streets.

In >ela Torre v. CB53?3C, this Court had enunciated that!

Circumstances normally exist to forewarn, for instance, a reasonaly vigilant uyerthat the oject of the sale may have een derived from the proceeds of roery ortheft. #uch circumstances include the time and place of the sale, oth of whichmay not e in accord with the usual practices of commerce. The nature andcondition of the goods sold, and the fact that the seller is not regularly engaged inthe usiness of selling goods may li'ewise suggest the illegality of their source, andtherefore should caution the uyer. This justifies the presumption found in #ection Aof P.>. )o. %:%& that 8mere possession of any goods, . . ., oject or anything of

value which has een the suject of roery or thievery shall e prima facieevidence of fencing8 a presumption that is, according to the Court, 8reasonalefor no other natural or logical inference can arise from the estalished fact of . . .possession of the proceeds of the crime of roery or theft.8 xxx.

5oreover, Bng 'new the re=uirement of the law in selling second hand tires. #ection : of P.>. %:%& re=uires stores, estalishments or entities dealing in theuying and selling of any good, article, item, oject or anything else of valueotained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof to secure the necessaryclearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated )ational Police inthe town or city where that store, estalishment or entity is located efore offering

the item for sale to the pulic. In fact, Bng has practiced the procedure of otainingclearances from the police station for some used tires he wanted to resell ut, inthis particular transaction, he was remiss in his duty as a diligent usinessman whoshould have exercised prudence.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ALBERTO DELIGERO y BACASMOT

G.R. No. 189280, April 17, 2013

GRANDUNCLE NOT RELATIVE WITHIN

4TH CIVIL DEGREE 0


31/106


32/106

impulse, ruling out the application of the concept of complex crime. The evidencehowever, does not conform to the Information, which contains no allegation that theaccused was so actuated. In fact, the Information merely alleges that the accusedshot the victim, ut it does not allege that he did so several times. In the asenceof such a clear statement in the Information, the accused may e convicted only of the complex crime of murder with attempted murder. "fterall, the concept of complex crimes is intended to favor the accused y imposing a single penaltyirrespective of the numer of crimes committed.

To rule that the accused should e convicted of two separate offenses of murderand attempted murder pursuant to the evidence presented ut contrary to theallegations in the Information is to violate the right of the accused to e informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It is well+settled that anaccused cannot e convicted of an offense, even if duly proven, unless it is allegedor necessarily included in the complaint or information.&$ 0Citations omitted1

" complex crime is only one crime. "lthough two or more crimes are actually

committed, there is only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in theconscience of the offender when it comes to complex crimes. 9ence, there is onlyone penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime.&*

;nder "rticle D$ of the Revised Penal Code 0RPC1, when a single act constitutes twoor more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means forcommitting the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall e imposed, thesame to e applied in its maximum period. In this case, the most serious crimecommitted was 5urder and "rticle &D$ of the RPC provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. 5eanwhile, "rticle :@ of the RPC provides that if thepenalty prescried is composed of two indivisile penalties and there is an

aggravating circumstance, the higher penalty should e imposed. "s previouslydiscussed, treachery was proven and correctly appreciated to have attended thecommission of the crime, =ualifying the 'illing to the highest penalty, which isdeath. In view, however, of the enactment of Repulic "ct )o. *@D:,@ whichprohiits the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty for crime should,therefore, e reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligiility for parole. Thus, theR TC was correct m imposing, and the C", in affirming, the penalty of reclusionperpetua.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. RICARDO PAMINTUAN y SAHAGUN

G.R. No. 192239, June 5, 2013

FULL PENETRATION IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF RAPE,NEITHER IS LACERATION OF HYMEN

The Court has often held that 8full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not anessential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary, to conclude thatcarnal 'nowledge too' placeF the mere touching of the external genitalia y a penis

@&

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_198789_2013.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_198789_2013.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_198789_2013.html#fnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_198789_2013.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_198789_2013.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_198789_2013.html#fnt30


33/106

that is capale of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal'nowledge.8&$/e also said in People v. Bpong&* that!

In People v. Capt. ?lanto, citing People v. "guinaldo, we li'ewise affirmed theconviction of the accused for rape despite the asence of laceration on the victim’s

hymen since medical findings suggest that it is possile for the victim’s hymen toremain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse. /e elucidated that the strengthand dilataility of the hymen varies from one woman to another, such that it maye so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourseF on the other hand,it may e so resistant that its surgical removal is necessary efore intercourse canensue.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RICARDO PIOSANG

G.R. No. 200329, June 5, 2013

WHEN STATUTORY RAPE IS COMMITTED

Rape under paragraph @ of the aove+mentioned article is termed statutory rape asit departs from the usual modes of committing rape. /hat the law punishes iscarnal 'nowledge of a woman elow twelve years of age.)*+phi)Thus, the onlysuject of in=uiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal 'nowledge too'place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her ownon account of her tender years. x x x. 0Citations omitted.1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GUILLERMO LOMAQUE.

