Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 73

PUERTO V.

PEOPLE

G.R. Nos. 209655-60, January 14, 2015

Facts:

A judicious review of the records reveals TGICIs modus operandi of inducing the public to invest
in it on the undertaking that their investment would be returned with a very high monthly interest
rate ranging from three to five and a half percent (3%-5.5%). Under such lucrative promise, the
investing public are enticed to infuse funds into TGICI. However, as the directors/incorporators of
TGICI knew from the start that TGICI is operating without any paid-up capital and has no clear
trade by which it can pay the assured profits to its investors, they cannot comply with their
guarantee and had to simply abscond with their investors money. Thus, the CA correctly held that
accused-appellants, along with the other accused who are still at large, used TGICI to engage in a
Ponzi scheme, resulting in the defraudation of the TGICI investors.

Issue:
1. What is Ponzi scheme?
2. Whether or not not accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Syndicated Estafa defined and penalized under Item 2 (a), Paragraph 4, Article 315 of the
RPC in relation to PD 1689.cra
Held:

1. A Ponzi scheme is a type of investment fraud that involves the payment of purported
returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Its organizers often
solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high
returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the perpetrators focus on attracting
new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false
appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business.45 It is not an investment
strategy but a gullibility scheme, which works only as long as there is an ever increasing
number of new investors joining the scheme.46 It is difficult to sustain the scheme over a
long period of time because the operator needs an ever larger pool of later investors to
continue paying the promised profits to early investors. The idea behind this type of
swindle is that the con-man collects his money from his second or third round of
investors and then absconds before anyone else shows up to collect. Necessarily, Ponzi
schemes only last weeks, or months at the most.47chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
2. Yes. Section 1 of PD 1689 defines Syndicated Estafa as
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Section 1. Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other forms of swindling as
defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be punished
by life imprisonment to death if the swindling (estafa) is committed by a syndicate
consisting of five or more persons formed with the intention of carrying out the unlawful
or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the defraudation results in the
misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperatives, samahang nayon(s), or farmers associations, or funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.
Thus, the elements of Syndicated Estafa are: (a) Estafa or other forms of swindling, as
defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC,, is committed; (b) the Estafa or swindling is
committed by a syndicate of five (5) or more persons; and (c) defraudation results in the
misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperative, samahang nayon(s), or farmers associations, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.42chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

In this light, it is clear that all the elements of Syndicated Estafa, committed through a
Ponzi scheme,are present in this case, considering that: (a) the incorporators/directors of
TGICI comprising more than five (5) people, including herein accused-appellants,, made
false pretenses and representations to the investing public in this case,the private
complainants regarding a supposed lucrative investment opportunity with TGICI in order
to solicit money from them; (b) the said false pretenses and representations were made
prior to or simultaneous with the commission of fraud; (c) relying on the same, private
complainants invested their hard earned money into TGICI; and (d) the
incorporators/directors of TGICI ended up running away with the private complainants
investments, obviously to the latters prejudice.
PEOPLE V. PALIZA
G.R. No. 202687 January 14, 2015

Facts:

The series of events that led the police to the house where the pot session was conducted and to
their arrest were triggered by a "tip" from a concerned citizen that a "pot session" was in progress
at the house of a certain "Obet" at Baranggay Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna. Under the circumstances,
the police did not have enough time to secure a search warrant considering the "time element"
involved in the process (i.e., a pot session may not bean extended period of time and it was then
9:00 p.m.). In view of the urgency, SPO3 Melchor dela Pea immediately dispatched his men to
proceed to the identified place to verify the report. At the place, the responding police officers
verified through a small opening in the window and saw the accused-appellants and their other
two (2) companions sniffing "shabu" to use the words of PO2 Bautista. There was therefore
sufficient probable cause for the police officers to believe that the accused-appellants were then
and there committing a crime. As it turned out, the accused-appellants indeed possessed and were
even using a prohibited drug, contrary to law. When an accused is caught in flagrante delicto, the
police officers are not.

Appellants claim that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody because the police
operatives failed to strictly comply with Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165.

Issue:

Whether or not there was chain of custody.

Held:

Yes. The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.

Contrary to what the [appellants] want to portray, the chain of custody of the seized prohibited
drug was shown not to have been broken. After the seizure of the plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance from the [appellants'] possession and of the various drug paraphernalia in the
living room, the police immediately brought the [appellants] to the police station, together with
the seized items. PO3 Parunggao himself brought these items to the police station and marked
them. The plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance was marked "JB" and "JP". These
confiscated items were immediately turned over by PO2 Bautista to the PNP Regional Crime
Laboratory Office Calabarzon, Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City for examination to determine
the presence of dangerous drugs. After a qualitative examination conducted on the specimens,
Forensic Chemist Lorna Ravelas Tria concluded that the plastic sachets recovered from the
accused-appellants tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a prohibited drug, per
Chemistry Report Nos. D-0381-05 and D-0382-05.
PEOPLE V. MAGTAGNOB

G.R. No. 201151 January 14, 2015

Facts:

The findings of the Trial Court showed that appellant is guilty of the crime of rape, qualified by
minority and relationship. Both qualifying circumstances were sufficiently alleged in the
information admitted by the accused during pre-trial. The trial court held appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of rape and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The conviction or acquittal of one accused of rape most often depends almost entirely on the
credibility of the complainants testimony. By the very nature of this crime, it is generally
unwitnessed and usually the victim is left to testify for herself. Her testimony is most vital and
must be received with the utmost caution. When a rape victims testimony, however, is
straightforward and marked with consistency despite grueling examination, it deserves full faith
and confidence and cannot be discarded. Once found credible, her lone testimony is sufficient to
sustain a conviction.

Issue:

Whether or not the penalty was proper.

Held:

Yes. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty shall be imposed when the
victim is below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of
the parent of the victim. However, in view of Republic Act No. 9346, we cannot impose the penalty
of death. In lieu thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole as
correctly imposed by the trial court.

In conformance with the prevailing jurisprudence however, we deem it proper to modify the
amount of damages awarded in this case. In People v. Gambao,23 we increased the amounts of
indemnity and damage where the penalty for the crime committed is punishable by death which
cannot however be imposed because of Republic Act No. 9346.
PEOPLE V. DUMANSAL

G.R. No. 202837, January 21, 2015

Facts:

After receiving reliable information from a police asset that appellant is actively engaged in selling
illegal drugs, a team composed of PO1 Condez, PO2 Virtudazo and the police asset was formed
to conduct a buy-bust operation at Purok 3, Barangay 23, Holy Redeemer, Butuan City, against
the appellant. PO1 Condez was designated to act as the poseur-buyer with PO2 Virtudazo as his
back-up. The team brought with them the amount of P20,000.00 as show
money.7chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Appellant was caught in flagrante possessing 12.882 grams of shabu, a dangerous drug, packed in
four big sachets. His possession of said dangerous drugs is not authorized by law. And he was
freely and consciously possessing the contraband as shown by his act of handing these four sachets
to PO1 Condez in an intended sale. We note that appellant was positively identified by PO1
Condez as the one who handed over the four sachets. However, the money was not given to
appellant as it was intended only as show money.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellants guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:

Yes. The essential elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possess the said drug. It is a settled
rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution
witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular
manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, appellant failed to present
clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the arresting officers regularly
performed their duties. Except for his bare allegations of denial and frame-up that a certain
Muslim was behind his arrest, nothing supports his claim that the police officers were impelled by
improper motives to testify against him. In fact, in his direct testimony, appellant was asked
whether he knew said Muslim but despite the opportunity given to him, he failed to identify him
in court.
PEOPLE V. LAM

G.R. No. 206832 January 21, 2015

Facts:

On or about the 14th day of April 2004, in the Municipality or Rodriguez, Province of Rizal,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another person one (1)
heat scaled transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance, which
gave positive result to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu.

On 29 August 2012, a Notice of Appeal7 was filed by Morales through counsel before the Supreme
Court.

While this case is pending appeal, the Inmate Documents and Processing Division Officer-in-
Charge Emerenciana M. Divina8 informed the Court that accused-appellant Morales died while
committed at the Bureau of Corrections on 2 November 2013 as evidenced by a copy of Death
Report9 signed by New Bilibid Prison Hospital's Medical Officer Ursicio D. Cenas.

Issue:

Whether or not the death of accused-appellant pending appeal of his conviction, extinguishes his
civil and criminal liabilities.

Held:

Yes. Under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code:


Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. x x x x
Ordinarily, both the civil and criminal liabilities are extinguished upon the death of the accused
pending appeal of his conviction by the lower courts.
However, a violation of Republic Act No. 9165 does not entail any civil liability.1wphi1 No civil
liability needs extinguishment.
PEOPLE V. VILLANUEVA

G.R. No. 212932, January 21, 2015

Facts:

That on or about March 22, 2002, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring
and confederating together with one whose true name, real identity and present whereabouts are
still unknown and mutually helping each other, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence
and intimidation, to wit: by then and there poking a gun at one SPO1 RAYMUNDO B.
MANAOIS, forcibly grabbing and snatching his Nokia 3210 cellular phone, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away the same valued at P6,000.00 against
his will, to the damage and prejudice of the said SPO1 RAYMUNDO B. MANAOIS in the
aforesaid amount of P6,000.00 Philippine Currency; thereafter shooting said SPO1 RAYMUNDO
B. MANAOIS with an unknown caliber firearm, hitting him at the back, and as a result thereof, he
sustained mortal gunshot wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.

In his defense, Balute denied having any knowledge of the charges against him. He
maintained, inter alia, that on March 22, 2002, he was at the shop of a certain Leticia Nicol (Nicol)
wherein he worked as a pedicab welder from 8:00 oclock in the morning until 10:00 oclock in
the evening, and did not notice any untoward incident that day as he was busy working the entire
time. Nicol corroborated Balutes story, and imputed liability on Blaster and a certain
Intoy.7chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Issue:

Whether or not the conviction of the crime of Robbery with Homicide proper.

Held:
Yes. In People v. Ibaez,15 the Court exhaustively explained that [a] special complex crime of
robbery with homicide takes place when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on the
occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must
prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with
intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion
or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. A
conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and [the] objective of the
malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the
taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.16 Homicide is
said to have been committed by reason or on occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed:
(a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit
of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses
in the commission of the crime.
The prosecution was able to establish the fact that Balute poked his gun at SPO1 Manaois, took
the latters mobile phone, and thereafter, shot him, resulting in his death despite surgical and
medical intervention. This is buttressed by Cristita and Blesildas positive identification of Balute
as the one who committed the crime as opposed to the latters denial and alibi which was correctly
considered by both the RTC and the CA as weak and self-serving, as it is well-settled that alibi
and denial are outweighed by positive identification that is categorical, consistent and untainted
by any ill motive on the part of the [eyewitnesses] testifying on the matter.18This is especially
true when the eyewitnesses are the relatives of the victim such as Cristita and Blesilda who are
the wife and daughter of SPO1 Manaois, respectively since [t]he natural interest of witnesses,
who are relatives of the victim, in securing the conviction of the guilty would actually deter them
from implicating persons other than the true culprits.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
PEOPLE V. DE CASTRO
G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015

Protection against self-incrimination and Estafa

FACTS
The petitioner, a bank teller of the BPI Family Savings Bank (BPI Family) at its branch in
Malibay, Pasay City, appeals the affirmance of her conviction for four counts of estafa through
falsification of a commercial document committed on separate occasions in October and
November 1993 by forging the signatures of bank depositors Amparo Matuguina and Milagrosa
Cornejo in withdrawal slips, thereby enabling herself to withdraw a total of P65,000.00 and
P2,000.00 from the respective savings accounts of Matuguina and Cornejo.
In her appeal, the petitioner still insists that her conviction was invalid because her constitutional
rights against self-incrimination, to due process and to counsel were denied. In behalf of the
State, the Office of the Solicitor General counters that she could invoke her rights to remain
silent and to counsel only if she had been under custodial investigation, which she was not; and
that the acts of her counsel whom she had herself engaged to represent her and whom she had the
full authority to replace at any time were binding against her.c
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners conviction proper.
Held:
Yes. First, it was stressed that the rights against self-incrimination and to counsel guaranteed
under the Constitution is applied only during the custodial interrogation of a suspect. In her case,
she was not subjected to any investigation by the police or other law enforcement agents.
Instead, she underwent an administrative investigation as an employee of the BPI Family
Savings Bank, the investigation being conducted by her superiors. She was not coerced to give
evidence against herself, or to admit to any crime, but she simply broke down bank when
depositors Matuguina and Cornejo confronted her about her crimes.
Second, the accused argument against her conviction by contending that she did not get effective
legal representation from her former counsel who was already old and feeble when the case was
being heardmust also fail. The records show, that her counsel died during the pendency of the
case. Except for the several postponements incurred by her counsel, there is really no showing
that he committed any serious blunder during the trial.

