Pals - Crim Law 2015

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS
Although courts must not remain indifferent to public sentiments, in this case the general
condemnation of a hazing-related death, they are still bound to observe a fundamental principle in
our criminal justice system. No act constitutes a crime unless it is made so by law. Nullum crimen,
nulla poena sine lege. Even if an act is viewed by a large section of the populace as immoral or
injurious, it cannot be considered a crime, absent any law prohibiting its commission. Had the AntiHazing Law been in effect then, these five accused fraternity members would have all been
convicted of the crime of hazing punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment). The absence
of malicious intent does not automatically mean, however, that the accused fraternity members are
ultimately devoid of criminal liability. The Revised Penal Code also punishes felonies that are
committed by means of fault (culpa). ARTEMIO VILLAREAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012, CJ. Sereno
FELONIES
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
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. 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 accusedappellant Arnel, and to accused-appellant Arnel's stabbing of Maximillian. The scuffle between
Maximillian and accused-appellant Arnel broke out because the former tried to grab the latter's
arm. It was at this point that prosecution witnesses saw accused-appellant Randy block
Maximillian's way and hold Maximillian's hand/s. Josephine testified that accused-appellant Randy
held only Maximillian's left hand, and Frederick narrated that accused-appellant Randy held both of
Maximillian's hands; but neither of these witnesses was able to describe the extent that
Maximillian's ability to defend himself or flee was impaired by accused-appellant Randy's hold on
his hand/s. Given the circumstances, the Court has serious doubts that accused-appellant Randy so
acted to ensure that accused-appellant Arnel would be able to stab and kill Maximillian. It is
completely reasonable and plausible that accused-appellant Randy was merely stepping in to stop
Maximillian from further attacking his cousin accused-appellant Arnel. There was no proof that
accused-appellant Randy had prior knowledge that accused-appellant Arnel carried a sharp
weapon with him or that accused-appellant Arnel intended to stab Maximillian. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. ARNEL VILLALBA AND RANDY VILLALBA, G.R. No. 207629, October 22, 2014,
J. Leonardo-De Castro
Page 1 of 49

Conspiracy must be proven with evidence that can convince a trial court of its existence beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, when the co-accused stated in open court that her fellow co-accused had
no participation in the crime of estafa, such statement was an admission against her interest. The
statement negated the alleged common design or purposeof conspiracy between her and Benito.
It alsomeans that she admitted that her companions acts can never be attributed to her. ANGELITA
CRUZ BENITO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, GR. No. 204644, February 11, 2015, J. Leonen
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
To avail of self-defense as a justifying circumstance so as not to incur any criminal liability, it must
be proved with certainty by satisfactory and convincing evidence which excludes any vestige of
criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. It cannot be entertained where it is not
only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but is also doubtful. Thus, the claim of an
accused that he stabbed the victim at the back portion of the latters body (Lumbar area) while the
former was lying down is not only uncorroborated by any other evidence but it is improbable and
contrary to the physical evidence especially when the vicitm was lying on the ground while the
accused was on top and at the same time choking him, making the plea of self-defense dubious.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERWIN LALOG, ROOSEVELT CONCEPCION, EDWIN RAMIREZ,
and RICKY LITADA, G.R. No. 196753, April 21, 2014, J. Del Castillo
Self-defense, to be successfully invoked, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence that
excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. Bosito failed to
present adequate evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, his claim of self-defense cannot stand.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNALDO BOSITO Y CHAVENIA, G.R. No. 209346, January
12, 2015, J. Carpio
The accused failed to prove any unlawful aggression on the part of either Joel or Eligio, which is a
condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense to obtain. As case law puts it,
there can be no self-defense unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the person
who resorted to self-defense. As shown by the records, it was Casas who was actually the aggressor,
as he was the one who wielded a knife, brought it to bear on Eligio, then on Joel as he lay prostrate,
and again on Eligio as he was fleeing. Being the party initiating the attack, and overbearing with a
deadly weapon, Casas cannot successfully claim that there was unlawful aggression. Verily, for
unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or
imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude,as against the one
claiming self-defense. Evidently, the contrary happened in this case.
However, the Court disagrees that the accused should be convicted of the crime of Murder with
respect to the death of Joel, considering the prosecutions failure to prove the existence of
treachery. In order to appreciate treachery, the victim must not have known the peril he was
exposed to at the moment of the attack. Should it appear, however, that the victim was forewarned
of the danger he was in, and, instead of fleeing from it he met it and was killed as a result, then the
qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be appreciated.
In this case, Joel knew that Casas was armed with a knife and had just used the same on
Eligio. Joel elected to intervene, and even armed himself with a bamboo pole. Accordingly, it is
Page 2 of 49

rather obvious that Joel was aware of the danger to his life. Further, acting in the heat of the
moment, and there being no showing that no appreciable interval of time had elapsed from Joels
mishap to his stabbing so as to allow for the assailants careful reflection, it does not equally appear
that Casas deliberately adopted means in order to ensure that Joel had no opportunity to defend
himself or retaliate. Evidently, this lack of deliberation on the part of Casas, as well as Joels obvious
awareness of the danger to his life, prompts this Court to discount treachery as a qualifying
circumstance. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENJAMIN CASAS Y VINTULAN, G.R. No.
212565, February 25, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
The essential requisites of self-defense are the following: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. Other than Dela
Cruzs testimony, the defense did not adduce evidence to show that Jeffrey condescendingly
responded to Dela Cruzs questions or initiated the confrontation before the shooting incident; that
Jeffrey pulled a gun from his chair and tried to shoot petitioner but failed an assault which may
have caused Dela Cruz to fear for his life. Even assuming that the aggression with use of the gun
initially came from the victim, the fact remains that it ceased when the gun was wrested away by
the accused from the victim. It is settled that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no
longer has any right to kill or wound the former aggressor, otherwise, retaliation and not selfdefense is committed .A person making a defense has no more right to attack an aggressor when the
unlawful aggression has ceased. SHERWIN DELA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al.,
G.R. No. 189405, November 19, 2014, J. Peralta
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
The special qualifying circumstance such as the minority of the victim and relationship with the
offender must be alleged in the criminal complaint or information and must be proved conclusively
and indubitably as the crime itself. Although it was shown during the trial that Barcela was the
common law spouse or live-in partner of the mother of victims AAA and BBB, this fact would not
alter the crimes in their qualified form inasmuch as the two separate informations did not
specifically allege such relationship as aqualifying circumstance. Otherwise, he would be deprived
of his right to be informed of the charge lodged against him. The relationship alleged in the
information is different from that actually proven. PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES vs. FLORO
BUBAN BARCELA, G.R. No. 208760, April 23, 2014, J. Mendoza
Without any evidence to appreciate the aggravating circumstance of treachery in the killing of
Calim, respondent can only be held liable as principal for the crime of homicide. For treachery to be
considered, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where
no particulars are known as to how the killing began, the perpetration of an attack with treachery
cannot be presumed. Furthermore, Watamamas theory of mistaken identity is not persuasive;
witnesses need not know the names of the assailants, as long as they recognize the latters faces.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MATIMANAY WATAMAMA a.k.a. AKMAD SALIPADA, TENG
MIDTIMBANG, G.R. No. 188710, June 2, 2014, CJ. Sereno
Jenny stabbed the victim out of the blue during town festivities. A sudden attack which is not
preconceived by the accused belies the holding of treachery. When the victim is merely a bystander
in an altercation, when suddenly the accused stabs him, absent any other qualifying circumstance,
the accused is only liable for homicide. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JENNY LIKIRAN alias
Loloy, G.R. No. 201858, June 4, 2014, J. Reyes
Page 3 of 49