G.R. No. 189297, June 5, 2013

THE 'UALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP IF WRONGLY

INTERPRETED, AS THE ACCUSED IS NOT A STEPFATHER BECAUSE THE

MARRIAGE HAS NOT BEEN PROVED, ACCUSED SHOULD BE CONVICTED OF

SIMPLE RAPE.


34/106

suse=uent to that of which the person spo'en is the offspring.8 The allegation that8"""8 is the stepdaughter of appellant re=uires competent proof and should not eeasily accepted as factually true. The are testimony of appellant that he wasmarried to 8


35/106

DEFINITION OF LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT

?ascivious conduct is defined under #ection &091 of the Implementing Rules andRegulations of R" -:% as 8a crime committed through the intentional touching,either directly or through the clothing of the genitalia, anus, groin, reast, inner

thigh or uttoc's with the intention to ause, humiliate, harass, degrade or arouseor gratify the sexual desire of any person, among others.8D In this case, it isundisputed that appellant committed lascivious conduct when he smelled 8"""’s8genital area and inserted his finger inside her vagina to gratify or arouse his sexualdesire. "t the time this happened on 5ay $, %**@, 8"""8 was arely eight years oldas estalished through her irth certificate. /ithout a dout, all the afore+statedelements are otaining in this case. /e thus li'ewise sustain the finding thatappellant is guilty of "cts of ?asciviousness as defined and penali(ed under "rticle@@: of the RPC in relation to #ection A01, "rticle III of R" -:%.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.ERNESTO GANI y TUPAS

G.R. No. 195523, June 5, 2013

WHEN 'UALIFIED RAPE IS PRESENT

Eiven the foregoing, the C" correctly affirmed appellant’s conviction for =ualifiedrape.


36/106

which is a condition of deteriorated mentality, characteri(ed y mar'ed decline fromthe individual’s former intellectual level and often y emotional apathy, madness, orinsanity. %$ Bn the other hand, the phrase deprived of reason under paragraph %01has een interpreted to include those suffering from mental anormality, deficiency,or retardation. Thus, """, who was clinically diagnosed to e a mental retardate,can e properly classified as a person who is 8deprived of reason,8 and not one whois 8demented.8

CARNAL NOWLEDGE OF A MENTAL RETARDATE AMOUNTS TO RAPE

Carnal 'nowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under "rticle &::+", paragraph %01 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. This is ecause amentally deficient person is automatically considered incapale of giving consent toa sexual act. Thus, what needs to e proven are the facts of sexual intercourseetween the accused and the victim, and the victim’s mental retardation.@%

Herily, the prosecution was ale to sufficiently estalish that """ is a mental

retardate. "nent the fact of sexual congress, it is worthy to note that aside from theprosecution’s own testimonial and documentary evidence, Caoile never deniedeing physically intimate with """. In fact, he has confirmed such fact, and evenclaimed that he and """ often had sex, they eing sweethearts.

In rape committed y means of duress, the victim’s will is nullified or destroyed.9ence, the necessity of proving real and constant resistance on the part of thewoman to estalish that the act was committed against her will. Bn the other hand,in the rape of a woman deprived of reason or unconscious, the victim has no will.The asence of will determines the existence of the rape. #uch lac' of will mayexist not only when the victim is unconscious or totally deprived of reason, ut also

when she is suffering some mental deficiency impairing her reason or free will. Inthat case, it is not necessary that she should offer real opposition or constantresistance to the sexual intercourse. Carnal 'nowledge of a woman so wea' inintellect as to e incapale of legal consent constitutes rape. /here the offendedwoman was feele+minded, sic'ly and almost an idiot, sexual intercourse with her isrape. 9er failure to offer resistance to the act did not mean consent for she wasincapale of giving any rational consent.

The deprivation of reason need not e complete. 5ental anormality or deficiency isenough. Cohaitation with a feeleminded, idiotic woman is rape. #exualintercourse with an insane woman was considered rape.


37/106

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARIEL CALARA y ABALOS

G.R. No. 197039, June 5, 2013

TREACHERY BY STABBING VICTIM AT THE BAC

The courts elow correctly appreciated the circumstance of treachery.)*+phi) Theessence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attac' on an unsuspectingvictim y the perpetrator of the crime, depriving the victim of any chance to defendhimself or repel the aggression, thus insuring its commission without ris' to theaggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim. &- The post+mortemfindings indicate that 7rancisco sustained a fatal wound on his ac' chest. Theposition of the fatal wound is more than clear indication that the victim was staedfrom ehind leaving him in a defenseless state.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MYLENE TORRES y CRUZG.R. No. 191730, June 5, 2013

THE NON#COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION $% OF RA 9%& MUST BE RAISEDDURING THE TRIAL, OTHERWISE IT IS DEEMED WAIVED.