The guilt of the petitioner for four counts of estafa through falsification of a commercial
document was established beyond reasonable doubt. As a bank teller, she took advantage of the
bank depositors who had trusted in her enough to leave their passbooks with her upon her
instruction. Without their knowledge, however, she filled out withdrawal slips that she signed,
and misrepresented to her fellow bank employees that the signatures had been verified in due
course. Her misrepresentation to her co-employees enabled her to receive the amounts stated in
the withdrawal slips. She thereby committed two crimes, namely: estafa, by defrauding BPI
Family Savings, her employer, in the various sums withdrawn from the bank accounts of
Matuguina and Cornejo; and falsification of a commercial document, by forging the signatures of
Matuguina and Cornejo in the withdrawal slips to make it appear that the depositor concerned
had signed the respective slips in order to enable her to withdraw the amounts. Such offenses
were complex crimes, because the estafa would not have been consummated without the
falsification of the withdrawal slips.
PEOPLE V. ALAGARME
G.R. No. 184789. February 23, 2015
R.A No. 9165
Facts:
That on or about the 14th day of march, 2015, in the city of Makati, the above named accused, without
necessary license and prescription and without being authorized by law, sell, deliver and give away
P200.00 worth of Shabo weighing 0.3 grams, a dangerous drug.
The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged against her.
The appellant appealed to the CA contending that the prosecution patent noncompliance with the
requirements under section 21 of the R.A No. 9165 warranted her acquittal. The CA however, affirmed
the conviction of the accused.
ISSUE; Whether or not the CA erred in finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation
of section 2 and section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165.
RULING
The importance of the state establishing a preserved chain of custody in every criminal prosecution for the
illegal sale of dangerous drug cannot be understated. The accused cannot be pronounced guilty of the
offense if all the links of custody of the drug subject of the illegal sale- the corpus delicti itself- are not
shown. The reason is that the drug presented as evidence at the trial is not shown beyond reasonable
doubt that it was the drug subject of the illegal sale.
PEOPLE VS. CASAS
G.R. No. 212565. February 25, 2015
MURDER
FACTS:
Two criminal information were filed against Casas of the murder of the Joel and frustrated murder of the
Eligio.
The RTC convicted the accused with the two crimes charged against him.
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC but with modification.
Not being contented with the decision of the lower court, the accused appealed before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: whether or not the conviction of the lower court of the two crimes charged against the accused be
overturned invoking the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
RULING: NO. Casas in this case failed to prove any unlawful aggression on the part of Joel or Eligio,
which is a condition sine qua non for self-defense to be appreciated. As a case law puts it, there can be no
self-defense unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-
defense. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be actual, sudden and unexpected attack or
eminent danger thereof, not merely or threatening attitude.
PEOPLE VS. GALLANO
G.R. No. 184762. February 25, 2015
RAPE
FACTS:
That on or about January 2, 2003, in silay City, the above named accused had carnal knowledge with his
niece, AAA, a 12-year-old minor, against the latters will.
The aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship are present.
The RTC convicted Gallano of rape, qualified by minority and relationship.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, the testimony of the AAA had been tainted with improbabilities and contraries to human
experience, and that the guilt of the accused is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
The SC affirmed the conviction of gallano, but the characterization of the crime as qualified rape is set
aside. He could be held guilty only for simple rape.
To convict the accused charged with qualified rape instead of rape in its simple form not only condemns
him to a more serious offences but also exposes him to an ever greater liabilities. As such, the state is
mandated to sufficiently allege in the information and to competently prove during trial the qualifying
circumstance of minority and relationship with the same certainty as the crime itself.
NOTE; the accused may be convicted of the crime of rape solely on the victims testimony provided such
testimony is logical, credible, consistent and convincing.
BENABAYE V. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 203466. February 25, 201
ESTAFA
FACTS: Benabaye in this case was assigned as a collector or to accept loan payment of the Siams bank
and issue provisional receipts. That upon audit, it was found that there were money collected by the
accused not remitted by the accused evidenced by the provisional receipts issued by the latter. The ban
sued the accused for the crime of Estafa.
The RTC convicted the accused of the said crime.
The CA upheld the decision of the lower court.
ISSUE:
The accused appealed before the Supreme Court contending that she should not be convicted of the crime
charged against her being only a collector and she do not have juridical possession over the said missing
money.
HELD:
The SC affirmed the appeal of the accused. To be guilty of estafa, the prosecution should prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused had material and juridical possession of the money alleged to be
missing. In the present case, being a collector of the payment of loans of the clients of the said bank
merely give material possession to the accused and not juridical possession. Hence, the decision of the
lower courts were set aside and the crime charged against the latter is dismissed without cause.
PEOPLE V. MERCADO
G.R. No. 207988. March 11, 2015
RA 9165
FACTS;
Mercado was charged of violation of sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA No. 9165. That on or about the
27th day of July 2007, the above named accused delivered to SPO3 Ramon galvez who posed as a buyer, a
plastic sachet of shabu weighing 0.2 grams, a dangerous drug, without corresponding license nor
authorized by law. Also, he was charged under RA 9165 for the alleged possession of the said dangerous
drug falling under the purview of the said law.
The RTC convicted the accused of the crimes charged against him.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.
The accused appealed before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not he RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to
convict the accused of the alleged sale and possession of shabu in violation of section 5 and 11,
respectively, of R.A 9165.
RULING
The SC upheld the decision of the lower courts.
The court has no valid reason to depart from the time honored doctrine that where the issue is one of the
credibility of the witnesses, and in the case their testimonies as well, the findings of the trail court are not
to be disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value which have been plainly
overlooked, might affect the result of the case. Also, that the accused failed to present contrary and
convincing evidence to prove otherwise the conviction.
PEOPLE V. DE LEON
G.R. No. 197546. March 23, 2015
MURDER
FACTS:
De leon et al, conspired among others to rob one Emilio Prasmo. Armed with sumpak, lead pipe, samurai
and 38 caliber, inflicted serious and grave wounds to the said victim resulting to his immediate death.
During the arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.
The RTC, however rejected the testimony of the Erlinda due to the alleged inconsistencies in the
sinumpaang salaysay. On the other hand, the RTC convicted the accused of the crime or murder.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court but reversed the decision of the RTC on the credibility of
the testimony of Elinda.
ISSUE: whether or not the decision of the lower court valid?
RULING; the court upheld the conviction of the accused in the case. The court however found
unmeritorious the contention of the accused that they were acting in self-defense because they failed to
prove the third element of the self-defense which is lack of provocation in the part of the person
defending himself.
PEOPLE V. MATIBAG
G.R. No. 206381. March 25, 2015
MURDER
FACTS
Matibag in this case was charged of the crime of murder for allegedly killing with the use of unlicensed
firearm, one Enrico who died as a result of the several gun shots. PO2 Falejo positively identified the
accused and arrested the latter on the night. The accused denied the said allegation contending that on the
time of the said crime, he was a despidida party.
The RTC convicted the accused of the crime charged against him. The court refused to give credence on
the accused contention that he acted in self-defense but failed to prove the existence of unlawful
aggression on the part of the offended party. The RTC also appreciated the presence of treachery
attendant in the case because of the sudden attack made by the accused.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court in toto.
ISSUE: whether or not the CA correctly upheld the conviction of Matibag for murder.
RULING;
The court affirmed the decision of the lower court and finds no reason to deviate from such decision. The
element of murder such as:
a. A person was killed
b. The accused killed him
c. The killing was attended by the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC
d. And the killing is not parricide nor infanticide.
PEOPLE V. ROLLO
G.R. No. 211199. March 25, 2015
R.A 9165
FACTS
The accused in the case was charge of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drug and was caught
in a buy bust operation. The accused denied the said allegation that during the commission of the crime,
he was about to go to his cousin for the payment of the battery where he was apprehended and was shown
plastics of the alleged shabu. He was drugged in a hut nearby where he was searched and then latter
brought to the police station.
The RTC convicted the accused of the crime charged.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.
ISSUE; whether or not the conviction of the accused was proper.
RULLING: Yes. The conviction was proper given that facts that elements of illegal sale were dully
established by the prosecution being caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust
operation.
The appellant contends that the accused be acquitted of the crime charge because of the prosecution
inconsistencies of their witnesses testimony of the alleged quantity of the shabu seized in the said
operation. However, the SC ruled that mere inconsistencies do not affect eh substance of declaration,
veracity and weight of testimony.
NOTE: the nonpresentation of the weighing scale is not vital for the conviction of the accused for illegal
sale of shabu- a weighing scale is merely an instrument for determining the quantity of sahbu and has
nothing to do with the elements of the illegal sale of shabu.
Pre-operation /coordination sheet and the use of dusted money are not indispensable to prove the illegal
sale of shabu- these two are not part of the elements of the aforesaid crime.
PEOPLE V. SORIN
G.R. No. 212635. March 25, 2015
R.A 9165
FACTS
The accused in this case was charged in violation of R.A 9165. That during the buy-bust operation
conducted by police officers of Misamis. That at around 7; 30 in the evening, when the police officer
went knocking at the door of the accused, he let them in. when they asked if they could buy a shabu, the
accused hand them 2 sachet of shabu pricing them at 200 pesos each. Upon confirmation of the content of
the sachet, the accused was invited outside where the team of the buy-bust operation was introduced. The
accused was arrested. The latter then contended that the police officers planted such evidence and that no
buy-bust operation was conducted in the said date alleged in the information.
The RTC convicted the accused of the crime charged.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.
ISSUE; whether or not the decision of the lower court be upheld.
RULING: the SC set aside the decision of the lower CA because the court finds that the prosecution
failed to establish the identity of the substance allegedly confiscated from Sorin due to unjustified gaps in
the chain of custody, thus warranting his acquittal.
BUAT VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 206267. March 25, 2015
RAPE
FACTS
The accused was charged of the crime of rape for raping his alleged sister-in-law who slept at their house.
That on or about 2 A.M, the accused lied on top of the accused. The victim tried to refuse the act of the
accused but failed as she was threatened by the accused with a knife.
The next morning, the victim told the incident to his father and went directly to the police station and to
the hospital to have her checkup.
The accused was charged of the crime of rape.
The RTS convicted the accused charged against him.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sole contention of the accused in the case be given credence by the Court.
RULING
The Court ruled that the factual finding of the trial courts involving credibility are accorded respect when
no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusion
can be gathered from such finding.
Factual finding of the trail courts, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of
their probative weight are given great respect of not conclusive effect, unless it ignored, misconstrued and
misunderstood or misinterpreted congent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered,
would alter the outcome of the case.
ASISTIO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 200465. April 15, 2015
ESTAFA
FACTS
The accused in this case is the managing director of the schools cooperative. That on or about July 27,
1998, in violation of her reposed duty, she entered with the Coca-Cola products a contract over which she
acted in her personal capacity and not on behalf of the said school. When requested to submit audit report,
she refused contending that the principal of the school has no authority to require such report from her.
The school then conducted audit and found out that the amount of 105,000 were alleged to be defrauded
starting from 1998 to 2001.
During the arraignment, she pleaded not guilty.
The accused however, contends that the RTC have no jurisdiction over the said case because it should fall
under the purview of the MTC. The CA however, affirmed that the RTC have the lawful jurisdiction.
The CA convicted the accused of the crime of falsification of private document under article 172 of the
Revised Penal Code and that of violation of section 46 of RA 6938.
The accused however, appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging that the conviction of the former would
amount to double jeopardy.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction of the accused under the two laws would fall under the purview of
double jeopardy.
RULING:
Verily, there is nothing common or similar between the essential elements of the crimes of falsification of
private document under article 172 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines and that of section 46 of
R.A No. 6936. As neither in the said crimes can be said to be necessarily include or is necessarily
included in the other, the third requisite of double jeopardy if for the same offense as in the first-is,
therefore, absent. Not only their elements are different, they also have distinct in nature, the former is
malum in se, as what it makes it a felony is criminal intent on the part of the offender, while the latter is
malum prohibitum, as what it makes a crime is the special law enacting it.
IMBO VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 197712. April 20, 2015
RAPE
FACTS;
That on or about October 14, 2003 up to January 25, 2004, the above named accused, with force and
intimidation, committed the act of lasciviousness upon his own daughter, 11 years of age, forcing her to
remove her shorts, mashing her breast and private parts, and kissing her and licking her vagina. The
victim tried to shout three times trying to wake her mother who was asleep but to no avail. The next
morning, the victim told her mother about what happened during the night. The mother confronted her
husband which resulted to a fight between them. The mother of the victim no initiated a case against her
husband of the crime of act of lasciviousness against his own daughter.
The trail court convicted the accused of the crime charged.
The accused move the case to the CA alleging that the testimony of the victim is not enough to sustain his
conviction there being found loopholes and inconsistencies.
The RTC however, averred that the testimony of the victim, although being a minor is credible over that
denial and alibi of the accused.
The CA however, affirmed the decision of the lower court and convicted the accused of the crime of child
prostitution and other sexual abuses, section 5 of the Article 11 of R.A No. 7610.
On appeal, the accused further contends that he cannot be charged of the crime under R.A No. 7610 there
being not alleged in the information.
ISSUE; whether or not the contention of the accused be sustained.
RULING:
The court ruled in the negative. It was proven that the alleged elements section 5 of Article 11 of the R.A
No. 7610 were alleged in the information filed against the accused.
NOTES; Criminal law; alibi; denials; both denials and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute
self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive
declaration by a credible witness. Petitioners alibi and denial that he was at his workplace from 8 a.m. to
5pmm fails over the positive and straightforward testimony of the victim.
PEOPLE V. SAMUYA
G.R. No. 213214. April 20, 2015
MURDER
FACTS;
Eugene and Rudy Samuya were charged of the crime of murder, defined and penalized under article 248
of the revised penal code. That on or about the 19th day or November, 2006, when the victim, Gabriel and
other were sitting at Florenio, Rudy arrived asking where Nat-nat is. When Anthony replied that Nat-nat
wasnt there, Rudy cocked a gun at him. When Eugene arrived at the scene, he shot Gabriel at the chest
without a warning. Gabriel was able to run, but was followed by Eugene. Florenio, then heard another
gun shot. Moment later, he saw Eugene returning alone and left the scene together with Rudy. Florenio
then went to look for Eugene, he then saw the body of Eugen on a kangkong swamp.
The RTC convicted the Eugene of the crime charged. Rudy was however, acquitted for the prosecutions
failure to prove that he conspired with Eugene.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court alleging that the killing was attended by the qualifying
circumstance of treachery given that the attack was made unexpectedly and that the victim was no
afforded the opportunity to defend himself.
ISSUE; whether or not the CAs decision be upheld.
RULING
The petitioner contends that he acted in self-defense. The court however fins no merit on this allegation
there being no showing of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Hence, without unlawful
aggression, self-defense cannot exist.
The court further ruled that the conviction of the accused of the crime of murder by the CA is correct
being able to meet the elements murder. Also that the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance
of treachery due to the sudden attack of the accused to the victim.
NOTES; mere suddenness of attack does not amount to treachery- the essence of treachery is that the
attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless,
unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape (people v. Tomas)
PEOPLE V. ARGUTA
G.R. No. 213216. April 20, 2015
RAPE
FACTS;
The above named accused was charged of the crime of simple raped defined and punished by the Revised
Penal Code. That when AAA, the victim was instructed by her father to fetch her sister in school, she
failed to find the latter and decided to go home. While on her way, she was apprehended by Arguta and
Cahipe. She was dragged to aneaby beach cottage where the accused remove her clothes. Argota
proceeded to the act, upon satisfaction, Cahipe followed next. AAA was again moved to a nearby store
where Arguta again raped her and was returned to the beach cottage. The next morning, the father of
AAA found her crying in the cottage.
Upon examination of Dr. Colaba, he alleged in report that there were no abnormalities in the genital of the
victim.
The accused denied such allegation against them.
The RTC convicted Arguta of the crime or simple rape but acquitted Cahipe for lack of evidence.
The CA affirmed the decision and findings of the trial court.
ISSUE; Whether or not the accused conviction of the crime of rape be upheld.
RULING. The court ruled that the presence of use of deadly weapon in the commission of the crime of
rape would qualify the same. Hence the court, citing article 355 of the RPC and the case of people v.
Lamberte convicted the accused of the crime of qualified rape. The fact that the accused threatened the
accused with bladed weapon in the commission of the crime of rape qualifies the latter into qualified rape.
NOTE; qualified rape is statutory rape in its qualified form (people v. Barcela)
The failure to allege the qualifying circumstance of relationship in the information in criminal case
precluded the finding of qualified rape against the accused; section 8 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court has
expressly required that qualifying circumstances be specifically alleged in the information. (People v.
Dadulla)
FRANSDILLA VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 197562. April 20, 2015
ROBBERY
NOTES; the complex crime of robbery in an uninhabited house by armed person and robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons was committed when the accused, who held, firearms, entered
the residential house of the victim in the process of committing the robbery. Hence, the penalty is that
imposed for the robbery in an uninhabited house, the more serious crime, all the accused are liable
because the act of one is the act of all.