Treachery as a qualifying circumstance must be deliberately sought to ensure the safety of the
accused from the defensive acts of the victim. The unexpectedness of an attack cannot be the sole
basis of a finding of treachery even if the attack was intended to kill another as long as the victims
position was merely accidental. A finding of the existence of treachery should be based on clear
and convincing evidence. Such evidence must be as conclusive as the fact of killing itself. In this
case, no evidence was presented to show that petitioner consciously adopted or reflected on the
means, method, or form of attack to secure his unfair advantage. MIGUEL CIRERA y USTELO, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 181843, July 14, 2014, J. Leonen
The accused who was charged and convicted with the crime of murder contends that the trial court
and the CA erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The SC ruled that the
appellants sudden attack on the victim amply demonstrates that treachery was employed in the
commission of the crime. It further held that It is of no consequence that appellant was in front of
the victim when he thrust the knife to his torso for even a frontal attack could be treacherous when
unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VIRGILIO AMORA y VISCARRA, G.R. No. 190322, November
26, 2014, J. Del Castillo
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between
the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously
advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the
crime. The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that
the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative
strength of the aggressors and the victim. The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely
sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. To take
advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the
means of defense available to the person attacked. The appreciation of this aggravating
circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. GARY FANTASTICO AND
ROLANDO VILLANUEVA vs. ELPIDIO MALICSE, SR. AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
190912, January 12, 2015, J. Peralta
In convicted the accused of the crime of murder, the RTC appreciated the use of firearm as an
special aggravating circumstance. The Supreme Court affirmed such ruling by citing Presidential
Decree No. (PD) 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8294, which treats the unauthorized
use of a licensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of homicide or murder as a special
aggravating circumstance. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DANIEL VILLA MATIBAG y DE @
"DANI" "DANILO," G.R. No. 206381, March 25, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
PENALTIES
APPLICATION
The CA modified the felony committed by Mariano from frustrated homicide to reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. The court ruled that CA incorrectly considered
the Mariano's act as a grave felony had it been intentional, and should not have imposed the penalty
at arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period. Instead, the
accused's act that caused the serious physical injuries, had it been intentional, would be a less grave
Page 4 of 49

felony under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code. REYNALDO S. MARIANO vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 178145, July 7, 2014, J. Bersamin
At any rate, even if it were assumed that the findings by the CA warranted his being guilty only of
malversation through negligence, the Court would not be barred from holding him liable for the
intentional crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents because
his appealing the convictions kept the door ajar for an increase in his liability. It is axiomatic that by
appealing he waived the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, leaving him open to
being convicted of whatever crimes the Court would ultimately conclude from the records to have
been actually committed by him within the terms of the allegations in the informations under which
he had been arraigned. MANOLITO GIL ZAFRA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
176317, July 23, 2014, J. Bersamin
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Baraga allegedly raped his own daughter 2 times and committed acts of lasciviousness twice. He
was convicted by both the RTC and the CA. The decisions differ as to the penalty imposable. The
Court reconciled the different impositions by stating that in applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the crime as alleged in the criminal complaint must be followed. The Court cannot interchange
the law applicable just on the basis of the victims age. The fact that the victim is beyond 12 years
old when the act of lasciviousness occurred, such fact does not exclude it from the application of the
Anti-Child Abuse Law. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLANDO BARAGA y ARCILLA, G.R. No.
208781, June 4, 2014, J. Reyes
MODIFICATION AND EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
The criminal and civil liability ex delicto of a person convicted for murder who moved for
reconsideration of his conviction and died pending resolution, will be extinguished. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENJIE CONSORTE y FRANCO, G.R. No. 194068, November 26, 2014, J.
Reyes
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME
Rivera was resigned from work. However, her separation pay and other benefits were withheld. She
sent several text messages to the account manager of her former company. The President of the
said company instituted a criminal action for libel due to the contents of the text messages. Rivera
alleged that libel can no longer prosper due to prescription. "Although the general rule is that the
defense of prescription is not available unless expressly set up in the lower court, as in that case it is
presumed to have been waived and cannot be taken advantage of thereafter, yet this rule is not
always of absolute application in criminal cases, such as that in which prescription of the crime is
expressly provided by law, for the State not having then the right to prosecute, or continue
prosecuting, nor to punish, or continue punishing, the offense, or to continue holding the defendant
subject to its action through the imposition of the penalty, the court must so declare. RAMON A.
SYHUNLIONG vs. TERESITA D. RIVERA, G.R. No. 200148, June 4, 2014, J. Reyes
CIVIL LIABILITY
Page 5 of 49

Considering that the crime of illegal recruitment, when it involves the transfer of funds
from the victims to the accused, is inherently in fraud of the former, civil liability should
include the return of the amounts paid as placement, training and processing fees. Hence,
Inovero and her co-accused were liable to indemnify the complainants for all the sums
paid. The nature of the obligation of the co-conspirators in the commission of the crime
requires solidarity, and each debtor may be compelled to pay the entire obligation. As a coconspirator, then, Inoveros civil liability was similar to that of a joint tortfeasor under the
rules of the civil law. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MA. HARLETA VELASCO y BRIONES,
MARICAR B. INOVERO, MARISSA DIALA, and BERNA M. PAULINO, G.R. No. 195668, June 25,
2014, J. Bersamin
PROBATION LAW
Suyan has been apprehended twice for drug possession while on probation. The court held that as
probation is a mere discretionary grant, Suyan was bound to observe full obedience to the terms
and conditions pertaining to the probation order or run the risk of revocation of this privilege. The
Court's discretion to grant probation is to be exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society
and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused. Having the power to grant probation, it follows
that the trial court also has the power to order its revocation in a proper case and under
appropriate circumstances. NEIL E. SUYAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE CHIEF
PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICER, DAGUPAN CITY, G.R. No. 189644, July 02, 2014, C.J.
Sereno
BOOK II, RPC AND SPECIAL LAWS