/e note that nowhere in the prosecution evidence does it show the 8justifialeground8 which may excuse the police operatives involved in the uy+ust operationin the case at ar from complying with #ection &% of Repulic "ct )o. *%:A,particularly the ma'ing of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs anddrug paraphernalia confiscated andor sei(ed. 9owever, such omission shall not

render accused+appellantKs arrest illegal or the items sei(edconfiscated from himas inadmissile in evidence. In People v. )aelga 2E.R. )o. %-%%$, %% #eptemer&*, A** #CR" D--4, /e have explained that what is of utmost importance is thepreservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the sei(ed items ecausethe same will e utili(ed in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

It must e stressed that said 8justifiale ground8 will remain un'nown in the light of the apparent failure of the accused+appellant to challenge the custody andsafe'eeping or the issue of disposition and preservation of the suject drugs anddrug paraphernalia efore the RTC. x x x.

It is also worth stressing that appellant raised the uy+ust team’s alleged non+compliance with #ection &%, "rticle II of Repulic "ct )o. *%:A only on appeal.7ailure to raise this issue during trial is fatal to the case of appellant, as this Courthad succinctly explained in People v. #ta. 5aria!D%

The law excuses non+compliance under justifiale grounds. 9owever, whatever justifiale grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the uy+ust operationin this case from complying with #ection &% will remain un'nown, ecause appellant

@-

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_197039_2013.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_191730_2013.html#fnt41http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_197039_2013.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_191730_2013.html#fnt41


38/106

did not =uestion during trial the safe'eeping of the items sei(ed from him. Indeed,the police officers’ alleged violations of #ections &% and $: of Repulic "ct )o. *%:Awere not raised efore the trial court ut were instead raised for the first time onappeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there werelapses in the safe'eeping of sei(ed items that affected their integrity andevidentiary value. Bjection to evidence cannot e raised for the first time onappealF when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must sostate in the form of ojection. /ithout such ojection he cannot raise the =uestionfor the first time on appeal.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARIA JENNY REA y GUEVARRA and

ESTRELLITA TENDENILLA

G.R. No. 197049, June 10, 2013

WHEN ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE IS COMMITTED

TANTAMOUNT TO ECONOMIC SABOTAGE.

The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed upon concurrence of these 0@1 elements, namely! 0%1 the offenders underta'e any activity within themeaning of recruitment and placement defined in "rticle %@01 or any prohiitedpractices enumerated in "rticle @D of the ?aor CodeF 0&1 the offenders have novalid license or authority re=uired y law to enale them to lawfully engage in therecruitment and placement of wor'ersF and 0@1 the offenders commit the actsagainst three or more persons, individually or as a group.%-

Recruitment and placement is defined in "rticle %@01 of the ?aor Code as 8any act

of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utili(ing, hiring, or procuringwor'erF and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising foremployment, locally or aroad, whether for profit or not.8

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GLORIA CALUMBRES y AUDITOR

G.R. No. 194382, June 10, 2013

WHEN APPREHENDING OFFICER BROE ALL RULES UNDER SECTION $% OFRA 9%&. AC'UITTED

#PB% >ela Hictoria’s claim that the sachet of shau presented in court was thesame one confiscated from Calumres, cannot e ta'en at its face value, solely onthe presumption of regularity of one’s performance of duty. #PB% >ela Hictorialatantly ro'e all the rules estalished y law to safeguard the identity of a corpusdelicti. To allow this to happen is to aandon everything that has een said aoutthe necessity of proving an unro'en chain of custody of the corpus delicti.)*+phi)

@$

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_197049_2013.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_197049_2013.html#fnt17


39/106

/e reiterate that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescriedprocedures in the handling of the sei(ed drugs should e oserved. In People v.#alonga,$ we ac=uitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory andphotograph the confiscated items. /e also reversed a conviction in People v.Eutierre(,* for the failure of the uy+ust team to inventory and photograph thesei(ed items without justifiale grounds. People v. Cantalejo% also resulted in anac=uittal ecause no inventory or photograph was ever made y the police.

/e reached the same conclusions in the recent cases of People v. Capuno, %% Peoplev. ?orena,%& and People v. 5artine(,%@ all in oedience to the asic and elementaryprecept that the urden of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecutionwhich must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the wea'ness of thedefense. "t the ase, of course, is the constitutional presumption of innocenceunless and until the contrary is shown.