ISSUE: whether or not the decision of the CA in affirming the conviction of the accused despite failure to
establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt as a co-conspirator in the crime of robbery.

HELD;
The court ruled that the conspiracy of Fransdilla with her co-accused was established beyond reasonable
doubt. The court, through the testimony of Lelaines testimony established her active participation in the
execution of the robbery.
The accused went together with the co-accused in the complainants house at around 3 to 4 pm. She
talked with Joel to fish information Cynthias whereabouts. She pretended to be an employee of POEA
etc. proves her active participation in the said crime or robbery.
NOTES: that a complex crime is a single crime. Although two or more crimes were actually committed,
there is only one crime committed in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender when
it comes to complex crimes. (People v. bernardo)
While the law provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former
marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of
conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (Garcia V. Drillon)
PEOPLE V. WAHIMAN
G.R. No. 200942. June 16, 2015
MURDER
FACTS;
The appellant Wahiman was charged of the crime of murder for the death of Jose.
That on or about April 2, 2003, Jose, the manager of the company was gun down while going to the staff
house of the company by a man riding in a black motorcycle. One of the guard on duty was able to
identify the person to be the appellant in the case.
During the trial, the accused admitted the killing.
However, when it was appellants turn to testify, he narrated that at the time of the killing, he was
attending a birthday celebration of his brother-in-law.
The RTC however, convicted the accused of the crime charged.
The accused contended that during the taking of extrajudicial confession, he was not assisted by his
counsel and that the eye witness of the prosecution did not actually see him shooting the victim. Atty.
Dumlao, however, reiterated that he assisted the accused throughout the proceeding.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.
ISSUE; Whether or not the decision of the CA is to be upheld.
RULING;
The court ruled in the positive. Appellant, in this case, however proceeded to narrate that he was hired for
a fee to kill the victim. Also that attorney Dumlao reiterated again that he assisted the accused throughout
the proceeding. Moreover, the conviction of the accused is not merely based on the extrajudicial
confession given by the accused rather on the testimony the security guard who was about 5 meters away
when the shooting was done.
The CAA correctly found the accused guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion Perpetua.
PEOPLE V. NUYOK
G.R. No. 195424. June 15, 2015
RAPE
FACTS:
Rape can be committed in a cramped dwelling despite the probable cause of other occupants because
seclusion is not an element of the crime. Its commission can be established by circumstantial evidence
even if the victim, being sole witness, was rendered unconscious during its commission.
The accused in this case was charged of the crime of four counts of rape for allegedly raping her niece, a
13-year old child for four separate occasions. The victim was living with her grandmother and the
accused, her paternal uncle in the same house. That upon reporting it to her father, she was brought for
medical check-up. The result shows that she was raped as she no longer feels pain when 2 fingers were
inserted in her genital.
An information of four counts of rape was charged against the accused.
The RTC convicted the accused of the crime charged.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.
ISSUE: whether or not the conviction of the accused of the crime of qualified rape.

RULING:
NOTE; to raise the crime of simple rape to a qualified rape under article 266-B of the RPC, the twin
circumstances of minority of the victim and relationship must concur (People v. Amistoso)
The court ruled in this case that the accused be charged only of four counts of rape because the special
qualifying circumstance of minority was not alleged in the information. The trial court was precluded
from considering the attendance of such qualifying or aggravating circumstances in the judgement
because of the failure to allege it on the information.
PEOPLE VS. OCAMPO
G.R. No. 194129. June 15, 2015
HOMICIDE
FACTS:
The accused in this case was charged of the crime of homicide for allegedly killing AAA the victim. The
accused alleged however, that he was acting in self-defense and that he was attacked by the deceased with
a knife. Therefore, to neutralize the aggression he shot the victim.
The RTC convicted the accused of the crime charged.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.
ISSUE; whether or not the conviction of the accused of the crime charge is proper.
RULING;
The court ruled that the element of unlawful aggression of self-defense was not proven by the defense.
Hence, the contention of the accused that he acted in self-defense was untamable because it is wanting the
element of unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased. The Court affirms the decision of the lower
court that the offender committed homicide but with modification in terms of the damages awarded.
PEOPLE V. MESINA
G.R. No. 162489 June 17, 2015

Facts:
Mesina, a Local Treasurer Officer of the Local Government of Caloocan, went to the so called Mini City
Hall for the collection of the patubig wherein Baclit turned over the collection to Mesina. It was later
reported the Mesina failed to remit such collection from Mini City Hall to the City Hall Main. Mesina
denied having receive money. Baclit and Mesina were summoned for an inquiry relative to the discrepancy
of the patubig collection. They all proceeded to the cashier's room where Mesina had his safe and thereat,
Mesina's vault was opened and a cash count and/or physical count of the contents thereof was conducted.
Also found inside were the Report of Collection by the Liquidating Officer.

He was convicted of Malversation.

Issue:
1) Was the conviction proper?
2) Whether or not a custodial investigation has transpired and the failure to inform him of his Miranda
rights rendered the whole investigation null and void.

Held:
Yes. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the culpa is only a
modality in the perpetration of felony. Even if the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same
offense of malversation is still committed, hence conviction is proper. All that is necessary for a conviction
is sufficient proof that the accused accountable officer had received public funds or property, and did not
have them in his possession when demand therefor was made without any satisfactory explanation of his
failure to have them upon demand. For this purpose, direct evidence of the personal misappropriation by
the accused is unnecessary as long as he cannot satisfactory explain the inability to produce or any shortage
in his account.

No. Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person
is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. The
investigation was a general inquiry to ascertain the whereabouts of the missing patubig collection. By its
nature, the inquiry had to involve persons who had direct supervision over the issue, including the City
Treasurer, the City Auditor, the representative from different concerned offices, and even the Mayor. What
was conducted was not an Investigation that already focused on the petitioner as the culprit but an
administrative inquiry into the missing funds. Besides, he was not as of then in the custody of the police or
other enforcement office.
PEOPLE V. NARAG
G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015

Facts:
AA was charged of the crime of murder for the killing BB. AA inflicted upon BB several stab wounds on
the different part of his body.

A witness saw AA stabbing BB who was already prostrate face down. AA was on top BB, as if kneeling
with left foot touching the ground.

AA argued that BB was the initial aggressor. He also admitted having successfully disarmed BB.

Issue:
1) Whether or not AA can raise the defense of self-defense
2) Was the killing attended by treachery?

Ruling:
There was no self-defense. The burden of proving self-defense rests entirely on the accused, that he must
prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following of self-defense: (1) unlawful
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression;
and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The most important of
all elements is unlawful aggression which is the condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense as a
justifying circumstance. Unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the accused, self-
defense, whether complete or incomplete, should not be appreciated, for the two other essential elements
of self-defense would have no factual and legal bases without any unlawful aggression to prevent or repel.

No. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crime against persons, employing means and
methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially ensure its execution, without
risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Two conditions must concur
in order for treachery to be appreciated: (1) the assailant employed means, methods or forms in the
execution of the criminal act which give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate;
and (2) said means, methods or forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the
assailant.

The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning, or is done in a swift, deliberate and
unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to
escape, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. The mode of attack must not spring from
the unexpected turn of events
PEOPLE V. MERCADO
G.R. No. 167510, July 08, 2015
Facts
Al-mer Cargo, filed an Informal Declaration and Entry (IIDE) and Permit to Deliver through its broker,
Consular Cargo Service, describing the items in shipment as personal effects, assorted mens and ladies
wearing apparel, textile and accessories which was signed by Saganay (Mercados agent-broker). Upon
examination by Customs agent the shipment contains general merchandise in commercial quantities instead
of personal effects of no commercial value.
Mercado was charge with the violation of section 3602, in relation to Section 2503 of the Tariff and
Customs Code of the Philippines for making entry by means of false and fraudulent invoice and declaration
as regards the true kind, nature, quality of the goods.

Issue:
Can Mercado be held liable for declarations made by his agent-broker?

Held:
The importer or consignee should not be held criminally liable for any underdeclaration or misdeclaration
made by the agent unless either a conspiracy between them has been alleged and proved.To allow the act
or omission of Saganay to bind the petitioner would be unacceptable under the principle of res inter alias
acta embodied under Sec. 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Mercado is not liable for the declaration made by Saganay unless the two of them acted pursuant to
conspiracy. But even if they had acted pursuant to a conspiracy, there must be an allegation to that effect
in the information. The information did not charge Saganay as the co-conspirator of Mercado, thereby
removing basis for any inference in that regard. Neither did the information aver that Saganay was at all an
accomplice of Mercado.
PEOPLE V. AVILA
G.R. No. 195244 June 22, 2015

Facts:
Avila, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said bladed
weapon said Josephine, thereby inflicting upon her physical injuries which directly caused her death. The
crime was witnessed by Muymoy, a 5-year old son of the victim. Muymoy was asked to testify against
Avila.

Issue:
Can a 5-year old testify as a witness?

Held:
Yes. The qualification of a person to testify rests on the ability to relate to others the acts and events
witnessed. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court makes clear who may and may not be witnesses in judicial
proceedings. Anyone who is sensible and aware of a relevant event or incident, and can communicate such
awareness, experience, or observation to others can be a witness. Age, religion, ethnicity, gender,
educational attainment, or social stat us are not necessary to qualify a person to be a witness, so long as he
does not possess any of the disqualifications as listed the rules. The generosity with which the Rules of
Court allows people to testify is apparent, for religious beliefs, interest in the outcome of a case, and
conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law are not grounds for disqualification.
PEOPLE V. GIANGAN
G.R. No. 169385. August 26, 2015
FACTS:
A built a wooden fence on her land, B the barangay chairman also the accused together with his 2
co-accused who are also public officers removed the fence against the As will. The accused were charge
of violation of section 3 (e) of R.A 3019 also known as anti-graft and corrupt practices act. The accused
removed the fence because they believe it to be a road right of way and was complaint of by other
residents.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused are guilty of section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 or forcible entry.
HELD:
The Supreme Court find that the Sandiganbayan erred in ruling that B and his co-accused had
acted with gross bad faith and manifest impartiality when they removed the wooden posts of the fence of
A. On the contrary, their actuations evinced good faith. We note that it was not at all disputed that access
through the road had long been permitted even by the owner and her predecessor. In that context, B as the
barangay chairman acted upon the honest and sincere belief that he was then summarily abating the
nuisance that a regular user of the obstructed road had just reported to him.
Note:
Manifest partiality be inferred only if there was a clear showing that there had been others who
had been bothered by the similar allegedly illegal construction and had complained, but the accused, in
their capacities as barangay officials did not deal with such complaint with the same alacrity.
PEOPLE V, PLANAS

G.R. No. 214453 June 17, 2015

Fact:
Borre was shot outside his residence and was brought to the hospital. While on the way he told Zapanta and
his wife who shot him. When they arrive at the hospital Borre died.
Issue:
Whether or not the Borres statement on his way to hospital be admitted as evidence both as dying
declaration and as part of the res gestea.
Held:
For a dying declaration to constitute an exception to the hearsay evidence rule, four (4) conditions must
concur: (a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarants death;
(b) that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his impending death; (c) the
declarant was competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide,
Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the victim. On the other hand, a statement to be deemed to form
part of the res gestae, and thus, constitute another exception to the rule on hearsay evidence, requires the
concurrence of the following requisites: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b)
the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must
concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.

Borres statements constitute a dying declaration, given that they pertained to the cause and circumstances
of his death and taking into consideration the number and severity of his wounds, it may be reasonably
presumed that he uttered the same under a fixed belief that his own death was already imminent.29This
declaration is considered evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no person
aware of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation.
Borres statements may likewise be deemed to form part of the res gestae. "Res gestae refers to the
circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and
are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and
fabrication. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act,
declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it
characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negates any
premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony."
PEOPLE V. LAPORE

G.R. No. 191197 June 22, 2015

Facts:
BBB was accused of the crime of rape. The information filed read as follows:
That sometime in the month of October 1998, at Barangay Birok, Municipality of Naawan, Province of
Dulo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused with force, threat,
violence and intimidation and with lewd designed, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge with one AAA, a girl of 13 years of age, against her will and consent, to her damage
and prejudice.
Issue:
Whether or not BBB should be held liable for the crime of qualified rape.
Held:
No. Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provide that for qualifying and
aggravating circumstances to be appreciated, it must be alleged in the complaint or information. This is in
line with the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. Even if the prosecution has duly proven the presence of the circumstances, the Court cannot
appreciate the same if they were not alleged in the Information. Hence, although the prosecution has duly
established the presence of the aforesaid circumstances, which, however, were not alleged in the
Information, this Court cannot appreciate the same.
PEOPLE V. SALVADOR

G.R. No. 207815 June 22, 2015

Facts:
AA was accused of rape with homicide however nobody witnessed the rape and killing of the victim, BB.
Issue:
Can the accused may still be proven as the culprit despite the absence of eyewitness?
Held:
Yes. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable
doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence
to discharge its burden.
In crimes of rape with homicide, as here, resort to circumstantial evidence is usually unavoidable due to
absence of eyewitness.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of
the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. Section 4, Rule 133, of the
Revised Rules of Evidence, as amended, sets forth the requirements of circumstantial evidence that is
sufficient for conviction.
PEOPLE V. CANCERAN

G.R. No. 206442 July 1, 2015

Facts:
Canceran, Vasquez and Vequizo, with intent to gain, took and carry away 12 cartons of Ponds White Beauty
Cream belonging to Mega Center. Performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of
theft as a consequence but, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of some cause independent of
accuseds will, that is, they were discovered by the employees of Mega Center who prevented them from
further carrying away said 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream.
They were charged with Frustrated Theft.
Issue:
Is the charge proper?
Held:
No. there is no crime of Frustrated Theft. The Information can never be read to charge Canceran of
consummated Theft because the indictment itself stated that the crime was never produced. Instead, the
Information should be construed to mean that Canceran was being charged with theft in its attempted stage
only. Necessarily, Canceran may only be convicted of the lesser crime of Attempted Theft.
An accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he was charged in the complaint
or information and on which he was tried. It matters not how conclusive and convincing the evidence of
guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted in the courts of any offense, unless it is charged in the
complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily included therein. He has a right to be informed
as to the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial, and to convict him of an
offense higher than that charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried would be an
unauthorized denial of that right.
PEOPLE V. CELEDONIO
G.R. No. 209137, July 01, 2015
Facts:
Marquez witnessed a robbery perpetrated at the house of De Guzman and identified Celedonio as the culprit.
During a follow-up operation conducted by the police, accompanied by Marquez, to survey the area for the
possible identification and apprehension of the suspect. On their way, Marquez pointed to a man on a
motorcycle who was Celedonio. The police immediately flagged down Celedonio. They asked him if he
was Celedonio, but he did not reply and just bowed his head. They again asked him, "Where are the stolen
items?" Celedonio then alighted from his motorcycle and opened its compartment where the policeman saw
some of the stolen items, as per report of the incident. The policeman asked Celedonio if the same were
stolen, to which the latter answered, "Iyan po."
Thus, Celedonio was arrested and was informed of his constitutional rights. More items were seized from
Celedonio at the police station.
Issue:
Whether or not the search was valid.
Held:
No illegal search was made upon Celedonio. When the police officers asked where the stolen items were,
they merely made a general inquiry, and not a search, as part of their follow-up operation. Records did not
show that the police officers even had the slightest hint that the stolen items were in Celedonio's motorcycle
compartment. Neither was there any showing that the police officers frisked Celedonio or rummaged over
his motorcycle. There was no showing either of any force or intimidation on the part of the police officers
when they made the inquiry. Celedonio himself voluntarily opened his motorcycle compartment. Worse,
when he was asked if the items were the stolen ones, he actually confirmed it, The police officers, therefore,
were left without any recourse but to take him into custody for further investigation. At that instance, the
police officers had probable cause that he could be the culprit of the robbery. He did not have any
explanation as to how he got hold of the items. Moreover, taking into consideration that the stolen items
were in a moving vehicle, the police had to immediately act on it.
PEOPLE V. RAMIREZ