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR AGENTS OF SUCH PERSON
The two key elements of resistance and serious disobedience punished under Art. 151 of the RPC
are: (1) That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or
gives a lawful order to the offender; and (2) That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such
person or his agent. There can be no quibble that P/Insp. Aguilar and his apprehending team are
persons in authority or agents of a person in authority manning a legal checkpoint. But surely
Sydecos act of exercising ones right against unreasonable searches to be conducted in the middle
of the night cannot, in context, be equated to disobedience let alone resisting a lawful order in
contemplation of Art. 151 of the RPC. EDMUND SYDECO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.
No. 202692, November 12, 2014, J. Velasco
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS (R.A. 8294)
Once the prosecution evidence indubitably points to possession without the requisite authority or
license, coupled with animus possidendi or intent to possess on the part of the accused, conviction
for violation of the said law must follow. Animus possidendi is a state of mind, the presence or
determination of which is largely dependent on attendant events in each case. It may be inferred
from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances.
Page 6 of 49

Here, the prosecution had proved the essential elements of the crime charged under PD 1866 as
amended by R.A. No. 8294. The existence of the seized firearm and the ammunitions was
established through the testimony of PO3 Sarte. There was an inventory of the items seized which
was made in the presence of the petitioner and the three barangay tanods who all voluntarily
signed the inventory receipt. PO3 Sarte identified all the seized items in open court. ARNULFO
A.K.A. ARNOLD JACABAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015,
J. Peralta
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER
Sevillas claim that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him was violated when the Sandiganbayan convicted him of reckless imprudence resulting
to falsification of public documents, when the Information only charged the intentional felony of
falsification of public documents, is untenable. Reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of
public documents is an offense that is necessarily included in the willful act of falsification of public
documents, the latter being the greater offense. While a criminal negligent act is not a simple
modality of a willful crime, but a distinct crime in itself, designated as a quasi-offense, in [the RPC],
it may however be said that a conviction for the former can be had under an information exclusively
charging the commission of a willful offense, upon the theory that the greater includes the lesser
offense. VENANCIO M. SEVILLA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 194390, August 13,
2014, J. Reyes
The absence of such allotment not only renders invalid the release of funds therefor but also taints
the legality of the projects appropriation as well as the Provinces contract with a contractor.
GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR. vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, LEONARDO B. ROMAN,
ROMEO L. MENDIOLA, PASTOR P. VICHUACO, AURORA J. TIAMBENG, AND NUMERIANO G.
MEDINA, G.R. No. 197567, November 19, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
Falsification of documents under par. 1, Art. 172 in relation to Art. 171 of the RPC refers to
falsification by a private individual, or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of
his official position, of public, private, or commercial documents. In the case at bar, David made the
untruthful statement in the Miscellaneous Lease Application, a public document, that he is a Filipino
citizen at the time of the filing of said application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian citizen.
The MTC therefore did not err in finding probable cause for falsification of public document under
Art. 172, par. 1. RENATO M. DAVID vs. EDITHA A. AGBAY AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015, J. Villarama
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS
Firmly established in our jurisprudence is the rule that in the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the following essential elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale
took place (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence and (3) that the
buyer and seller were identified. Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or
Page 7 of 49

sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or
regulated drug as evidence. 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. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARCO ALEJANDRO, G.R.
No. 205227, April 7, 2014, J. Villarama Jr.
The fact that the marking on the seized item was done at the police station, and not at alleged crime
scene, did not compromise the integrity of the seized evidence. As ruled by this Court in Marquez v.
People, the phrase marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the
nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. What is important is that the seized item
marked at the police station is identified as the same item produced in court. As correctly ruled by
the CA, the prosecution was able to establish the integrity of corpus delicti and the unbroken chain
of custody. PO1 Vargas identified in open court the sachet of shabu that was offered in evidence
against Gerry as the same one she seized from the latter and marked immediately thereafter in the
presence of the police investigator. Furthermore, this Court has consistently ruled that even in
instances where the arresting officers failed to take a photograph of the seized drugs as required
under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items
seized inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GERRY YABLE y USMAN, G.R.
No. 200358, April 7, 2014, J. Perez
When there is variation of the supposed marked item from the one actually presented in court for
identification, the Court shall conclude that there may have been switching of evidence in the
selling charge. Guilt in that charge has not, therefore, been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
This is true as in a prosecution for the sale and possession of the prohibited drugs known as shabu,
the State does not only carry the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense. It also bears
the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in which the State would not have proved the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. And, to prove the corpus delicti, it is indispensable for the
prosecution to show that the dangerous drugs subject of the sale and examined in the police
laboratory are the same drugs presented in court as evidence. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
SUKARNO JUNAIDE Y AGGA, G.R. No. 193856, April 21, 2014, J. Abad
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. It
would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to
the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was
delivered to the next link in the chain. Thus, if the prosecution failed to present the testimony of a
police inspector who had the only keys to the evidence locker where the sachet of shabu, the
unbroken chain of custody was not established and the accused must be acquitted. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARLON ABETONG y ENDRADO, G.R. No. 209785, June 4, 2014, J.
Velasco, Jr.
Illegal sale of prohibited drugs is consummated at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the
seller. In a buy-bust operation, the crime is consummated when the police officer makes an offer to
Page 8 of 49