CHRISTIAN CABALLO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 198732, June 10, 2013

SEJUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A %! YEAR OLD GIRL BY A $3 YEAR OLD MAN

ON CERTAIN PROMISE SUCH AS MARRYING HER AS USE OF WITHDRAWALMETHOD IS CHILD ABUSE UNDER RA !&%K

The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child toengage in or assist another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lasciviousconduct or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with children.

To note, the term 8influence8 means the 8improper use of power or trust in any waythat deprives a person of free will and sustitutes another’s ojective.8&* 5eanwhile,8coercion8 is the 8improper use of x x x power to compel another to sumit to thewishes of one who wields it.8@

In view of the foregoing, the Court oserves that Caallo’s actuations may eclassified as 8coercion8 and 8influence8 within the purview of #ection A, "rticle III of R" -:%!

7irst, the most crucial element is """’s minority. It is undisputed that """ was only%- years old at the time of the commission of the crime and is hence, considered achild under the law.@% In this respect, """ was not capale of fully understanding or

'nowing the import of her actions and in conse=uence, remained vulnerale to thecajolery and deception of adults, as in this case.


40/106

7or purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child ause casesunder R" -:%, the sweetheart defense is unacceptale. " child exploited inprostitution or sujected to other sexual ause cannot validly give consent to sexualintercourse with another person.

The language of the law is clear! it see's to punish 8those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution orsujected to other sexual ause.8

;nli'e rape, therefore, consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of #ectionA, "rticle III of R" -:%. The mere act of having sexual intercourse or committinglascivious conduct with a child who is exploited in prostitution or sujected tosexual ause constitutes the offense. It is a malum prohiitum, an evil that isproscried.

" child cannot give consent to a contract under our civil laws. This is on therationale that she can easily e the victim of fraud as she is not capale of fully

understanding or 'nowing the nature or import of her actions. The #tate, as parenspatriae, is under the oligation to minimi(e the ris' of harm to those who, ecauseof their minority, are as yet unale to ta'e care of themselves fully. Those of tenderyears deserve its protection.

The harm which results from a child’s ad decision in a sexual encounter may einfinitely more damaging to her than a ad usiness deal. Thus, the law shouldprotect her from the harmful conse=uences of her attempts at adult sexualehavior. 7or this reason, a child should not e deemed to have validly consented toadult sexual activity and to surrender herself in the act of ultimate physical intimacyunder a law which see's to afford her special protection against ause, exploitation

and discrimination. 0Btherwise, sexual predators li'e petitioner will e justified, oreven unwittingly tempted y the law, to view her as fair game and vulnerale prey.1In other words, a child is presumed y law to e incapale of giving rationalconsent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. x x x x@& 03mphasis andunderscoring suppliedF citations omitted1

#econd, coupled with """’s minority is Caallo’s seniority. Records indicate thatCaallo was &@ years old at the time of the commission of the offense andtherefore, : years older than """, more or less. The age disparity etween an adultand a minor placed Caallo in a stronger position over """ so as to enale him toforce his will upon the latter.

Third, CaalloKs actions effectively constitute overt acts of coercion and influence. Records reveal that Caallo repeatedly assured """ of his love for her, and even,promised to marry her. In addition, he also guaranteed that she would not getpregnant since he would e using the 8withdrawal method8 for safety. Irrefragaly,these were meant to influence """ to set aside her reservations and eventuallygive into having sex with him, with which he succeeded.

D



41/106


42/106

To our mind, ?ino’s failure to state relevant details surrounding the police line+up isa glaring omission that renders unreliale Naldy’s out+ofcourt identification. )o wayexists for the courts to evaluate the factors used in determining the admissiilityand reliaility of out+of+court identifications, such as the level of certaintydemonstrated y the witness at the identificationF the length of time etween thecrime and the identificationF and the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.The asence of an independent in+court identification y Naldy additionally justifiesour strict treatment and assessment of ?ino’s testimony.

MEANING OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

/e point out that )ailgas was already under custodial investigation y theauthorities when he executed the alleged written confession. 8" custodialinvestigation is understood x x x as x x x any =uestioning initiated y lawenforcement authorities after a person is ta'en into custody or otherwise deprivedof his freedom of action in any significant manner. x x x It egins when there is no

longer a general in=uiry into an unsolved crime and the investigation has started tofocus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e., when the police investigator startsinterrogating or exacting a confession from the suspect in connection with analleged offense.&

In People v. Rape(a,&% we explained that the lawyer called to e present duringcustodial investigations should, as far as reasonaly possile, e the choice of theindividual undergoing =uestioning. If the lawyer is furnished y the police for theaccused, it is important that the lawyer should e competent, independent andprepared to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as distinguishedfrom one who would merely e giving a routine, peremptory and meaningless

recital of the individualKs constitutional rights.