G.R. No. 193388 July 1, 2015

Facts:
Bocadi and Baticolon were arrested by the National Bureau of Investigation in a buy-bust operation.
Issue:
Whether or not all anti-drug operations shall be coordinated with the PDEA, and only specially trained and
competent drug enforcement personnel shall conduct drug enforcement operations.
Held:
The Court has already ruled that a buy-bust operation, albeit made without the participation of PDEA, does
not violate appellant's constitutional right to be protected from illegal arrest. There is nothing in Republic
Act No. 9165 which even remotely indicate the intention of the legislature to make an arrest made without
the participation of the PDEA illegal and evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.
PEOPLE V. TOMAS
G.R. No. 205412, September 09, 2015
(PARRICIDE)
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Sereno, C. J., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Facts:
One rainy afternoon on July 30, 2005, POI Fidel Torre and POI Alexis Macusi were standing in
front of the Camiling Tarlac Police Station when accused Adrian Guting suddenly appeared before them,
with one hand clutching a bladed weapon, and told them that his father, Jose, was dead. Unaware, PPOI
Macusi asked Adrian who killed his father, to which Adrian replied, Sinaksak ko po yong tatay ko!
Napatay ko na po!. POI Torre then took the knife, gave it to POI Macusi, who then placed the knife in the
custodian cabinet in the police station. They then proceeded to the house of Jose to verify the reported
crime. Other police officers informed Flora, the wife, and their sons, Emerlito and Jose. No one witnessed
the crime. When the immediate family members arrived, they found the lifeless body of Jose Guting. He
was brought to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. Flora and Jose Jr executed their Sinumpaang
Salaysay charging Adrian with parricide. After trial, the RTC convicted Adrian based on his verbal
admission that he killed his father Jose. Even assuming the admission was inadmissible, sufficient
circumstantial evidence exist to convict Adrian of the crime. The Court of Appeals denied his appeal. In
his appeal to the Supreme Court, Adrian posits that his conviction was uncalled for as it was based on his
verbal admission, and insufficient circumstantial evidence.
The Issue:
Whether or not Adrian is liable for Parricide.
The Ruling:
Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code defines Parricide as follows:
Art. 246. Parricide. Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be
punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and
(3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other
ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. The key element in Parricide other
than the fact of killing is the relationship of the offender to the victim.11 All the elements are present in
this case. Jose, the victim, was killed by accused-appellant, his own son. Accused-appellants birth
certificate, which was presented before the RTC, establishes that accused-appellant was the legitimate son
of Jose and Flora.
The crime of Parricide is punishable by the indivisible penalties of reclusion perpetua to death.
With one mitigating circumstance, namely, voluntary surrender, and no aggravating circumstance, the
imposition of the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua on accused-appellant was proper.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04596, finding
accused-appellant, Adrian Guting y Tomas, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide, is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and
P316,455.00 as compensation for loss of earning capacity. All monetary awards for damages shall be
subject to interest of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Decision until they are fully
paid.
PEOPLE V. CALADCADAN
G.R. No. 205379, September 23, 2015

(RAPE)
Facts:
AAA, then 16 years old, lived in a two-storey house with her parents and two siblings. On the night
of 21 June 1999, she was sleeping in one of the two rooms on the second floor when accused-appellant
suddenly entered her room and forcibly removed her pants and her underwear. AAA tried to resist but
accused-appellant was too strong. Accused-appellant managed to insert his penis into AAA's vagina while
covering her mouth to prevent her from shouting. Two days later, AAA was sleeping in her parents'
bedroom when accused-appellant again crept into bed with her and mounted her. On both occasions, AAA's
siblings were sleeping in the other room, while BBB was in Baguio City. AAA did not tell her mother what
had happened because accused-appellant had threatened to burn the house.
Sometime in October 1999, BBB observed something unusual in AAA's body. She asked AAA to
lie down in bed while she examined the latter's stomach. BBB realized that AAA was pregnant. She
immediately asked AAA who got her impregnated and the latter answered that it was accused-appellant,
her father. BBB then went to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) office-to ask
for help. The DSWD referred her to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The NBI took AAA's
statement. She was also examined by a medico-legal officer from the NBI. AAA gave birth on 27 March
2000.7
Baliaga testified that she conducted a mental evaluation on AAA, and tests revealed that AAA was
suffering from mild retardation and could not give intelligent consent to the act complained about.
Upon filing his counter-affidavit in December 1999, accused-appellant disappeared. The case was
archived until he was arrested on 20 March 2009. On arraignment, accused-appellant entered a "not guilty"
plea to the offense charged. During the pre-trial, accused-appellant admitted that AAA is his daughter. The
case went through a full trial.
Issue:
Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty for two counts-of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
Held:
The applicable provisions related to the crime of rape are Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), which provide:
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat or intimidation;


b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of
the parent of the victim[.]
Rape is qualified when the following elements of the offense charged are present
(a) the victim is a female over 12 years but under 18 years of age;
(b) the offender is a parent, [an] ascendant, [a] step-parent, [a] guardian, [a] relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; and
(c) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim either through force, threat or intimidation; or when
[the victim] is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; or by means of fraudulent machinations or
grave abuse of authority.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 25 May 2012 of the Court of Appeals, finding Henry
Caladcadan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified rape, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION.
PEOPLE V. ILIGAN
G.R. No. 196258, September 28, 2015
(alevosia or treachery)
Facts:
At around 3:00 in the afternoon on April 7, 2006, accused-appellant and his two companions went
inside Carlos Place Restaurant and ordered batchoy. They were the only customers at that time. Helen
Monterde (Monterde), the helper on-duty, served their orders and sat at a table next to them. Monterde
described one customer, whom she later identified as accused-appellant, as about 40 years of age, 5'2" to
5'4" tall, with a big stomach and thin beard, wearing an orange t-shirt and maong pants. One of accused-
appellant's companions was wearing a white shirt and cargo pants while the other was wearing a white
blazer and pants. The three men left upon finishing their meal and proceeded to the waiting shed, about ten
meters away from the restaurant. A few minutes later, accused-appellant and the man wearing a white shirt
returned to buy cigarettes. In the meantime, Prosecutor Godofredo R. Paceo, Jr. (Paceo) and his
companion arrived at the restaurant and also ordered batchoy. Monterde noticed that accused-appellant and
his companion hurriedly left after seeing Paceo.
Around 4:00 in the afternoon of even date, Paceo boarded a multicab in front of the GSIS Building
along J.C. Aquino Avenue, Butuan City. Paceo sat at the rightmost corner of the multicab, behind the front
passenger's seat. On Paceo's left sat Daniel Deloso (Deloso), followed by Gretchen Zaldivar (Zaldivar).
Accused-appellant boarded the same multicab just a few meters away and sat at the leftmost corner, behind
the driver's seat, right across Paceo, and beside Joanne Ruales (Ruales).
While traversing the highway in Barangay Dumalagan, Butuan City, accused-appellant suddenly
pulled out a gun and shot Paceo twice. Paceo sustained multiple gunshot wounds on his head, thereby
causing his death.6 Arturo Quiban (Quiban), the driver, thought that a tire blew up so he stopped the
multicab at the roadside. Accused-appellant alighted from the vehicle, warning the other passengers not to
make any noise, and then boarded a motorcycle that was trailing the multicab. Quiban immediately drove
the multicab to the Buenavista Police Station to report the incident, with the other passengers alighting at
their respective destinations along the way. Paceo's wife and relatives were notified of his death.
Task Force Paceo, composed of members of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), and other law
enforcement agencies, was created to investigate, gather evidence, arrest, and file the necessary charges
against the suspect(s). Two witnesses, Zaldivar and Ruales, were able to identify accused-appellant from a
photo montage as the gunman. Consequently, accused-appellant was arrested and charged with murder.
Evidence submitted by the defense presented a different version of events. Accused-appellant
himself denied any involvement in the crime, proffering an alibi.
Issue:
Whether or not there was alevosia or treachery in accused-appellant's killing of Paceo.
Held:
Yes. For treachery to qualify the act of killing to murder, two elements must concur: (1) the culprit
employed means, methods, and forms of execution which tended directly and specially to insure the
offender's safety from any defensive or retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, which means that
no opportunity was given the latter to do so; and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular
means, method, or form of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected
attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. Treachery is never
presumed but must be proven with moral certainty like the offense itself.26 In the instant case, accused-
appellant's treachery is evident in the following circumstances: (a) he armed himself with a gun; (b) he
consciously boarded the same multicab with Paceo and sat across the latter; (c) Paceo was unarmed and
unaware of any impending attack against him; (d) without any provocation, accused-appellant suddenly
pulled out his gun, and aimed and shot Pacefio twice in the head, leaving the latter with no means to defend
himself, much less retaliate. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly alleged in the
Information.
PEOPLE V. PANCHO
G.R. No. 206910, October 14, 2015
(Violation of RA 9165)
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Facts:
On the basis of a search warrant, members of the Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Bureau
of Cebu City conducted a search in the house of accused-appellant and her husband Samuel Pancho located
in Sitio Plastikan, Barangay Duljo-Fatima, Cebu City. Police Superintendent Pablo Labra served the search
warrant on accused-appellant. Police Officer 1 Roy Carlo Veloso (PO1 Veloso) was designated as the
searcher, while PO2 Benigno Andrew Ilagan (PO2 Ilagan) was assigned as the recorder of the raiding team.
The raiding team was accompanied by three barangay tanods. The search yielded three big plastic packets
of suspected shabu weighing a total of 14.49 grams, which were recovered under a jewelry box placed on
top of a cabinet divider. PO1 Veloso handed the packets of shabu to PO2 Ilagan who recorded them in the
confiscation receipt and made markings on the plastic packets.
The raiding team brought accused-appellant to the police station. PO1 Veloso accompanied PO2
Ilagan in handing over the seized articles and the letter-request to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory. The PNP Crime Laboratory later issued Chemistry Report No. D-1381-2005, confirming
that the three heat-sealed transparent plastic bags, weighing a total of 14.49 grams, were tested positive for
the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:
Yes. In Valleno v. People,9 the Court ruled that -In order for prosecution for illegal possession of a
dangerous drug to prosper, there must be proof that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object
identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the
accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.
PEOPLE V. ACLAN
G.R. No. 208015, October 14, 2015
(CHAIN OF CUSTODY)
Facts:
That on or about the 25th day of June 2006 at about 12:30 o'clock in the afternoon at Esteban Mayo
St., Barangay 4, Lipa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully sell, deliver, dispose or give away
to a police/informer-poseur buyer, 0.02 gram/s of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as
"shabu", which is a dangerous drug, contained in One (1) plastic sachet/s.
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged. In presenting its case, the prosecution offered the testimonies of SPO2 Whency Aro (SPO2 Aro)
and PO3 Cleofe Pera (PO3 Pera).
For his defense, accused-appellant denied any wrongdoing, claiming that he was only selling his
cellphone when he was wrongly apprehended.
Issue:
Whether or not there was failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody.
Held:
In People v. Torres, we held that equally important in every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
or prohibited drugs is the presentation of evidence of the seized drug as the corpus delicti. The identity of
the prohibited drug must be proved with moral certainty. It must also be established with the same degree
of certitude that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in
court as exhibit. In this regard, paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R. A. No. 9165 (the chain of custody
rule) provides for safeguards for the protection of the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized, to
wit:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody
of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as
well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered,
for proper disposition in the following manner:
The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
However, this Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should ideally be
perfect, in reality it is not, "as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain." The most
important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will
be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
PEOPLE v. OSCAR PARBA
GR No. 133886, Sep 05, 2001
(Circumstancial Evidence)
Facts:
For the fatal shooting of Barangay Tanod Teodoro Coronado, Oscar Parba was charged with the
crime of Murder in an Information[1] which alleges

That on or about the 11th day of November 1996, at about 3:45 o'clock in the morning, in the City
of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with a
gun, with deliberate intent, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and
there suddenly and unexpectedly attack, assault and shoot one Teodoro Coronado with said deadly weapon,
thereby inflicting upon him the following physical injuries and as a consequence of said injuries, said
TEODORO CORONADO died a few hours later.

Accused-appellant denied that he had anything to do with the killing of Teodoro Coronado. As
culled from the transcripts and summed in his brief, he narrates that

On 11 November 1996, at 2:00 o'clock in the morning, Accused-Appellant was in house along with
his wife Cristina Recana.[6] Not feeling well, he awakened his wife and informed her that he had a fever.[7]
He told his wife that he was chilling, so his wife attended to him[8] his fever subsided at about 10:00 in the
morning.[9]

In the meantime, at around 3:30 o'clock of the same morning, Accused-appellant heard a
gunburst.[10] His wife likewise heard several gun shots at that moment.[11] Accused-Appellant learned that
a person was shot at Shangrila, Labangon, two days after the incident.[12]

Accused-appellant insists that the lower court erred in considering the evidence submitted as sufficient
to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder because the evidence
presented by the prosecution is merely circumstantial in nature, which is likewise grossly insufficient to
support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Arguments were raised from the following statements:

When cross-examined, Efren Belcher, the only alleged eyewitness presented by the prosecution,
admitted that he did not actually see the person who fired the gunshots. Neither did he see which
particular portion of the victim's body was hit.
The place where the alleged crime was committed was dark. Hence, Belcher could not have clearly
identified the perpetrator of the crime.
Other circumstances cast doubt upon the alleged positive identification of Accused-Appellant as
the perpetrator of the crime.