buy that is accepted by the accused, and there is an ensuing exchange between them involving the
delivery of the dangerous drugs to the police officer.
In order to successfully prosecute the offense, proof beyond reasonable doubt of two elements must
be satisfied by the prosecution, viz: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the identity of the
object and the consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment
for the thing.
As correctly ruled by the courts a quo in this case, the presence of both requisites was clearly
established by the testimony of the poseur-buyer himself, PO2 Aseboque, who positively testified
that the illegal sale took place when he gave theP500.00 marked money to the accused-appellant in
exchange for the shabu. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NENITA GAMATA y VALDEZ, G.R. No.
205202, June 9, 2014, J. Reyes
To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the
Prosecution must prove the corpus delicti. The Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable
requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 when the dangerous
drugs are missing but also when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized
dangerous drugs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LARRY MENDOZA y ESTRADA, G.R. No.
192432, June 23, 2014, J. Bersamin
A buy-bust operation was conducted wherein accused was caught selling illegal drugs. The accused
argued that there was there was lack of inventory, and the marking of the items was not done in his
presence, a representative of media, the Department of Justice and an elected official. The Court
affirmed his conviction and ruled that substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the
handling of the seized item is sufficient. Such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the
items seized inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAMIE
ORTEGA y KALBI, a.k.a AY-AY, G.R. No. 207392, July 2, 2014, J. Perez
A person apprehended or arrested who are to be subject of confirmatory drug test cannot literally
mean any person apprehended or arrested for any crime. The phrase must be read in context and
understood in consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested or
apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law. In this case, the accused appellant
was arrested in the alleged act of extortion, hence, the drug test conducted to him despite his
objection is rendered illegal and is therefore inadmissible. Since the drug test was the only basis for
his conviction, the Court ordered the acquittal of the accused. JAIME D. DELA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014, C.J. Sereno
As a mode of authenticating evidence, 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. In context, this would ideally include testimony about every link in
the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a
way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it
was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
Page 9 of 49

While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not automatically render
the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, this is true only when (a) there is a justifiable
ground for such noncompliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved. Hence, any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and
should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.
A punctilious examination of the records in this case shows that the prosecution failed to establish
the identity of the substance allegedly confiscated from the accused-appellants, militating against a
finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARCELINO
VITERBO y REALUBIT and RONALD VITERBO y REALUBIT, G.R. No. 203434, July 23, 2014, J.
Perlas-Bernabe
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved:
(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. Indeed, all these elements were duly established.
Pertinently, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which
must be proven to establish the corpus delicti. The mere fact that the drugs obtained were more,
had no bearing on the crime charged. This is because liability under Section 5 of Republic Act No.
9165 is without regard to the quantity of the drugs seized. The prosecution herein was able to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs. The concurrence of all
elements of the illegal sale of shabu was proven by the prosecution. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. PETER FANG y GAMBOA a.k.a. "Fritz, G.R. No. 199874, July 23, 2014, J. Perez
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be
established: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration for the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is
material in the prosecution of an illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti in court as evidence.
The commission of illegal sale merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which
happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as a police officer or
civilian asset went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by the appellant,
followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated.
In the case at bar, the prosecution has amply proven all the elements of the drug sale with moral
certainty.
The records show that appellant was arrested in a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted after a
week of surveillance. The police officers comprising the buy-bust team positively identified
appellant as the one who sold the plastic sachet of shabu to their civilian asset who, in turn, handed
the marked money to appellant. Both the sachet of shabuand the marked money were presented as
evidence in court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. REYMAN ENDAYA y LAIG, G.R. No. 205741,
July 23, 2014, J. Perez
The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and payment therefor. The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must
present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case. The corpus delicti is the seized illegal drugs. This
Court is convinced that the prosecution has sufficiently discharged its burden to establish the
elements in the illegal sale of shabu. The prosecution was able to establish the (1) identity of
accused-appellants as the sellers, and the buyer, Dujon; and (2) the object of the transaction, which
Page 10 of 49

is the jumbo sachet of shabu, weighing 46.4490 grams; and the delivery of the sold illegal shabu to
Dujon, the poseur-buyer. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MANUELITA AMPATUAN y
GONZALES, et al., G.R. No. 188707, July 30, 2014, J. Perez
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC and convicted the accused for the violation of
RA 9165. The Basman and Mangtoma contend that they cannot be convicted of the crime charged
due to the failure to the procedure of the chain of custody rule. The Supreme Court ruled that
failure to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs does not
render the arrest of the accused-appellants illegal or the item seized/confiscated from them
inadmissible. The essential thing to consider is "the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt
or innocence of the accused." THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MIKE STEVE y BASMAN and
RASHID MANGTOMA y NONI, G.R. No. 204911, August 6, 2014, J. Perez
By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti, non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a failure
to establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It follows that this noncompliance suffices as a ground for acquittal. The integrity of three (3) of the four (4) links (i.e.,
seizure and marking, turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, and turnover
by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist) has been cast in doubt. This doubt must be
resolved in favor of accused-appellants Holgado. Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal
requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug
paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged
to have been taken from the accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERTO HOLGADO y
DELA CRUZ, et al., G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014, J. Leonen
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved:
(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. All these elements were duly established. Appellant was
caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy bust operation conducted by members of the
Malabon Drug Enforcement Unit. The poseur-buyer, PO1 Fernandez, positively testified that the
sale took place and appellant was one of the authors of the illegal sale of drugs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. RUSTY BALA, G.R. No. 203048, August 13, 2014, J. Perez
Coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may
carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 8615 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires
the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close
coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters," the provision does not, make PDEAs
participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. A buy-bust is just a form of an
in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court, which police
authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support
of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA. The
conduct of the buy-bust operation was already established by the testimonies of PO3 Espiritu and
SPO1 Daraman who were the very participants of such operation. Balderamas qualm regarding the
absence of coordination between the Camiling PNP and the PDEA is also immaterial. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDUARDO BALAQUIOT y BALDERAMA, G.R. No. 206366, August 13,
2014, J. Perez
In a prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur: "(1) the identity of
the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
Page 11 of 49

