Case No.

38

People vs. Daria, GR No. 186138, September 11, 2009

Facts:

At around 7:30 p.m. on 18 August 2003, a confidential informant showed up at the DAID-SOTF of the
Eastern Police District, Pasig City reporting that Loreto was peddling shabu at Sitio Bolante, Barangay
Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City.7 Inspector Pascual immediately briefed the narcotics operatives present
composed of Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Bernardo, PO1 Jocelyn Samson, PO1 Martinez, PO1 Genove,
PO1 Orig, PO1 Damasco, PO1 Ramos, PO1 Montefalcon and PO1 Bantog and ordered them to conduct a
buy-bust operation.8 PO1 Bantog was tasked to act as the poseur-buyer.9 The buy-bust money, a P500-
peso bill, which came from Inspector Pascual, was marked by PO1 Bantog with his initials "VSB." At
around 8:30 p.m., the team went to the target area and arrived there at around 9:30 p.m. Inspector
Pascual instructed the asset to verify the location of Loreto in the vicinity. As soon as the asset came
back and confirmed the presence of Loreto in the area, the former, together with PO1 Bantog,
approached the target.10 Behind them was PO1 Montefalcon, who acted as back-up. The confidential
informant introduced PO1 Bantog to Loreto and told the latter that the former wanted to buy shabu.11
After a brief negotiation, PO1 Bantog handed the buy-bust money to Loreto who, in turn, gave one
plastic sachet containing crystalline substance.12 At once, PO1 Bantog held Loreto and introduced
himself as a police officer. PO1 Montefalcon also rushed in and held Loreto.13 PO1 Bantog retrieved the
marked money from Loreto’s hand and ten more plastic sachets from the pocket of the latter’s pants.
PO1 Bantog marked the sachet subject of the buy-bust as "A" and the ten confiscated plastic sachets as
"A-1" to "A-10."14 PO1 Bantog informed Loreto of his constitutional rights. Without delay, the latter was
brought to the police station.15 The recovered plastic sachets were sent to the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office.16 Per the chemistry
report, it was found that the 11 sachets were positive for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.

Issue:

WON there is an irregularity in the performance of duty of the police authorities

Ruling:

It can easily be gleaned that non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Republic Act No.
9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations relative to the custody, photographing and drug-
testing of the apprehended persons, are not serious flaws that can render void the seizures and custody
of drugs in a buy-bust operation. In addition, the Court has already ruled that the non-presentation of
the pre-operation report is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution, because it is not indispensable in a
buy-bust operation. What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust
operation is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to wit: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor, which the prosecution has satisfactorily established. The prosecution satisfactorily
proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented in court the evidence of corpus delicti.
Case No.55

People vs Arnel Villalba GR No.207629, October 22, 2014

Facts:

Maximillian, a college instructor, attended a farewell party for his students at Moff s Restaurant and
Cocktail Lounge along JC Aquino Avenue in Butuan City on the night of April 28, 2006. Maximillian was
accompanied by his wife Josephine and their friends Frederick, Homer, and Homer's wife Marilou.
Josephine begged Maximillian that they already go home. Josephine reminded Maximillian of the
lateness of the hour and of the great amount of liquor that he had already consumed. Maximillian still
did not want to leave, but Josephine insisted. Angry, Maximillian rushed out of the restaurant and
headed towards the direction of the Gaisano Mall in Butuan City. Maximillian and Frederick had an
encounter with accused Arnel Villalba and started a fight when Maximillian asked accused of how much
was his girlfriend. Accused Arnel does not mind Maximillian because he knew it was quite drunk.
Maximillian then tried to hold accused Arnel’s hand but the co accused Randy cousin of Arnel pulled
Maximillian’s hand and held while Arnel punched him. After the encounter, Maximillian was rushed to
the hospital and there they knew that he was stabbed by a sharp objects causing Cardio Pulmonary
Resuscitation.

Issue :

WON the accused has committed the crime with conspiracy.

Held:

Jurisprudence requires that conspiracy must be proven as the crime itself. Conspiracy exists when two
or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.
Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence, as the same may be inferred from the conduct
of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the
offense. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit
agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to
be carried out. The rule is that conviction is proper upon proof that the accused acted in concert, each of
them doing his part to fulfill the common design to kill the victim.[31]

There is no clear evidence that accused-appellants had a common design to kill Maximillian. To recall,
Maximillian's group and accused-appellants' group completely met by chance that fateful early morning
of April 29, 2006 near Gaisano Mall. They did not know each other before this meeting. The events
swiftly happened, in a matter of minutes, from the meeting of the two groups, to Maximillian's insulting
remark to Jenny, to the scuffle between Maximillian and accused-appellant Arnel, and to accused-
appellant Arnel's stabbing of Maximillian.
Case No. 67

Nacnac vs People GR No. 191913 March 21, 2012

Facts:

On February 20, 2003, SPO2 Nacnac (accused-appellant), the SPO1 Espejo (victim) and a number of
other police officers were on duty. Nacnac, being the highest ranking officer during the shift, was
designated the officer-of-the-day. Shortly before 10:00 in the evening, Espejo, together with then SPO1
Basilio, took the patrol tricycle from the station grounds. When Nacnac saw this, he stopped the victim
and his colleague from using the tricycle. Espejo told Nacnac that he needed it to go to Laoag City to
settle a previous disagreement with a security of a local bar. Nacnac still refused. He told Espejo that he
is needed at the station and, at any rate, he should stay at the station because he was drunk. This was
not received well by Espejo. He told Nacnac in Ilocano: Iyot ni inam kapi (Coitus of your mother,
cousin!). Espejo alighted from the tricycle. SPO1 Eduardo Basilio did the same, went inside the office,
and left Nacnac and Espejo alone. Espejo took a few steps and drew his .45 caliber gun which was
tucked in a holster on the right side of his chest. Nacnac then fired his M-16 armalite upward as a
warning shot. Undaunted, Espejo still drew his gun. Nacnac then shot the victim on the head, which
caused the Espejo’s instantaneous death. Nacnac later surrendered to the stations Chief of Police. The

RTC found Nacnac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. It held that the claim of
self-defense by Nacnac was unvailing due to the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of Espejo.
On appeal, CA affirmed the findings of RTC. It held that the essential and primary element of unlawful
aggression was lacking. It gave credence to the finding of the trial court that no one else saw the victim
drawing his weapon and pointing it at accused Nacnac.

Issue:

Whether or not the justifying circumstances of the petitioner’s acts constitutes a valid self-defense.

Ruling:

Ordinarily, the act of the deceased of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as
unlawful aggression. Such act did not did not put in real peril the life or personal safety of appellant.
However, the victim here was a trained police officer. He has inebriated and had disobeyed a lawful
order in order to settle a score with someone using a police vehicle. A warning shot fired by a fellow
police officer, his superior, was left unheeded as he reached for his own firearm and pointed it at
petitioner. Petitioner was, therefore, justified in defending himself from an inebriated and disobedient
colleague. Even if we were to disbelieve the claim that the victim pointed his firearm at petitioner, ther
would still be a finding of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. A police officer is trained to
shoot quickly and accurately. Given this factual backdrop, there is reasonable basis to presume that the
appellant indeed felt his life was threatened.