"fter a close reading of the records, we rule that )ailgas’ confession was not madewith the assistance of a competent and independent counsel. The services of "tty.5elita Eo, the lawyer who acted in )ailgas’ ehalf, were provided y the verysame agency investigating )ailgas 6 the )


43/106

signing of the extrajudicial confession.8&& In addition, the extrajudicial confession of )ailgas was not corroorated y a witness who was present at the time the writtenconfession was made. /e note in this regard that the prosecution did not present"tty. Eo at the witness stand despite hints made during the early stages of the trialthat she would e presented.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ABEL DIAZ

G.R. No. 200882, June 13, 2013

TIME RUNS SLOWLY TO A WOMEN BEING RAPED BY MEANS OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE.

/e also affirm the finding of the Court of "ppeals that 5ara’s crediility was noteroded y her testimony that the accused+appellant tarried for two hours in herroom. The Court of "ppeals said it well! when one is eing raped, forcily held,

wea' and in great pain, and in shoc', she cannot e reasonaly expected to 'eep aprecise trac' of the passage of time down to the last minute.&A Indeed, for a womanundergoing the ordeal that 5ara underwent in the hands of the accused+appellant,every moment is li'e an eternity of hell and the transit of time is a painfully slowcrawl that she would rather forget. In addition, the precise duration of the rape isnot material to and does not negate the commission of the felony. Rape has noregard for time and place.&: It has een committed in all manner of situations andin circumstances thought to e inconceivale.

ABELARDO JANDUSAY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 185129, June 17, 2013

ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE

The courts a =uo were correct in convicting the petitioner of estafa.)*+phi) ;nder"rticle @%A, paragraph %01 of the RPC, the elements of estafa with ause of confidence are as follows! 0%1 that the money, goods or other personal property isreceived y the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or underany other oligation involving the duty to ma'e delivery of, or to return, the sameF0&1 that there e misappropriation or conversion of such money or property y theoffender, or denial on his part of such receiptF 0@1 that such misappropriation or

conversion or denial is to the prejudice of anotherF and 0D1 that there is demand ythe offended party to the offender.%% "s correctly found y the C"!

In the case at ar, the aforementioned elements have een sufficiently estalishedy the prosecution. It cannot e denied that accused+appellant, as Treasurer of C"?"P;P"TB>", received and held money for administration and in trust for theassociation. 9e was thus under an oligation to turnover the same upon conclusionof his term as Treasurer. Instead, however, he misappropriated the same to the

D@

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_191752_2013.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_200882_2013.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_200882_2013.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_185129_2013.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_185129_2013.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_191752_2013.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_200882_2013.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_200882_2013.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_185129_2013.html#fnt11


44/106

prejudice of the association and, despite demand, failed to account for or returnthem. #uch failure to account, upon demand, of funds or property held in trust iscircumstantial evidence of misappropriation.%& 0Citation omitted1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN, MYRACOLLADO Y SENICA, MARK CIPRIANO Y ROCERO, SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO Y

ENRIQUE,* AND REYNALDO RANADA Y ALAS**

G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013

ACCESSORIES ARE NOT LIABLE UNDER RA 9%&

#ince violation of #ection %D of R.". )o. *%:A is a crime of mala prohiita, thedegree of participation of the offenders is not considered. "ll who perpetrated theprohiited act are penali(ed to the same extent. There is no principal or accompliceor accessory to consider. In short, the degree of participation of the offenders does

not affect their liaility, and the penalty on all of them are the same whether theyare principals or merely accomplices or accessories.DD

In addition, #ection *$ of R" *%:A specifically provides that 82n4otwithstanding anylaw, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code 0"ct)o. @$%D1, as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this "ct, except in thecase of minor offenders. /here the offender is a minor, the penalty for actspunishale y life imprisonment to death provided herein shall e reclusionperpetua to death.8 It is therefore clear that the provisions of the Revised PenalCode, particularly "rticle %* on "ccessories, cannot e applied in determining thedegree of participation and criminal liaility of Ranada’s co+accused.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO

G.R. No. 191391, June 19, 2013

PRIOR SURVEILLANCE IS NOT NECESSARY IN BUY#BUST OPERATION

It must e stressed that prior surveillance is not a prere=uisite for the validity of anentrapment operation. This issue in the prosecution of illegal drugs cases, again,has long een settled y this Court. /e have een consistent in our ruling that priorsurveillance is not re=uired for a valid uy+ust operation, especially if the uy+ust

team is accompanied to the target area y their informant.:@

In People v. 3ugenio,:D the Court held that there is no re=uirement that priorsurveillance should e conducted efore a uy+ust operation can e underta'enespecially when the policemen are accompanied to the scene y their civilianinformant. Prior surveillance is not a prere=uisite for the validity of an entrapmentor a uy+ust operation, there eing no fixed or textoo' method for conductingone. /hen time is of essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior

DD

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_185129_2013.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_185719_2013.html#fnt44http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_191391_2013.html#fnt63http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_191391_2013.html#fnt64http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_185129_2013.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_185719_2013.html#fnt44http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_191391_2013.html#fnt63http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_191391_2013.html#fnt64


45/106

surveillance. The uy+ust operation conducted y PB% Castro and the rest of them,together with their civilian informant is justified y the urgency of the situation.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAMIL MORES

G.R. No. 189846, June 26, 2013

THROWING A GRENADE AT A DANCE FLOOR WHERE THERE ARE MANY

PEOPLE IS TREACHERY.

/e agree with the appellate court that the manner y which appellant delieratelyrolled the grenade on the ground towards the dance floor pac'ed with unsuspectingrevelers, leaving one dead and scores wounded in the aftermath of the sudden lastwas accompanied with treachery. "ppellant’s unexpected action which wasimmediately followed y the grenade’s lethal explosion left the victims with utterlyno chance to escape the last area nor to find protective cover. Though appellant

stood a short distance away, he 'nowingly positioned himself safely from the reachof the grenade’s destructive force. 7rom the foregoing, we can confidently concludethat treachery, as correctly pointed out y oth the trial court and the Court of "ppeals, was present in the commission of the crime charged.

VIRGINIA DE LOS SANTOS-DIO, as authorized representative of H.S. EQUITIES,

LTD., and WESTDALE ASSETS, LTD., vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,

JUDGE RAMON S. CAGUIOA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 74,

Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, and TIMOTHY J. DESMOND

G.R. No. 178947, June 26, 2013

DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE MAY BE EITHER EJECUTIVE OR

UDICIAL.

>etermination of proale cause may e either executive or judicial.

The first is made y the pulic prosecutor, during a preliminary investigation, wherehe is given road discretion to determine whether proale cause exists for thepurpose of filing a criminal information in court. /hether or not that function has

een correctly discharged y the pulic prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he hasmade a correct ascertainment of the existence of proale cause in a case, is amatter that the trial court itself does not and may not e compelled to pass upon.D-

The second is one made y the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrestshould e issued against the accused. In this respect, the judge must satisfyhimself that, on the asis of the evidence sumitted, there is a necessity for placingthe accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge,

DA



46/106


47/106

WHEN IT IS PROPER FOR A UDGE TO DISMISS CASE AFTER INFORMATIONIS FILED.

?est it e misconceived, trial judges will do well to rememer that when a perceivedgap in the evidence leads to a 8neither this nor that8 conclusion, a purposefulresolution of the amiguity is preferale over a doutful dismissal of the case.Herily, a judgeKs discretion to dismiss a case immediately after the filing of theinformation in court is appropriate only when the failure to estalish proale causecan e clearly inferred from the evidence presented and not when its existence issimply doutful. "fter all, it cannot e expected that upon the filing of theinformation in court the prosecutor would have already presented all the evidencenecessary to secure a conviction of the accused, the ojective of a previously+conducted preliminary investigation eing merely to determine whether there issufficient ground, to engender a well+founded elief that a crime has eencommitted and that the respondent is proaly guilty thereof and should e held for

trial.A* In this light, given that the lac' of proale cause had not een clearlyestalished in this case, the C" erred, and the RTC gravely aused its discretion, yruling to dismiss Criminal Case )os. A%A+&D and A%:+&D. Indeed, these casesmust stand the muster of a full+lown trial where the parties could e given, asthey should e given, the opportunity to ventilate their respective claims anddefenses, on the asis of which the court a =uo can properly resolve the factualdisputes therein.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DATU NOT ABDUL

G.R. No. 186137, June 26, 2013

MEANING OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE, WHEN THE SAME IS NOT

FOLLOWED RESULTING TO AC'UITTAL

The chain+of+custody rule is a method of authenticating evidence, y which thecorpus delicti presented in court is shown to e one and the same as that whichwas retrieved from the accused or from the crime scene. @* This rule, when appliedto drug cases, re=uires a more stringent application, ecause the corpus delicti 6the narcotic sustance − is not readily identifiale and must e sujected to

scientific analysis to determine its composition and nature.D 5alillin v.PeopleD% explains this rigorous standard when it comes to the chain of custody of

narcotic sustances!

xxx the chain of custody rule re=uires that the admission of an exhiit e precededy evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in =uestion is what theproponent claims it to e. It would include testimony aout every lin' in the chain,from the moment the item was pic'ed up to the time it was offered into evidence,in such a way that every person who touched the exhiit would descrie how andfrom whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the