the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is
the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti" or the illicit drug in evidence. In this case, the prosecution successfully proved
the existence of all the essential elements of the illegal sale of shabu. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. MARISSA MARCELO, G.R. No. 181541, August 18, 2014, J. Del Castillo
A buy-bust operation was conducted by police operatives based on a tip. The accused alleges that
the prosecution failed to proof that the money presented during trial is the money he allegedly
received in exchange for drugs. The Court ruled that the failure to present the buy-bust money is
not fatal to the prosecutions cause. It is not indispensable in drug cases since it is merely
corroborative evidence, and the absence thereof does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the
prosecution provided the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the
transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation
of any money used in the buy-bust operation. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RONALDO
BAYAN y NERI, G.R. No. 200987, August 20, 2014, J. Perez
Arguing that the failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the procedure governing the handling,
custody and disposition of the illegal drugs resulted to the failure of the prosecution to establish the
corpus delicti, the appellant contends that the RTC and the CA erred in finding him guilty of
violating Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165. The SC found no hiatus or confusion in the
confiscation, handling, custody and examination of the shabu. The illegal drug that was inventoried
at the PDEA office, subjected to qualitative examination at the crime laboratory, and finally
introduced in evidence against appellant was the same illegal drug that was confiscated from him
when he was caught inflagrante delicto selling the same. No apparent irregularity is sufficiently
shown to have attended the chain of custody of the shabu. Its identity, integrity and probative value
were preserved and kept intact by the police officers. Besides, the failure of the police officers to
comply strictly with the chain of custody rule is not fatal. It will not render the arrest of appellant
illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. "What is of utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused." PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINE vs. REYNALDO BATURI, G.R No. 189812, September 1, 2014, J. Del Castillo
The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a
particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof which, standing
alone, is sufficient to convict. Here, Trinidad failed to present any evidence to overcome such
presumption. He merely insisted that he was framed and had no knowledge of where the prohibited
drugs came from. In the absence of any contrary evidence, he is deemed to be in full control and
dominion of the drugs found in his house. Thus, he must be convicted for possession of illegal drugs.
Non-compliance with the requirements for the custody and handling of seized dangerous drugs is
permitted under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items. Thus, if the police were accompanied by the witnesses
who were present since the briefing for the execution of the search warrant, in its execution and
arrest of Trinidad, and the inventory of the seized marijuana; and when the witnesses also signed
the bags where the marijuana were placed, the chain of custody is preserved. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. LEO DE LA TRINIDAD y OBALLES, G.R. No. 199898, September 3, 2014, J.
Perez
Page 12 of 49

When there are doubts on whether the seized substance was the same substance examined and
established to be the prohibited drug, there can be no crime of illegal possession or illegal sale of a
prohibited drug. Such is the case at bar. Failure to prove that the specimen allegedly seized from the
accused was the same one presented in court is fatal to the prosecutions case. Besides its failure to
identify the corpus delicti with moral certainty, the prosecution also failed to establish an unbroken
chain of custody. The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handling, storage, labelling
and recording, and must exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in
evidence. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDILBERTO BALIBAY y LABIS and MARICEL
BALIBAY BIJA-AN, G.R. No. 202701, September 10, 2014, J. Perez
In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object and consideration of the sale and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. Hence, to establish a concrete case, it is an utmost importance to prove the identity of the
narcotic substance itself as it constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its
existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is therefore imperative for the prosecution
to first establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drug before asserting other
arguments.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that each and every element that constitutes an illegal
sale of dangerous drug was present to convict the accused. Upon evaluation of the testimonies of
PO1 Familara and PO1 Mendoza, it is apparent that there is an inconsistency on the identity and
number of plastic sachets bought from the accused. In his statement, PO1 Familara recalled that
upon arrival at the place of arrest, PO1 Mendoza told him that he was able to buy one plastic sachet
of shabu from Guinto. On the other hand, PO1 Mendoza recalled that he was able to buy two plastic
sachets instead of one. The pointed inconsistency is not a minor one that can be brushed aside as
the discrepancy taints the very corpus deliciti of the crime of illegal sale. A vital point of contention,
the prosecutions evidence places in reasonable doubt the identification of the dangerous drug that
was presented in court. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RICHARD GUINTO, G.R. No. 198314,
September 24, 2014, J. Perez
Dangerous drugs: In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the identity of
the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale and the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor. Hence, to establish a concrete case, it is an utmost importance to prove
the identity of the narcotic substance itself as it constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense
and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is therefore imperative for
the prosecution to first establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drug
before asserting other arguments.
Credibility of witness: One of the means used by the Court in determining the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses is the objective test. Following this test, in order to establish the credibility
of prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operation, prosecution must be able to
present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operationfrom the initial contact between the
poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration,
until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal subject of sale. The manner by
which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust
money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure
that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. RICHARD GUINTO Y SAN ANDRES, G.R. No. 198314, September 24, 2014, J.
Perez
Page 13 of 49

Apart from the blatantly irregular handling by PO1 Bobon of the seven (7) sachets, it is also
admitted that no physical inventory and taking of photographs in the presence of Dela Cruz or of
any of the other persons specified by Section 21 were conducted. The significance of complying
with Section 21s requirements cannot be overemphasized. Non-compliance is tantamount to
failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offenses of illegal sale
and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By failing to establish an element of these offenses, noncompliance will, thus, engender the acquittal of an accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 205821, October 1, 2014, J. Leonen
The non-presentation of the confidential informant as a witness does not ordinarily weaken the
State's case against the accused. However, if the arresting lawmen arrested the accused based on
the pre-arranged signal from the confidential informant who acted as the poseur buyer, his nonpresentation must be credibly explained and the transaction established by other ways in order to
satisfy the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt because the arresting lawmen did not
themselves participate in the buy-bust transaction with the accused. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. PABLITO ANDAYA y REANO, G.R. No. 183700, October 13, 2014, J. Bersamin
When an accused raises the issue of non-compliance by the police officers with Sec. 21 of the IRR of
R.A. No. 9165 particularly the lack of physical inventory of the seized specimen and the non-taking
of photograph thereof on appeal after the CA rendered a decision, the Court must uphold his
conviction. Cabrera should have raised the said issue before the trial court. Truly, objection to
evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the
evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an objection. Without such objection, he cannot
raise the question for the first time on appeal. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDWIN
CABRERA, G.R. No. 190175, November 12, 2014, J. Del Castillo
In this case, the prosecution failed to account for each and every link in the chain of custody of the
shabu, from the moment it was allegedly confiscated up to the time it was presented before the
court as proof of the corpus delicti. The Court entertains doubts whether the shabu allegedly seized
from Sanchez was the very same item presented during the trial of this case. The Court notes that
there were several lapses in the law enforcers handling of the seized item which, when taken
collectively, render the standards of chain of custody seriously breached. Thus, the chain of custody
requirement has a two-fold purpose: (1) the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items, and (2) the removal of unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence.
RIZALDY SANCHEZ Y CAJILI vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 204589, November 19,
2014, J. Mendoza
In a prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the
prosecution must prove the following elements: (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. To
remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must
definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered
from Casabuena; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for drug pushing under R.A. No. 9165
fails. The testimonies of SPO1 Balolong, SPO2 Ancheta, and Armando all showed that the police did
not inventory or photograph the seized shabu either at the place where it was seized or at the
police station. No photographs or certificate of inventory of the confiscated items appear in the
records. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROSALINDA CASABUENA, G.R. No. 186455,
November 19, 2014, J. Brion
Page 14 of 49

