G.R. No.

190862 October 9, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RICARDO DEARO, PAULINO
LUAGUE and WILFREDO TOLEDO, Accused-Appellants.

Facts:
On the evening of 26 February 1996, Emetrio asked Jose whether he and his
companions may spend the night in the latter’s house. Jose agreed. Emetrio
proceeded to the house while Jose went to look for a certain Rolly, and thereafter
followed Emetrio to the house. When Jose and Rolly were 10 meters away, they
heard a single gunshot coming from the house. The two went down on the ground
for safety as they saw Paulino Luague (Luague) coming down from Jose’s house.
They heard cries of women from inside the house asking for help, followed by a
rapid series of gunfire from the back of the house.

When the firing stopped, they saw appellants Ricardo Dearo (Dearo)and Wilfredo
Toledo (Toledo), both carrying long firearms, walk with Luague from the back of the
house towards the road. The three had other companions, but Jose and Rolly were
not able to identify them.

After appellants left, Jose and Rolly went inside the house and saw Emeterio and his
companions on the floor, already dead, while a certain Analiza was still moaning in
pain. Analiza was later also pronounced dead.

Issue:
Whether treachery attended the killing of the victims

Held:
Yes. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend
directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from
the defense that the offended party might make. We have ruled that treachery is
present when an assailant takes advantage of a situation in which the victim is
asleep, unaware of the evil design, or has just awakened.

It has been established by the prosecution, and even confirmed by the defense, that
the victims were sleeping when they were shot. To be precise, it was Emeterio who
was asleep when he was shot, considering that the women were able to cry for help
before the rapid firing that silenced them. In any case, it was clear that the women
were in no position to defend themselves, having been rudely awakened by the
shooting of their companion. The fact that they shouted for help also showed their
loss of hope in the face of what was coming – rapid gunfire from long firearms.

Thus, it has been established that appellants killed Emeterio, Porferia and Analiza.
Appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance, the crime is properly
denominated as murder.
G.R. NO. 184496 December 2, 2013

HADJI HASHIM ABDUL, Petitioner,

vs.
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Facts:

An Information was filed stating that the accused HADJI HASHIM ABDUL, being the
Municipal Mayor of the Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur, among others, made
it appear that Engr. Murad as Municipal Engineer prepared and signed the Program
Appropriation and Obligation by Object, Personnel Schedule and Functional
Statement and General Objective, when in truth and in fact, Murad was never
employed as Municipal Engineer of the said Municipality.

The Sandiganbayan suspended the petitioner pendent lite. The suspension order,
however, was no longer implemented because it was superseded by the expiration
of petitioner’s second term as municipal mayor. During the May 2007 election,
petitioner emerged as the winner in the mayoralty race and again sat as Mayor. The
OSP once again moved for his and his co-accused’s suspension pendente lite to
implement respondent’s final and executory suspension order of October 9, 2003.
On November 24, 2009 while the present Petition was pending before the Court,
respondent Sandiganbayan promulgated its Decision acquitting petitioner and his
co-accused of the offense charged.

Issue:
Whether the acquittal of the accused rendered the case moot and academic

Held:

Yes. For a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or
controversy. The Court has previously ruled that "[w]here the issue has become
moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereof
would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere
academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest however intellectually challenging."
In the present case, the acquittal of herein petitioner operates as a supervening
event that mooted the present Petition. Any resolution on the validity or invalidity
of the issuance of the order of suspension could no longer affect his rights as a
ranking public officer, for legally speaking he did not commit the offense charged.
G.R. No. 192123 March 10, 2014
DR. FERNANDO P. SOLIDUM, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:

Gerald Albert Gercayo (Gerald) was born with an imperforate anus. Two days after
his birth, Gerald underwent colostomy. When Gerald was three years old, he was
admitted at the Ospital ng Maynila for a pull-through operation. The
anesthesiologists included Dr. Marichu Abella, Dr. Arnel Razon and petitioner Dr.
Fernando Solidum (Dr. Solidum). During the operation, Gerald experienced
bradycardia, and went into a coma. His coma lasted for two weeks, but he regained
consciousness only after a month. He could no longer see, hear or move.

Upon a finding of probable cause, the City Prosecutor’s Office filed an information
solely against Dr. Solidum, upon finding that he failed to monitor and regulate
properly the levels of anesthesia administered to GERALD and using 100%
halothane and other anesthetic medications, as a consequence of his said
carelessness and negligence, GERALD suffered a cardiac arrest and consequently a
defect causing insufficient oxygen supply in the brain.

The RTC rendered its judgment finding Dr. Solidum guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries. The CA affirmed the
conviction of Dr. Solidum.