Issue:

Whether or not circumstantial is sufficient to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
for the crime of murder.
Held:

Yes. Even in the absence of direct evidence, accused may still be convicted on the basis of
circumstantial evidence. Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that circumstantial evidence
is sufficient for conviction if: 1.] there is more than one circumstance; 2.] the facts from which the inference
are derived are proven; and 3.] the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt. With regard to what yardsticks are to be used in assaying the probative value
thereof.

Wharton suggests four basic guidelines in the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, (1) it should
be acted upon with caution; (2) all the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; (3) the
facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt; and (4) the facts must establish such a certainty of
guilt of the accused as to convince the judgment beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who
committed the offense.[17] The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the guilt of the accused cannot
be deduced from scrutinizing just one particular piece of evidence. It is far more like puzzle which when
put together reveals a convincing picture pointing towards the conclusion that the accused is the author of
the crime.

Even were we to go along with the claim of accused-appellant that eyewitness Belcher may not
have seen the actual shooting of the victim, this will not extricate him from his predicament because the
following circumstances lead to the inevitable conclusion that accused-appellant was the perpetrator of the
crime.
MARUHOM VS. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 206513, October 20, 2015,

(PROBATION LAW)

PERALTA, J.:

Sereno, C.J., Brion, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Facts:

After trial at the RTC, Mustapha was convicted for violation of Section 5 Paragraph (b), Article III
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610. He was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
ranging from ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and
one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification. In addition, he was directed to pay a fine of P20,000.00, civil indemnity of P25,000.00,
and moral damages of P25,000.00. He appealed to the CA, arguing that even assuming he committed the
acts imputed, still there is no evidence showing that the same were done without the victims consent or
through force, duress, intimidation or violence upon her. The OSG, on the other hand, argued that Mustapha
should only be convicted for Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code in the
absence of force or coercion because the victim was asleep at the time the alleged acts were committed.
The CA agreed with the OSG observation, hence it modified the penalty imposed on Mustapha, finding
him guilty instead of Acts of Lasciviousness and sentencing him to he indeterminate penalty of six (6)
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as
maximum. When Mustapha received a copy of the decision, instead of further appealing the case, he filed
before the CA a manifestation with motion to allow him to apply for probation upon remand of the case to
the RTC, invoking the case of Colminares vs People[1] which allowed petitioner therein to apply for
probation after his sentence was later reduced on appeal by the Supreme Court. The CA, however, denied
the motion. It held that Colminares is not applicable to Mustaphas case since in that case, the petitioner
raised the sole issue of the correctness of the penalty imposed. Instead, the CA viewed the appropriate case
applicable as Lagrosa vs People[2], wherein the application for probation was denied because petitioners
therein put in issue on appeal the merits of their conviction and did not simply assail the propriety of the
penalties imposed. Mustapha moved to reconsider, but the CA denied, hence he sought recourse with the
Supreme Court.

The Issue:

Whether or not Mustapaha may apply for probation.

The Ruling:

The petition should be denied.


If petitioner intended in the first instance to be entitled to apply for probation he should have
admitted his guilt and buttressed his appeal on a claim that the penalty imposed by the RTC was erroneous
or that he is only guilty of a lesser offense necessarily included in the crime for which he was originally
convicted. Unfortunately for him, he already perfected his appeal and it is late in the day to avail the benefits
of probation despite the imposition of the CA of a probationable penalty.

Probation should not be granted to the accused in the following instances:

1. When the accused is convicted by the trial court of a crime where the penalty imposed is within the
probationable period or a fine, and the accused files a notice of appeal; and

2. When the accused files a notice of appeal which puts the merits of his conviction in issue, even if
there is an alternative prayer for the correction of the penalty imposed by the trial court or for a
conviction to a lesser crime, which is necessarily included in the crime in which he was convicted
where the penalty is within the probationable period.

Both instances violate the spirit and letter of the law, as Section 4 of the Probation Law prohibits
granting an application for probation if an appeal from the sentence of conviction has been perfected by the
accused.
PEOPLE V. ABROJADO

G.R. No. 207041, November 09, 2015,

(MURDER)

Facts:

Jesus Arrojado, charged with Murder in an Information filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Roxas City, filed a Motion to Dismiss the Information against him on the ground that the investigating
prosecutor who filed the Information did not indicate therein the number and date of issue of her Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education Certificate of Compliace, as required by Bar Matter No. 1922 promulgated by
the Court on June 3, 2008. The Office of the City Prosecutor opposed the Motion to Dismiss, contending
that 1) the Information sought to be dismissed is sufficient in form and substance; (2) the lack of proof of
MCLE compliance by the prosecutor who prepared and signed the Information should not prejudice the
interest of the State in filing charges against persons who have violated the law; and (3) and administrative
edict cannot prevail over substantive or procedural law, by imposing additional requirements for the
sufficiency of a criminal information.

The RTC dismissed the Information without prejudice. The prosecutions motion for
reconsideration was also denied, hence the People of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari and/or
mandamus before the Court of Appeals. The CA, however, dismissed the petition. It held that the
prosecution was not without any recourse other than a petition for certiorari/mandamus as it may simply
re-file the Information as the dismissal thereof was without prejudice. Thus, the People of the Philippines
represented by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City filed the instant petition for review on
certiorari to assail the CA decision.

The Issue:

Whether or not the Motion to Dismiss the Information was proper for failure of the Investigating
Prosecutor to vindicate her MCLE Certificate of Compliance as required under Bar Matter No. 1922.

Ruling:

The petition lacks merit.

An information is, for all intents and purposes, considered an initiatory pleading because it is a
written statement that contains the cause of action of a party, which in criminal cases is the State as
represented by the prosecutor, against the accused. Like a pleading, the Information is also filed in court
for appropriate judgment. Undoubtedly then, an Information falls squarely within the ambit of Bar Matter
No. 1922, in relation to Bar Matter 850.

As to petitioners contention that the failure of the investigating prosecutor to indicate in the subject
Information the number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance is a mere formal defect
and is not a valid ground to dismiss such Information, suffice it to state that B.M. No. 1922 categorically
provides that [f]ailure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the
expunction of the pleadings from the records. In this regard, petitioner must be reminded that it assailed
the trial courts dismissal of the subject Information via a special civil action for certiorari filed with the
CA. The writ of certiorari is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions that acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.5 Grave
abuse of discretion means such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack
of jurisdiction.6 To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of discretion must be grave, as
when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility,
and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted
without jurisdiction7. Since the trial courts dismissal of the subject Information was based on a clear and
categorical provision of a rule issued by this Court, the court a quo could not have committed a capricious
or whimsical exercise of judgment nor did it exercise its discretion in an arbitrary or despotic manner. Thus,
the CA did not commit error in dismissing petitioners petition for certiorari.
PEOPLE V. ASIGNAR
180. GR No. 206593, Nov 10, 2015

(Violation of RA No. 9165)

Facts:
By way of background, separate informations were filed against accused-appellant before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 13, as follows:

For violation of Sec. 5,[2] Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (Crim. Case No. CBU 70735):

That on August 24, 2004, at about 6:45 a.m. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and without being authorized
by law, did then and there sell, deliver or give away to a poseur buyer the following: one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic packet of 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance placed in a plastic pack locally
knowns as "shabu" containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

For violation of Sec. II,[3] Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (Crim. Case No. CBU 70733):

That on or about the 24th day of August, 2004, at 6:45 a.m. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and without being
authorized by law, did then and there have in possession and under his control the following: three (3)
transparent plastic packets containing traces of white crystalline substance locally knowns as "shabu",
containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

For violation of Sec. 12,[4] Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (Crim. Case No. CBU 70734):

That on or about the 24th day of August, 2004, at about 6:45 a.m. in the City of Cebu, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and without
being authorized by law, did then and there have in possession and under his control the following: two (2)
disposable lighters used as an improvised burner one plastic paraphernalia for repacking shabu which are
instruments and/or equipments fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting or
introducing any dangerous drug into the body.

The above-cited cases were consolidated.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused be convicted for violation of RA No. 9165.

Ruling:

Yes. For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, only the following elements are
essential: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2)the
delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled
with the presentation of evidence of the seized item, as part of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the illicit
drug to the poseur-buyer and receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-
bust transaction.
The prosecution has already established the presence of all the elements. PO1 Solana,who acted as
the poseur-buyer, positively identified [accused-appellant] as the person who came out to meet him, and
dealt with him and the informant during the buy-bust operation. It was accused-appellant himself who gave
a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. During the examination of the white crystalline
substance bought by PO1 Solana from accused-appellant together with the three (3) other plastic packets
containing traces of white crystalline substance tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drugs, per Chemistry report No. D-1525-2005 issued by the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory.

For illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must establish the following
elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
All the elements were established in this case. Incident to his lawful arrest, when he was frisked three (3)
plastic packets containing traces of white crystalline substance, later on found to be traces of a dangerous
drug, was taken from his possession. In a number of cases, it has been declared that mere possession of a
regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possendi sufficient to
convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession - the onus probandi is shifted to the
accused, of knowledge or animus possidendi. Mere possession of the prohibited substance and the burden
of proof is upon accused-appellant to show that he has a license or permit under law to possess the
prohibited drug. The accused-appellant failed to explain his possession of the prohibited drug. Accused-
appellant was misled in his belief that the burden to prove the lack of license or permit to possess the
prohibited drug lies with the prosecution.
PEOPLE V. ARCEO

(G.R. No. 208842)

(Rape)

Facts:

That on or about the 22nd day of July 2000, in the Municipality of Magalang, Province of Pampanga,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Reynaldo
Simbulan Arceo, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with MMM, twelve (12) years old, a minor, against her
will and without her consent.

Accused-appellant contends that the element of intimidation is lacking in this case to prove his guilt
to the crime of rape. Accused-appellant asserts that based on MMMs testimony, he did not employ
intimidation as to have cowed her into submission. His alleged acts of covering MMMs mouth and
straddling her with his legs were performed only after MMM woke up and were never used to compel
MMM into having sexual intercourse with him. Accused-appellant also assails the lack of medical basis to
prove that there was sexual contact between him and MMM. The medical report does not corroborate
MMMs testimony, as the abrasion could have been brought about by other causes. Accused-appellant avers
that the prosecution failed to prove that MMM was below twelve (12) years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime resulting in the absence of one element lacking of the crime of rape. Based on
MMMs birth certificate, she was born on 21 November 1987 thus she was 12 years and 8 months old on
22 July 2000, the date of the alleged rape.

Issue:

Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

Yes. Accused-appellant is charged with rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. For
conviction to be had in the crime of rape, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:
(1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through
the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or
(c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented.
PEOPLE V.SARAMOSING

182. G.R. No. 211056, November 10, 2015

(Rape)

Facts:

AAA testified that the accused-appellant is her father. On March 2, 2003, at about 8:00 p.m., the
accused-appellant sexually abused her inside their house at XXX, Davao City. At that time, AAA's mother,
BBB, was not around and only AAA's five younger sisters were sleeping in the house. She was already
asleep when he took off her shorts and panty. When she awakened, the accused-appellant was already on
top of her. Then he inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA was not able to fight back because the accused-
appellant held her shoulders and pointed a knife at her. The accused-appellant also threatened AAA not to
shout or he would kill her and her sisters. After the incident, AAA told BBB what happened when the latter
arrived home at around 9:00 p.m. They then went to the house of CCC, the brother of the accused-appellant,
and the three of them went to the police station. Afterwards, AAA submitted herself to a medical
examination.

In a Decision dated March 22, 2011, the RTC convicted the accused-appellant of the crime charged.
On appeal,18 the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's verdict of guilt.