The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not indispensable in
every prosecution for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. As such, the identity of the
dangerous drugs should be established beyond doubt by showing that the items offered in court
were the same substances bought during the buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement,
known under R.A. No. 9165 as the chain of custody, performs the function of ensuring that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. RAMIL DORIA DAHIL AND ROMMEL CASTRO y CARLOS, G.R. No. 212196,
January 12, 2015, J. Mendoza
For the violation of Section 5, the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements: (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. What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. MANOLITO OPIANA Y TANAEL, G.R. No. 200797, January 12, 2015, J. Del
Castillo
The Court gives full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the
presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers performance of official duty. 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. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAKIM
MINANGA y DUMANSAL, G.R. No. 202837, January 21, 2015, J. Villarama, Jr.
Charging appellants with illegal possession when the information filed against them charges the
crime of importation does not violate their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation brought against them. The rule is that when there is a variance between the
offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved or established by the evidence,
and the offense as charged necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of
the offense proved included in that which is charged. An offense charged necessarily includes that
which is proved, when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged
in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CHI CHAN
LIU A. K. A. CHAN QUE AND HUI LAO CHUNG A.K.A. LEOFE SENGLAO, G.R. No. 189272, January
21, 2015, J. Peralta
It is settled that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drug, not only must the essential
elements of the offense be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but likewise the identity of the
prohibited drug. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact
of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Hence, the prosecution failed to sufficiently
establish who had custody of the illegal drug from the moment it was allegedly transmitted to the
Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory on 27 May 2004 until it was allegedly delivered to the
Regional Crime Laboratory on 4 June 2004, it is just right for the Court to acquit the appellant.
While appellant admitted during the pre-trial the authenticity and due execution of the Chemistry
Report, prepared by Police Inspector and Forensic Chemist, this admission merely affirms the
existence of the specimen and the request for laboratory examination and the results thereof.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GERARDO ENUMERABLE y DE VILLA, G.R. No. 207993,
January 21, 2015, J. CARPIO
Page 15 of 49

It is a well-entrenched rule that full faith and credence are given to the narration of police officers
who testify for the prosecution on the entrapment or buy-bust operation, because as police officers,
they are presumed to have regularly performed their duties. This presumption is overturned only if
there is clear and convincing evidence that the officers were not properly performing their duty or
that they were inspired by improper motive. The foregoing principle applies with equal, if not
greater, force in prosecutions involving violations of [R.A. No.] 9165, especially those originating
from buy-bust operations. In this case, while the defense denied having violated [R.A. No. 9165], it
offered no evidence that the arresting officers had been improperly or maliciously motivated in
effecting the arrest of appellants. With nothing to substantiate appellants malicious accusation that
the police officers were improperly motivated, credence shall be given to the narration of the
incident by the prosecution witnesses. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NATHANIEL PASION Y
DELA CRUZ A.K.A. ATHAN AND DENNIS MICHAEL PAZ Y SIBAYAN, G.R. No. 203026, January
28, 2015, J. Perez
When there was delay in the turn-over of the corpus delicti to the PNP Crime Laboratory as it was
alleged that the date the illegal sachet was seized falls on a Friday and therefore the PNP Crime
Laboratory was closed but it appears that said date falls on a Wednesday, not on a Friday,
conviction must be immediately set aside. It must be emphasized that in criminal prosecutions
involving illegal drugs, the presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the crime
calls for the necessity of proving with moral certainty that they are the same seized items. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DENNIS SUMILI, G.R. No. 212160, February 4, 2015, J. PerlasBernabe
In the prosecution of illegal sale, what is essential is to prove that the transaction or sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. The
consummation of sale is perfected the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. In this
case, the prosecution failed to prove that the four sachets which tested positive for shabu and
eventually presented in court were the same ones confiscated by the police officers due to its nonmarking at the place where the buy-bust operation was committed at the police station. This nonmarking violated the measures defined under Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 and Section
21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 which are also
known as the Rule on Chain of Custody. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDER DACUMA y
LUNSOD, G.R. No. 205889, February 04, 2015, J. Perez
A buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for
apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. Since accused-appellant was caught by the buy-bust
team in flagrante delicto, his immediate arrest was also validly made. Accused-appellants arrest
being valid, we also hold that the subsequent warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs from his
person is equally valid. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES vs. MHODS USMAN y GOGO, G.R. No.
201100, February 4, 2015, J. Perez
The prosecutions failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized
drugs as required under Article 21 of R. A. No. 9165, will not render the accuseds arrest illegal or
the items seized from him inadmissible. Clearly, the chain of custody is not established solely by
compliance with the prescribed physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the
presence of the enumerated persons.
Page 16 of 49

However, the exoneration of an accused from the charge of illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited
drugs, does not spell freedom from all criminal liability as she may still be convicted for illegal
possession of dangerous or prohibited drugs. It is settled that possession is necessarily included in
the sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. AMY DASIGAN y
OLIVA, G.R. No. 206229, February 04, 2015, J. Perez
The respondent was convicted both by the RTC and Court of Appeals for violation of Section 5 of RA
9165(illegal sale of dangerous drugs).The respondents denies the accusations against her and
asserts that she should not be convicted of the crime charged. The Supreme Court ruled that the
defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for
it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecution
for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROWENA TAPUGAY y
VENTURA, G.R. No. 200336, February 11, 2015, J. Perez
The prosecution convincingly proved that the police operatives indeed complied with the required
unbroken chain in the custody of the subject illegal drugs. It bears stressing that the SC has already
brushed aside an accuseds belated contention that the illegal drugs confiscated from his person is
inadmissible for failure of the arresting officers to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165. This is
considering that whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers from literally
complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because Gabuya did not question during trial the
safekeeping of the items seized from him. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the
form of an objection. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JIMMY GABUYA y ADLAWAN, G.R. No.
195245, February 16, 2015, J. Del Castillo
To sustain a conviction under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, all that is needed for the prosecution
to establish are (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefor. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other
hand, it is necessary to prove that: (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. In his testimony, PO2 Salonga, the poseurbuyer, positively identified Abola as the seller of the plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance which was later identified by the PNP Forensic Chemist to be positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The same sachet and substance was identified in court
by PO2 Salonga as the shabu sold to him by Abola for the sum of P200.00. Therefore, all the
elements of the offense of illegal sale of shabu are obtaining in this case. In the same vein, Abola,
upon being frisked after his apprehension, was found possessing another plastic sachet containing
0.15 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. There is no evidence on record showing
that he was legally authorized to possess the same. Neither was there any explanation that he did
not freely or consciously possess the said illegal drug. Settled is the rule that possession of
dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, which is
sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession.
Clearly, all the elements of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are likewise present
in this case. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ABOLA BIO y PANAYANGAN, G.R. No. 195850,
February 16, 2015, J. Del Castillo
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
Page 17 of 49