D-

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_178947_2013.html#fnt59http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186137_2013.html#fnt39http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186137_2013.html#fnt40http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186137_2013.html#fnt41http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_178947_2013.html#fnt59http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186137_2013.html#fnt39http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186137_2013.html#fnt40http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_186137_2013.html#fnt41


48/106

witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition inwhich it was delivered to the next lin' in the chain. These witnesses would thendescrie the precautions ta'en to ensure that there had een no change in thecondition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to havepossession of the same. 03mphasis supplied1

9ence, every lin' in the chain of custody must not show any possiility of tampering, alteration or sustitution.D&9owever, it is accepted that a perfect chain isnot the standard.D@ )onetheless, two crucial lin's must e complied with. 7irst, thesei(ed illegal drug must e mar'ed in the presence of the accused and immediatelyupon confiscation. This mar'ing must e supported y details on how, when, andwhere the mar'ing was done, as well as the witnesses to the mar'ing. #econd, theturnover of the sei(ed drugs at every stage 6 from confiscation from the accused,transportation to the police station, conveyance to the chemistry la, andpresentation to the court − must e shown and sustantiated

CARLOS L. TANENGGEE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013

WHEN RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS AVAILABLE.

Custodial interrogation means any =uestioning initiated y law enforcementauthorities after a person is ta'en into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedomof action in any significant manner. Indeed, a person under custodial investigation isguaranteed certain rights which attach upon the commencement thereof, vi(! 0%1 toremain silent, 0&1 to have competent and independent counsel preferaly of his ownchoice, and 0@1 to e informed of the two other rights aove. %* In the present case,while it is undisputed that petitioner gave an uncounselled written statementregarding an anomaly discovered in the ranch he managed, the following areclear! 0%1 the =uestioning was not initiated y a law enforcement authority utmerely y an internal affairs manager of the an'F and, 0&1 petitioner was neitherarrested nor restrained of his lierty in any significant manner during the=uestioning. Clearly, petitioner cannot e said to e under custodial investigationand to have een deprived of the constitutional prerogative during the ta'ing of hiswritten statement.

5oreover, in Remolona v. Civil #ervice Commission,& we declared that the right tocounsel 8applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation ut not tothose made in an administrative investigation.8 "mplifying further on the matter,

the Court made clear in the recent case of Caronel v. Civil #ervice Commission!&%

9owever, it must e rememered that the right to counsel under #ection %& of the


49/106

9ere, petitioner’s written statement was given during an administrative in=uiryconducted y his employer in connection with an anomalyirregularity he allegedlycommitted in the course of his employment. )o error can therefore e attriuted tothe courts elow in admitting in evidence and in giving due consideration topetitioner’s written statement as there is no constitutional impediment to itsadmissiility.

Petitioner’s written statement was given voluntarily, 'nowingly and intelligently.

FALSIFICATION AS A NECESSARY MEANS TO COMMIT ESTAFA

/hen the offender commits on a pulic, official or commercial document any of theacts of falsification enumerated in "rticle %-% as a necessary means to commitanother crime li'e estafa, theft or malversation, the two crimes form a complexcrime. ;nder "rticle D$ of the RPC, there are two classes of a complex crime. "complex crime may refer to a single act which constitutes two or more grave or lessgrave felonies or to an offense as a necessary means for committing another.

In >omingo v. People,@: we held!

The falsification of a pulic, official, or commercial document may e a means of committing estafa, ecause efore the falsified document is actually utili(ed todefraud another, the crime of falsification has already een consummated, damageor intent to cause damage not eing an element of the crime of falsification of pulic, official or commercial document. In other words, the crime of falsificationhas already existed. "ctually utili(ing that falsified pulic, official or commercialdocument to defraud another is estafa. eceit is the falserepresentation of a matter of fact, whether y words or conduct, y false ormisleading allegations, or y concealment of that which should have een disclosedwhich deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to hislegal injury.8@$

The elements of estafa otain in this case.


50/106

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMAN ZAFRA y SERRANO

G.R. No. 197363, June 26, 2013

DEFENSE OF RETRACTION IS NOT FAVORED.

Courts loo' upon retractions with considerale disfavor ecause they are generallyunreliale. To explain the rationale for rejecting recantations, this Court, in Peoplev. "lejo,D% =uoting Chief ustice Reynato #. Puno, held!

5ere retraction y a witness or y complainant of his or her testimony does notnecessarily vitiate the original testimony or statement, if credile. The general ruleis that courts loo' with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given incourt. x x x. The reason is ecause affidavits of retraction can easily e securedfrom poor and ignorant witnesses, usually through intimidation or for monetary

consideration. 5oreover, there is always the proaility that they will later erepudiated and there would never e an end to criminal litigation. It would also e adangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies solemnly ta'en efore courts of

justice simply ecause the witnesses who had given them later on changed theirminds for one reason or another. This would ma'e solemn trials a moc'ery andplace the investigation of the truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.