Issue:

Whether or not the Accused- appellant be convicted of rape despite failure to prove force and
intimidation in the case.

Ruling:

Yes. Anent the argument that force or intimidation was not proven in this case, the same lacks
merit. As the Court ruled in People v. Oriliosa,25 in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation
need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice. The moral and
physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires.

Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of rape by sexual intercourse is defined
as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

ART. 266-A. Rape When and How Committed. - Rape is committed -

1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;

b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;

c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
cralawlawlibrary
For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution has the burden to prove that (1) the offender had
carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished the act through force, threat or intimidation, or
when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was
demented.
PEOPLE V. ULIMPAIN

183. G.R. No. 195194, November 25, 2015

(Violation of RA No. 9165)

Facts:

On 25 September 2003, senior Police Officer 1 Hashim Maung (SPO1 Maung) of the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agengy (PDEA), Bulacan Provincial Office received a report from a civilian informant
regarding the illegal drug activities of Kamad and Bainhor in the area of Meycauayan, Bulacan. The two
were allegedly capable of disposing large volumes of shabu through consignment basis. SPO1 Maung
instructed the civilian informant to set up a drug deal with the suspects.

At around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same date, the informant returned and reported that
he had already negotiated for the delivery of 50 grams of shabu worth Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).
The delivery would allegedly take place in front of McDonald's restaurant in Barangay Banga,
Meycauayan, Bulacan.

A team composed of Police Officer 3 Rolando Navarette (PO3 Navarette), as poseur-buyer, and
SPO1 Maung and PO1 Co, as backup, was immediately formed to conduct a buy-bust operation.

Upon arrival at the locus criminis at around 5:45 o'clock in the afternoon, the informant introduced
PO3 Navarette to Kamad and Bainhor as an interested buyer. Kamad then took a medium-sized plastic
sachet containing suspected shabu from his pocket and gave it to Bainhor, who, in turn, handed it to PO3
Navarette. Upon receipt of the plastic sachet, PO3 Navarette immediately executed their prearranged signal
by scratching the back of his head with his right hand. SPO1 Maung and PO1 Co immediately rushed in
and introduced themselves as PDEA operatives. The accused were informed of their rights and brought to
the police station for disposition and documentation.

PO3 Navarette testified that he marked the plastic sachet with his initial "RCN." He likewise
testified that he prepared the request for the laboratory examination that was brought by SPO1 Maung to
the crime laboratory together with the specimen, which later on tested positive for shabu.

Accused-appellants maintain that the testimony defeated the prosecution's claim of illegal sale of
drugs. They insist that no sale transaction was consummated between them and PO3 Navarette because one
of the essential elements of a sale, i.e. the price certain in money or its equivalent is absent.

Issue:

Whether the lower courts gravely erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty of the crime
charged notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:
The argument is erroneous. In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of
dangerous drug is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.11
Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.12
What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of the corpus delicti as evidence.13 In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish the
consummated transaction between the poseur-buyer and accused-appellants.
PEOPLE V. OLA

G.R. No. 195547, December 02, 2015

Facts:

That on or about the 27th day of September 2006, and prior thereto, in the City of Las Pias,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring and
confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another by means of deceit, false
pretenses and fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud ELIZABETH T. LAUZON.

The crime was committed with abuse of confidence reposed on Manuel Hurtada by Elizabeth
Lauzon without any mitigating circumstance to offset, all three accused, namely: 1) Manuel Hurtada, Jr. y
Buhat; 2) Aida Ricarse y Villadelgado and 3) Ma. Corazon Ola, are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Estafa under Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code.

Petitioner and the other accused appealed the RTC Decision to the CA. Petitioner and Ricarse
jointly filed their Brief for Accused-Appellants7 dated June 10, 2009, while Hurtada filed his Brief for the
Accused-Appellant8 dated September 9, 2009. A Brief for the Appellee,9 dated March 1, 2010, was
subsequently filed.

On May 28, 2010, petitioner filed a Manifestation with Leave of Court praying that she be granted
a period of twenty (20) days within which to file an appropriate pleading.
On June 29, 2010, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Appellant's Brief.

In its first assailed Resolution promulgated on September 9, 2010, the CA denied petitioner's
motion for having been filed out of time. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,11 but the CA denied
it in its second assailed Resolution dated December 14, 2010. Undeterred, petitioner, on January 4, 2011,
filed a Very Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for [Extension of Time] to File for Vacation of Resolution or
Appropriate Pleading.

On February 14, 2011, the CA issued its third assailed Resolution denying petitioner's motion,
treating the same as a second motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading.

Issue:

Whether or not the governing law or rule is Rule 10 on amendments of pleading, and not Section
6, both of Rule 6 and 11, in relation to Section 9 of Rule 44 and Section 4 of Rule 124 on matter of reply,
all of the Rules of Court.

Ruling:

The CA has correctly ruled that under Section 4, paragraph 2, Rule 2, of the Rules of Court,
petitioner had twenty (20) days from receipt of herein respondent's brief to file a reply brief to discuss
matters raised in respondent's brief which were not covered in her brief. However, as found by the CA,
petitioner's manifestation requesting an additional period to file an appropriate pleading as well as her
motion for leave of court to file an amended appellant's brief was filed seventy-nine (79) days late and, as
such, was deemed "not acceptable or too long to ignore.

PEOPLE V. MAGNO

185. G.R. No. 206972, December 02, 2015.

(RAPE)

Facts:

On the 20th day of February, 2000, in the City of Tacloban, [Leyte,], the above-named accused,
being then a private individual did, kidnap, detain and deprive the minor [AAA], a 5-month old baby girl,
by surreptitiously taking said minor with him without the consent and against the will of BBB (mother),
bringing said minor to unknown places and whereabouts and did, then and there have carnal knowledge
with said [AAA] a 5-month old baby girl, against her will.[4]
The arguments of the prosecution at the trial was that on 20 February 2000, BBB left her 5-month
old baby, AAA to the care of her eldest daughter CCC while she went to her mother's house to boil water.
When BBB came back, AAA has gone missing. A neighbor informed them that he saw an ice cream vendor
carrying a baby around the time when AAA went missing.

The incident was reported to the police. Meanwhile, a cargo truck driver narrated that while on his
way home, he saw a man abusing a baby on a bench in Plaza Libertad, Tacloban City. He noticed that the
baby's private parts were bloodied. He beckoned four bystanders but when they returned to the plaza, the
man had already fled and left the baby lying on the bench.

The police proceeded to Plaza Libertad and found AAA thereat. Police Officer 2 Raul De Lima
(PO2 Delima) informed BBB of a possible sighting of AAA in the plaza. He then accompanied BBB to the
plaza. BBB confirmed that the baby lying on the bench is AAA. She then brought AAA to the hospital.

Acting on a tip, the police proceeded to Barangay 37 in Seawall Area to apprehend accused-
appellant. The cargo truck driver positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant.

For his part, accused-appellant claimed that he was sleeping inside the house when the police came,
manhandled and arrested him. He denied raping AAA and claimed that he only came to know the charges
against him during arraignment.

On 3 September 2002, the trial court rendered a Decision finding appellant guilty of the crime
charged. In his Brief, accused-appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Issue:

Whether or not accused-appellant has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.

Ruling:
Yes. There is no dispute that rape was committed against AAA considering that her hymen had
fresh laceration and the edges are "sharp, reddened and edematous."[

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659, states that
when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or'is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.

It has been established that appellant committed kidnapping and on the occasion thereof, he raped
AAA. He is thus found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of kidnapping with rape,
warranting the penalty of death. However, in view of R.A. No. 9346 entitled "An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," the penalty of death is hereby reduced to reclusion
perpetua, without eligibility for parole.
PEOPLE V. ARCILLA

G.R. No. 208113, December 02, 2015

Facts:

On March 11, 1999, an Information4 for estafa was filed against petitioner before the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 5 (RTC) for her alleged failure to return or remit the proceeds from various
merchandise valued at P32,000.00 received by her in trust - i.e., on consignment basis from respondent.
During arraignment, petitioner entered a negative plea. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution anchored its case on the testimony of respondent who claimed to be a
businesswoman engaged in the business of selling goods/merchandise through agents (one of whom is
petitioner) under the condition that the latter shall turn over the proceeds or return the unsold items to her
a month after they were entrusted. Respondent averred that on February 20, 1996, she entrusted
merchandise consisting of umbrellas and bath towels worth P35,300.00 to petitioner 7 as evidenced by an
acknowledgment receipt8 dated February 20, 1996 duly signed by the latter. However, on March 20, 1996,
petitioner was only able to remit the amount of P3,300.009 and thereafter, failed to make further remittances
and ignored respondent's demands to remit the proceeds or return the goods.

In her defense, petitioner admitted having previous business dealings with respondent but not as an
agent. She clarified that she was a client who used to buy purchase order cards (POCs) and gift checks
(GCs) from respondent on installment basis and that, during each deal, she was made to sign a blank sheet
of paper prior to the issuance of POCs and GCs. She further claimed that their last transaction was
conducted in 1995, which had long been settled. However, she denied having received P32,000.00 worth
of merchandise from respondent on February 20, 1996.

In a Decision dated June 29, 2011, the RTC acquitted petitioner of the charge of estafa but held her
civilly liable to pay respondent the amount of P32,000.00, with interest from the filing of the Information
on March 11, 1999 until fully paid, and to pay the costs. In a Decision15 dated January 30, 2013, the CA
upheld petitioner's civil liability.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA committed reversible error in finding petitioner civilly liable to respondent.

Ruling:

The petition lacks merit.

The extinction of the civil liability where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence, or "greater weight of the credible evidence," is required. Thus, an accused
acquitted of estafa may still be held civilly liable where the facts established by the evidence so warrant, as
in this case.
In upholding the civil liability of petitioner, the CA did not dwell into the purported admission of
petitioner anent her receipt of GCs in the amount of P32,000.00 as found by the RTC. Instead, the CA
hinged its ruling23 on the acknowledgment receipt dated February 20, 1996, the documentary evidence that
respondent had duly identified25 and formally offered26 in the course of these proceedings.

PEOPLE V. ILAGAN

G.R. No. 190583 December 7, 2015

(QUALIFIED THEFT)

Facts:

The petitioner was the Vault Custodian of the 685 Old Balara, Tandang Sora, Quezon City branch
(Old Balara branch) of Cebuana Lhuillier Pawnshop (Cebuana). She was tasked to safe keep all the pawned
items and jewelry inside the branch vault. Likewise employed in the same branch were Teresita Salazar
(Salazar) and Jeannelyn Carpon (Carpon) who served as Branch Manager and District Manager,
respectively. Salazar was responsible for the overall operation of the Old Balara branch and was also tasked
to handle the appraisal of pawned items and the recording of such transactions. Carpon, on the other hand,
supervised the overall operations of the branches within her district ensuring that they are operating within
the objectives, procedures, and policies of Cebuana; she also monitored the district bank account and
handled the appraisal of pawned items and the recording of cash. On October 27, 1998, a surprise audit was
conducted at the Old Balara branch by Cebuanas internal auditors, Mila Escartin (Escartin) and Cynthia
Talampas (Talampas). The audit revealed that 156 pieces of jewelry, with an aggregate value of
1,250,800.00 were missing. A cash shortage of 848.60 was likewise discovered.When the petitioner was
asked to explain the discrepancy, she told Escartin that she would reduce her explanation into writing. The
next day, an audit report was sent to Marcelino Finolan (Finolan), Area Manager of Cebuana. In her letter,
she implicated Salazar and Carpon but were later acquitted beyond reasonable doubt.

The petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of QUALIFIED
THEFT defined and penalized in Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, and, considering the two analogous
mitigating circumstances, modifies the penalty by sentencing her therefor to an indeterminate penalty of
four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, and ordering her to pay to [CEBUANA] the amount of
P414,050.00.