that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court
as exhibit.In the case at bar, after the sale was consummated, the confidential informant gave the
seized item to SPO4 Larot who placed tape on the sachet and marked it Exhibit A. Upon reaching
the police station, SPO4 Larot executed the Certificate of Inventory, as well as the request for
laboratory examination. The request, the specimen, as well as the marked money and Rosauro were
then brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. They were received by SPO2 Ricardo
Maisog, the Receiving Clerk of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office, who then forwarded them to Police
Inspector Ma. Leocy Jabonillo Mag-abo, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory.
Moreover, the seized item was duly identified by SPO4 Larot in open court as the same item seized
from Rosauro. Hence, the prosecution was able to prove the corpus delicti. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. ERIC ROSAURO y BONGCAWIL, G.R. No. 209588, February 18, 2015, J. Perez
In the prosecution of a case for violation of R.A. 9165, both for illegal sale and illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, the primary consideration is to ensure that the identity and integrity of the
seized drugs have been preserved from the time they were confiscated from the accused until
their presentation as evidence in court. The prosecution must establish with moral certainty that
the specimen submitted to the crime laboratory and found positive for dangerous drugs, and finally
introduced in evidence against the accused was the same illegal drug that was confiscated from
him. All the elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu, a dangerous drug,
were clearly proven by the prosecution through the credible testimony of IO1 Kintanar. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES vs. DANTE DELA PEA and DENNIS DELIMA, G.R. No. 207635, February 18,
2015, J. Villarama, Jr.
In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur (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. In this case, the prosecution successfully proved the existence
of all the essential elements of illegal sale of shabu. Perondo was positively identified by the police
officers who conducted the buy-bust operation as the person who sold the shabu to the poseur
buyer. The Court is not impressed with Perondos insistence that the failure to present the poseurbuyer is fatal to the prosecution. The Court finds no reason to doubt the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. The RTC and the CA are one in finding that their
testimonies were direct, definite, and consistent with one another in relevant points and also with
the physical evidence. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VIRGILIO LARGO PERONDO, G.R. No.
193855, February 18, 2015, J. Del Castillo
The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked
money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. In this case, SPO1 Acosta positively
identified Santos as the person he transacted with and who handed to him the two sachets
of shabu presented in court, however, the prosecution was unable to discharge its burden of
establishing the element of consideration or payment for the sachets of shabu. The charge against
him was not confined to the sale of shabu. To deliver a dangerous drug is an act that is also
punishable under the same Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. During the buy bust operation, SPO1
Acosta asked Santos for the shabu and Santos responded by taking out from his pocket
the shabu and handing over its possession to SPO1 Acosta without receiving any payment thereto.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALFREDO REYES y SANTOS, G.R. No. 194606, February 18,
2015, J. Del Castillo
A buy-bust operation was conducted by the police to apprehend Larry Basilio. Basilio was
successfully apprehended by the police after he sold shabu to a police acting as poseur-buyer. The
Page 18 of 49

RTC and CA convicted the accused. Basilio questions the chain of custody of the drug. Marking the
subject item at the police station did not dent the prosecution's case. While R.A. No. 9165 provides
for the immediate marking of the seized item, it does not specify a time frame when and where said
marking should be done. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LARRY BASILIO y HERNANDEZ, G.R.
No. 185774, February 23, 2015, J. Del Castillo
Prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs depends largely on the credibility of the police officers
who conducted the buy-bust operation. It is fundamental that the factual findings of the trial court
and those involving credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross
misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered
from such findings. The trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses,
having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the
trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.
thus, if the testimony of the police who was the poseur-buyer and who marked the sachets of shabu
are supported by documents such as the marked buy-bust money, chemistry report, affidavit of
arrest, among others, which all clearly attest to the fact that a sale of shabu took place between him
and Diaz, the conviction will be upheld.
In addition, an accused may still be found guilty, despite the failure to faithfully observe the
requirements provided under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, for as long as the chain of custody
remains unbroken. Here, it is beyond cavil that the prosecution was able to establish the necessary
links in the chain of custody of the subject specimen from the moment it was seized from Diaz up to
the time it was presented during trial as proof of the corpus delicti. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. ALLAN DIAZ y ROXAS, G.R. No. 197818, February 25, 2015, J. Del Castillo
Accused was charged of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. He argued that no physical inventory
was conducted, or photograph of the drugs taken, immediately upon seizure, in violation of the
procedures provided by law. The Court ruled that the failure of the arresting officers to strictly
comply with the law is not fatal and will not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. ALEX TIONCO y ORTEGA vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.192284, March 11, 2015, J. Del Castillo
The Court has consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal
sale of drugs under Sec. 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the
identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the nothing
sold and the payment therefor. In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former
indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug. To reiterate,
what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.
On the other hand, [the Court] have adhered to the time-honored principle that for illegal
possession of regulated or prohibited drugs under Sec. 11 of the same law, 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 or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
BRIAN MERCADO, G.R. No. 207988, March 11, 2015, J. Perez
Page 19 of 49

A person carrying an illegal drug without authorization to do so shall be liable for violation of RA
9165 for possession of dangerous drug. Mere possession of the same shall be prima facie evidence
of possession. On the other hand, if the person sells the drug, the prosecution must prove the
following: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration; (2) actual delivery
of the thing sold and payment thereof. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BRIAN MERCADO y
SARMIENTO, G.R. No. 207988, March 11, 2015, J. Perez
Randy avers that the police officers failed to strictly abide by the procedures for the custody and
disposition of the confiscated drugs as provided in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court
held that absent any missing link in the chain of custody of the seized drug items and absent any
showing that substantial or relevant facts bearing on the elements of the crime have been
misapplied or overlooked, the Court can only accord full credence to such factual assessment of the
Regional Trial Court which had the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of
the witnesses at the trial. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RANDY ROLLO y LAGASCA, G.R. No.
211199, March 25, 2015, J. Perez
The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other
similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed
of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting, or contamination of
evidence. Hence, the Court should acquit the accused on the ground of failure to mark the plastic
sachets confiscated during the buy-bust operation. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CHARLIE
SORIN y TAGAYLO, G.R. No. 212635, March 25, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
Specifically for the charge of violation of Art. 206 of the RPC which penalizes the issuance of unjust
interlocutory orders, it was necessary to show that; (1) the orders issued by the respondents to his
complaint were unjust, and (2) the said orders were knowingly rendered or rendered through
inexcusable negligence or ignorance. On this matter, the Ombudsman correctly held that LAs order
for the quashal of the writ of execution, and the NLRCs resolution affirming it, were not unjust, for
being in accordance with law and the rules of the NLRC. ROMEO R. ARAULLO vs. OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, et al., G.R. No. 194157, July 30, 2014, J. Reyes
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
The following are the essential elements of violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: 1. the accused
must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions 2. he must have
acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence and 3. that his action
caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
There is no doubt that Consigna, being a municipal treasurer, was a public officer discharging
official functions when she misused such position to be able to take out a loan from Moleta, who
was misled into the belief that she, as municipal treasurer, was acting on behalf of the municipality.
SILVERINA E. CONSIGNA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN
(THIRD DIVISION), and EMERLINA MOLETA, G.R. Nos. 175750-51, April 2, 2014, J. Perez
Page 20 of 49