Issue:

a. Whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable

b. Whether or not Dr. Solidum was liable for criminal negligence

Held:

a. In order to allow resort to the doctrine, the following essential requisites must
first be satisfied, to wit: (1) the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily
occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency that caused
the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged; and (3) the
injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution
of the person injured.

The Court considers the application here of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
inappropriate. Although it should be conceded without difficulty that the second and
third elements were present, considering that the anesthetic agent and the
instruments were exclusively within the control of Dr. Solidum, and that the patient,
being then unconscious during the operation, could not have been guilty of
contributory negligence, the first element was undeniably wanting. Luz delivered
Gerald to the care, custody and control of his physicians for a pull-through
operation. Except for the imperforate anus, Gerald was then of sound body and mind
at the time of his submission to the physicians. Yet, he experienced bradycardia
during the operation, causing loss of his senses and rendering him immobile.
Hypoxia, or the insufficiency of oxygen supply to the brain that caused the slowing
of the heart rate, scientifically termed as bradycardia, would not ordinarily occur in
the process of a pull-through operation, or during the administration of anesthesia
to the patient, but such fact alone did not prove that the negligence of any of his
attending physicians, including the anesthesiologists, had caused the injury. In fact,
the anesthesiologists attending to him had sensed in the course of the operation that
the lack of oxygen could have been triggered by the vago-vagal reflex, prompting
them to administer atropine to the patient.

The Prosecution presented no witnesses with special medical qualifications in

anesthesia to provide guidance to the trial court on what standard of care was
applicable. It would consequently be truly difficult, if not impossible, to determine
whether the first three elements of a negligence and malpractice action were
attendant.

b. Dr. Solidum was criminally charged for "failing to monitor and regulate properly
the levels of anesthesia administered to said Gerald Albert Gercayo and using
100% halothane and other anesthetic medications." However, the foregoing
circumstances, taken together, did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Dr.
Solidum had been recklessly imprudent in administering the anesthetic agent to
Gerald. Indeed, Dr. Vertido’s findings did not preclude the probability that other
factors related to Gerald’s major operation, which could or could not necessarily
be attributed to the administration of the anesthesia, had caused the hypoxia and
had then led Gerald to experience bradycardia. Dr. Vertido revealingly concluded
in his report, instead, that "although the anesthesiologist followed the normal
routine and precautionary procedures, still hypoxia and its corresponding side
effects did occur."

The existence of the probability about other factors causing the hypoxia has
engendered in the mind of the Court a reasonable doubt as to Dr. Solidum’s guilt,
and moves us to acquit him of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to serious
physical injuries.
G.R. No. 208761 June 4, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ROLANDO BARAGA y ARCILLA, Accused-Appellant.

Facts:
In five separate Informations, accused-appellant Rolando Baraga y Arcilla (Baraga)
was charged with three (3) counts of acts of lasciviousness under Section 5(b),
Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection
of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, and two (2) counts
of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended,
committed upon the person of his daughter, AAA,3 who was then still a minor.

Baraga denied the allegations against him, asserting that he never touched AAA’s
vagina nor had carnal knowledge of her. He claimed that he could not have
committed the charges against him during the said dates as he was then busy with
his work. He alleged that it was a certain Veronica Cruz (Cruz) who influenced AAA
to concoct the charges against him. That Cruz wanted to get back at him since he
filed a suit against her for demolishing his house.

The RTC found Baraga guilty of the crimes of acts of lasciviousness and rape. The CA
affirmed the RTC’s decosopmt with a modification on the penalty imposed. As
regards the charge of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 07-0685, inasmuch
as AAA was already 12 years old when the acts alleged therein were committed by
Baraga, the CA, applying Article 336 of the RPC, imposed the penalty of six (6)
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional, as
maximum.

Issue:

Whether the alternative circumstance of relationship should be appreciated in

determining the penalty

Held:

Sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 has three elements: (1)
the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said
act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse; and (3) the child is below 18 years old.

A perusal of the records of this case shows that the prosecution was able to establish
Baraga’s criminal liability under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. First,
Baraga, on two instances, i.e., on April 2, 2007 and on August 19, 2007, intentionally
touched AAA’s vagina. Second, Baraga used his moral ascendancy and influence over
his daughter AAA to consummate his lascivious design. Third, AAA was less than 18
years of age when the said incidents happened.

Under Section 5, Article III, of R.A. No. 7610, the offender shall be punished with the
penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. However,
when the victim of the sexual abuse is under 12 years old, the imposable penalty
shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.

The penalty for sexual abuse performed on a child under 18 years old but over 12
years old under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium
period to reclusion perpetua. The Court likewise considers the alternative
circumstance of relationship against Baraga as an aggravating circumstance. Since
there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty
shall be applied in its maximum period, i.e., reclusion perpetua. Besides, Section 31
of R.A. No. 7610 expressly provides that the penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period when the perpetrator is, inter alia, the parent of the victim.