7urther propounding on retractions, usually contained in affidavits of desistance, wesaid in People v. "lca(arD&!

/e have said in so many cases that retractions are generally unreliale and are

loo'ed upon with disfavor y the courts. The unreliale character of this documentis shown y the fact that it is =uite incredile that after going through the processof having the 2appellant4 arrested y the police, positively identifying him as theperson who raped her, enduring the humiliation of a physical examination of herprivate parts, and then repeating her accusations in open court y recounting heranguish, 2the rape victim4 would suddenly turn around and declare that after acareful delieration over the case, 0she1 find0s1 that the same does not merit orwarrant criminal prosecution.

Thus, we have declared that at most the retraction is an afterthought which shouldnot e given proative value. It would e a dangerous rule to reject the testimonyta'en efore the court of justice simply ecause the witness who gave it later onchanged his mind for one reason or another. #uch a rule would ma'e a solemn triala moc'ery and place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.


51/106

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEMARIE JALBONIAN alias "Budo"

G.R. No. 180281, July 01, 2013

WHEN TREACHERY IS PRESENT

The 'illing committed in this case is neither parricide nor infanticide and the samewas attended with treachery. 8There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in theexecution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, withoutris' to himself arising from the defense which the offended party mightma'e.8D& 8The essence of treachery is that the attac' comes without a warning andin a swift, delierate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, andunsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.8D@

In this case, treachery is evident from the fact that the victim could not have eenaware of the imminent peril to his life. 9e was unprepared for the sudden,unexpected and unprovo'ed attac' on his person when appellant staed his ac'with a 'nife then swiftly run away. Clearly, appellant’s execution of the 'illing leftthe victim with no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate.

MAJOR JOEL G. CANTOS, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 184908, July 3, 2013

MALVERSATION MAY BE COMMITTED EITHER INTENTIONALLY OR BY

NEGLIGENCE

5alversation is committed either intentionally or y negligence. The dolo or theculpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony.3ven if the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved and conviction thereof is proper.& "ll that is necessary forconviction is sufficient proof that the accountale officer had received pulic funds,that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefor was made, and

that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. >irect evidence of personal misappropriation y the accused is hardly necessary as long as theaccused cannot explain satisfactorily the shortage in his accounts. &% To our mind,the evidence in this case is thoroughly inconsistent with petitionerKs claim of innocence. Thus, we sustain the #andiganayanKs finding that petitionerKs guilt haseen proven eyond reasonale dout.

A%

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_180281_2013.html#fnt42http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_180281_2013.html#fnt43http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_184908_2013.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_184908_2013.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_180281_2013.html#fnt42http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_180281_2013.html#fnt43http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_184908_2013.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_184908_2013.html#fnt21


52/106

/93R37BR3, the petition is >3)I3>. The >ecision dated uly @%, &$ of the#andiganayan in Criminal Case )o. # and ;P93?>.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. GARY VERGARA y ORIEL and JOSEPH

INOCENCIO1 y PAULINO,

G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013

WHEN THREAT AMOUNTS TO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

;nlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict realimminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must e offensive and strong,positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It 8presupposes actual,sudden, unexpected or imminent danger + not merely threatening and intimidatingaction.8 It is present 8only when the one attac'ed faces real and immediate threatto one’s life.8WHEN LOSS OF EARNING MAY BE PROVEN WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY

EVIDENCE


53/106

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ROMEO ONIZA Y ONG

AND MERCY ONIZA Y CABARLE,

G.R. No. 202709, July 3, 2013

WHEN POLICE OFFICERS FAILED TO USTIFY THEIR FAILURE TO

INVENTORY THE DRUGS AND TO PHOTOGRAPH THEM, IT IS FATAL.

et, the police officers did not other to offer any sort of reason or justification fortheir failure to ma'e an inventory and ta'e pictures of the drugs immediately aftertheir sei(ure in the presence of the accused and the other persons designated ythe law.


54/106

charged are the facts alleged in the information. The Court’s ruling in ;.#. v. ?im#an is instructive!

x x x )otwithstanding the apparent contradiction etween caption and ody, weelieve that we ought to say and hold that the characteri(ation of the crime y the

fiscal in the caption of the information is immaterial and purposeless, and that thefacts stated in the ody of the pleading must determine the crime of which thedefendant stands charged and for which he must e tried. The estalishment of thisdoctrine is permitted y the Code of Criminal Procedure, and is thoroughly in accordw

Documents

2013summarryofcases SPL