The CA rejected the petitioners arguments and upheld the RTCs findings and conclusions.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA committed serious error in not finding that the trial court gravely erred in
rendering judgment upon conjectures and surmises vis-vis the absence of circumstantial evidence.

Ruling:

Court denies the petition.

Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latters
consent. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by
the offender of the thing subject of asportation. Theft becomes qualified if it is among others, committed
with grave abuse of confidence. Conviction for qualified theft committed with grave abuse of confidence
entails the presence of all the following elements:

1. Taking of personal property;


2. That the said property belongs to another;
3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That it be done without the owners consent;
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon
things;
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.

On the other hand, the elements of corpus delicti in theft are: (1) that the property was lost by the
owner; and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.The evidence on record shows that the foregoing elements
are present in this case.
MERCADO V. PEOPLE
188. G.R. No. 213832, December 07, 2015

(MURDER)
Facts:

The above named accused, armed with a handgun, shot Victor Dulap y Vargas (Victor) and Charlie
Dulap y Vargas (Charlie). The killings happened on the evening of October 31, 2011 at the residence of
Rosario Isad y Solis (Rosario) in Gemelina Drive, San Roque, Zamboanga City. Rosario had visitors on
that day because it was her daughter Restie Ann's birthday. Among those present were her neighbors Victor
and Charlie, Analiza Sahibul (Analiza) with boyfriend Mercado and companions Edwin Udja and a certain
"Eddie". The visitors were at the sala, sitting on the floor and singing while having food and alcoholic
drinks.
While Rosario was at the kitchen reheating more food, she heard three gunshots. She then went to
the sala and there found Victor and Charlie; her other visitors had left. Rosario saw Charlie still holding a
glass of tuba, while Victor's head was bowed down, like he was drunk. She saw blood on Victor, Charlie,
and the floor. She shouted, "Hay Sangre" (Oh, blood), collapsed and lost her consciousness. She later
learned that both Victor and Charlie had died.8 In their death certificates, it was stated that the victims died
due to hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds.

Witnesses Rosario and Analiza identified in court Mercado as the same "Bong" who was with them
on October 31, 2011. Analiza further identified Mercado as the person who shot Victor and Charlie. She
claimed that no fight or altercation ensued between Mercado and his victims before the shooting. Mercado
also did not say anything before he fired gunshots at them.

On March 28, 2011, the RTC rendered its joint Decision, the Court finds accused GILBERT
MERCADO y CABUCOS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crimes of Murder
charged in Criminal Case No. 18497 and Criminal Case No 18498, with the aggravating circumstance in
both cases of use of an unlicensed firearm, and SENTENCES.

Upon appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC's judgment. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the victims' assailant. He specifically
questioned the credibility of witness Analiza and the truth of her accusations against him.

Held:
No. It is a settled doctrine that "factual findings of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility
of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies and the conclusions based on these factual
findings are to be given highest respect." The Court considers the RTC's "unique position in directly
observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best
position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses." Thus, the Court "accords great respect and even finality
to the findings of credibility of the trial court, more so if the same were affirmed by the CA, as in this case."
Although jurisprudence cites certain exceptions to this doctrine, none of these exceptional circumstances
attend the present case.

In addition to the foregoing, jurisprudence tells us that where there is no evidence that the witnesses
of the prosecution were actuated by ill motive, it is presumed that they were not so actuated and their
testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.

CHIOK V. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 179814, December 07, 2015

(DOUBLE JEOPARDY)

Facts:

Sometime in June, 1995 in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, received in trust from Rufina Chua the
amount of P9,563,900.00 for him to buy complainant shares of stocks, under the express obligation on the
part of the accused to deliver the documents thereon or to return the whole amount if the purchase did not
materialize, but the accused once in possession of the said amount, far from complying will his obligation
as aforesaid, with intent to defraud the complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
misapply, misappropriate and convert lo his own personal use and benefit the said amount of P9,563,900.00,
and despite repeated demands failed and refused and still fails and refuses to return the said amount or to
account for the same, to the damage and prejudice of the complainant Rufina Chua in the aforementioned
amount of P9,563,900.00.
Chiok pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial ensued, with both parties presenting their
evidence in support of their respective claims and defenses.

On December 3, 1998, the RTC convicted Chiok of the crime of estafa (RTC conviction). On July
19, 2007, the CA in a Special Division of Five (Former-Fourth Division) rendered a Decision reversing and
setting aside the Decision dated December 3, 1998 of the trial court, and acquitted Chiok for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt (CA acquittal).

The CA found that the RTC conviction did not contain findings of fact on the prosecution's
evidence but merely recited the evidence of the prosecution as if such evidence was already proof of the
ultimate facts constituting estafa. Instead of relying on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, the trial
court relied on the weakness of the defense.

On July 19, 2007, the CA in a Special Division of Five (Former-Fourth Division) rendered a
Decision reversing and setting aside the Decision dated December 3, 1998 of the trial court, and acquitted
Chiok for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt (CA acquittal).

The CA found that the RTC conviction did not contain findings of fact on the prosecution's
evidence but merely recited the evidence of the prosecution as if such evidence was already proof of the
ultimate facts constituting estafa. Instead of relying on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, the trial
court relied on the weakness of the defense.
The OSG did not file a motion for reconsideration on the ground of double jeopardy. Chua, on the
other hand, filed a motion for reconsideration39 on August 8, 2007. Chiok also filed his own motion for
reconsideration, on the civil liability imposed on him.

In a Resolution dated October 3, 2007, the CA denied Chua's motion for reconsideration and its
supplement on the ground that acquittal is immediately final and the re-examination of the record of the
case would violate the guarantee against double jeopardy. It also denied the motions for reconsideration of
both parties on the civil aspect of the case.

Issue:
Whether or not the case is an exception to the rule on finality of acquittal and the doctrine of double
jeopardy.

Held:
Yes, the appeal from the judgment of acquittal will place Chiok in double jeopardy.

The 1987 Constitution, as well as its predecessors, guarantees the right of the accused against
double jeopardy. Section 7, Rule 117 of the 1985 and 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure strictly adhere to
the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy and provide for the requisites in order for double
jeopardy to attach. For double jeopardy to attach, the following elements must concur: (1) a valid
information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged; (2) a court of
competent jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was
convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express consent.

In order to give life to the rule on double jeopardy, our rules on criminal proceedings require that
a judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final, unappealable, and
immediately executory upon its promulgation.55 This is referred to as the "finality-of-acquittal" rule. The
rationale for the rule was explained in People v. Velasco:

As observed in Lockhart v. Nelson, "the fundamental tenet animating the Double Jeopardy Clause
is that the State should not be able to oppress individuals through the abuse of the criminal process."
Because the innocence of the accused has been confirmed by a final judgment, the Constitution conclusively
presumes that a second trial would be unfair.
PEOPLE V. VALDEZ
G.R. Nos. 216007-09

(BAIL)

Facts:

Private respondent was charged with the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru
Falsification of Official/Public Documents where the amount exceeds P22,000.00. The trial court favorably
acted on private respondent's motion and resolved to grant bail. Since the Ombudsman recommended "no
bail" in SB-14-CRM-0321, 0322, and 0324, Valdez, who is still at-large, caused the filing of a Motion to
Set Aside No Bail Recommendation and to Fix the Amount of Bail. She argued that the three cases are
bailable as a matter of right because no aggravating or modifying circumstance was alleged; the maximum
of the indeterminate sentence shall be taken from the medium period that ranged from 18 years, 8 months
and 1 day to 20 years; and applying Article 48 of the RPC, the imposable penalty is 20 years, which is the
maximum of the medium period. The People elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not bail be granted to the accused- appellant.


Held:

Private respondent is entitled to bail. 'For purposes of determining whether a person can be admitted
to bail as a matter of right, it is the imposable penalty prescribed by law for the crime charged which should
be considered and, not the penalty to be actually imposed....'

'In these cases, the offenses charged are the complex crimes of Malversation of Public Funds thru
Falsification of Official/Public Documents. In determining the penalty imposable, it is the penalty for the
most serious crime which is considered. Between Malversation and Falsification, it is Malversation which
provides the graver penalty....'

'The penalty, however, cannot be immediately applied in its maximum period, or reclusion
perpetua, since this will already consider the application of the penalty in the event of a conviction.

'The time-honored principle is that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and
liberally in favor of the accused. When there is doubt on the interpretation of criminal laws, all must be
resolved in favor of the accused.[39] Since penal laws should not be applied mechanically, the Court must
determine whether their application is consistent with the purpose and reason of the law.'
PEOPLE V. LERIO
191. G.R. No. 209039, December 09, 2015

(KIDNAPPING OF A MINOR)
Facts:

Accused-appellant, together with co-accused Relly Ronquillo Arellano (Arellano), were charged
with Kidnapping of a Minor in an Information. On the 10th day of September, 2005, at about 10:00 a.m., in
the City of Cebu, Philippines, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping
with each other, with deliberate intent, being then private individuals, did then and there kidnap, carry away
and deprive one JUSTIN CLYDE D. ANN [BAN, a baby boy, one (1) month) and eighteen (18) days old,
of his liberty, without authority of law and against his will and consent.

On 19 September 2005, private complainant Aileen Anniban (Anniban) filed an Affidavit of


Desistance4 in favor of Arellano declaring her belief that the latter was innocent of the crime charged. The
police officers, however, insisted on impleading Arellano in the Information. Upon reinvestigation, as
ordered by the trial court, Public Prosecutor Atty. Ma. Luisa Ratilla-Buenaventura recommended the
dismissal of the case against Arellano. Accordingly, the trial court dropped the name of Arellano from the
Information.

On 09 August 2011, accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping
of a minor.

Accused-appellant seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal before the CA. On 20 June 2013, the CA
affirmed the judgment of the RTC but modified the amount of exemplary damages, raising it to Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in line with the case of People v. Valerio.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA imposed the correct penalty on the accused- appellant.

Held:

Yes. The prescribed penalty for kidnapping a minor under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua to death, to wit:
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain
another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death.

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the
parents, female, or a public officer.
Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the felony, the
RTC properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, together with the accessory penalty provided by
law. The Court of Appeals also correctly modified the amount of the award of exemplary damages in
conformity with prevailing jurisprudence. Finally, all damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

PEOPLE V. DAYAPDAPAN
192. G.R. No. 209040, December 09, 2015

(RAPE- Qualified by the twin circumstances of minority and relationship)

Facts:

Except for the dates, the five (5) Information identically charge accused-appellant of rape
committed as follow:

That on or about March 25, 2002 at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening at x x x, Negros Oriental,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, who is the father of 14-
year old [AAA], did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by force, threat or intimidation,
insert his penis into the vagina of his said daughter and had carnal knowledge of her against her will and
consent.

On 27 April 2007, accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five (5) counts
of rape. On 23 May 2013, the CA rendered the assailed judgment affirming with modification the trial
court's decision.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the twin qualifying circumstances of
minority and relationship.

Held:

Yes, the RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the twin qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship. Accused-appellant admitted during the pre-trial conference that AAA was his daughter. Thus,
relationship between accused-appellant and AAA is established. Anent the element of minority, the
prosecution presented a certification from the UCCP Office in Ayungon, Negros Occidental stating that
AAA was baptized according to the rites and ceremonies of the UCCP. The certification shows that AAA
was born on 10 September 1987 to accused-appellant and a certain Nely Fabel. A page of the UCCP
Membership Book was submitted bearing the same information. It was held that a birth certificate,
baptismal certificate, school records or documents of similar nature can be presented to prove the age of a
victim. In this case, the Membership Book, which is considered an entry in official records under Section
44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, is admissible as prima facie of their contents and corroborative of AAA's
testimony as to her age. Moreover, entries in public or official books or records may be proved by the
production of the books or records themselves or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof.

Considering that accused-appellant committed rape qualified by the twin circumstances of minority
and relationship, the proper penalty to be imposed is death. Since the imposition of the death penalty has
been prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346, the lower courts properly imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of rape.