The accused was charged for having allegedly utilized the cash advance for a purpose other than for
which it was obtained. He alleged that he was neither informed nor did he receive any demand from
COA to liquidate his cash advances. The Supreme Court reiterated the rule that a prior notice or
demand for liquidation of cash advances is not a condition sine qua non before an accountable
public officer may be held liable under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. ALOYSIUS DAIT
LUMAUIG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.166680, July 07, 2014, J. Del Castillo
Violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 has the following elements: (1) the accused must be a public
officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) he must have acted with
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and (3) that his action caused any
undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
Applying the foregoing elements, the Ombudsman, in granting the motion to quash, did not violate
the said law considering that there could have been no undue injury suffered by Araullo notwithstanding the labor officials rulings as he was not left without any remedy to enforce the final
judgment in his favor. The NLRCs endorsement of his case to the arbitration branch of origin was
merely for the resolution of pending incidents in the case; to hear these matters first in order to
ensure that all the parties to the case were afforded due process. ROMEO R. ARAULLO vs. OFFICE
OF THE OMBUDSMAN, et al., G.R. No. 194157, July 30, 2014, J. Reyes
Anent the third element of violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the Sandiganbayan aptly
explained: By making himself a signatory to the current accounts and presenting a cost estimate
significantly higher than that submitted by Engineer Vacnot, the accused also caused undue injury
to the PPSC when the latter lost control of the funds for RTS 9, and only the authorized signatories
could enter into transactions with regard to the project. In this case, the Prosecution was able to
prove the existence of undue injury by giving a detailed background of the estimate for facilities and
materials for the construction of the project. The substantial difference between the cost estimate
given by the accused and that of Engineer Vacnot caused injury to the government in the amount of
approximately PhP2,500,00000 becomes more evident in light of the fact that the fifty capacity
barracks have not been constructed. DIONISIO B. COLOMA, JR. vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN
(THIRD DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 205561, September 24, 2014, J.
Mendoza
In Cabrera vs. Sandiganbayan, the Court explained that there are two ways for a public official to
violate this provision in the performance of his functions, namely: (a) by causing undue injury to
any party, including the government; or (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage, or preference. In that case, [the Court] enumerated the essential elements of the offense,
viz.: 1. [t]he accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official
functions; 2. [h]e must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable
negligence; and 3. [h]is action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave
any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.
It bears emphasis that the charge against Luspos co-accused Domondon consisted of the same
omissions. Both offered similar documentary and testimonial pieces of evidence for their
exoneration, but the same were appreciated only in Domondons favor. The Sandiganbayan shelved
Luspos claim that he was authorized by Domondon to sign the ASAs in the formers behalf, and
tagged the same as self-serving and unsubstantiated. In its consolidated comment, respondent
People of the Philippines, represented by the OMB through the OSP, harks back to the
Page 21 of 49

Sandiganbayans conclusion and lobbies for its affirmation. The Court disagrees with the
Sandiganbayan. A perusal of the records the Sandiganbayans wherewithal reveals the contrary
and had the trial court expanded the range of its probing, it would not have arrived at divergent
conclusions regarding the two accused. VAN D. LUSPO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES/SUPT.
ARTURO H. MONTANO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES/C/INSP. SALLVADOR S. CURAN vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 188487 (consolidated), October 22, 2014, J. Nachura
R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 11 provides that all offenses punishable under said law shall prescribe in ten
(10) years. This period was later increased to fifteen (15) years with the passage of [BP Blg. 195],
which took effect on March 16, 1982. This does not mean, however, that the longer prescriptive
period shall apply to all violations of [R.A. No. 3019]. Following the Courts pronouncements in
People vs. Pacificador, the rule is that in the interpretation of the law on prescription of crimes,
that which is more favorable to the accused is to be adopted. As such, the longer prescriptive
period of 15 years pursuant to BP Blg. 195 cannot be applied to crimes committed prior to the
effectivity of the said amending law on March 16, 1982. Considering that the crimes were
committed in 1969, 1970, 1973, 1975, and 1977, the applicable prescriptive period thereon is the
ten-year period set in R.A. No. 3019, the law in force at that time. Moreover, the prescriptive period
commences to run at the time of the discovery of the offense. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISISON ON
GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG) vs. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIOMORALES, et al., G.R. No. 206357, November 12, 2014, J. Velasco, Jr.
The Court held that there are two ways by which a public official violates Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
in the performance of his functions, namely: by causing undue injury to any party, including the
Government; or by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. The
Court found that the petitioners committed undue injury to the government and gave unwarranted
benefits to PAL Boat through manifest partiality. The manifest reluctance to hold a public bidding
and award the contract to the winning bidder indicates of favoritism and partiality toward PAL
Boat. Petitioners pre-qualified PAL Boat despite its financial inability to undertake the project. They
also did not impose retention money and taxes against PAL Boat, to the detriment of the
government. The government was obligated to use more funds and effort to rehabilitate the vessels.
ALEJANDRO C. RIVERA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 156577 (consolidated),
December 03, 2014, J. Mendoza
The Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan in finding Valencerina guilty of violating Sec. 3(e) of R.A.
No. 3019 based upon the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution. In finding Valencerina
guilty of giving undue advantage or preference to Ecobel, in violation of Sec. 3(e) of the Anti Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, the Sandiganbayan was convinced that the elements of the crime were
duly established.
In this case, Valencerina clearly extended, with evident bad faith, undue advantage to Ecobel in the
process of issuing and negotiating the subject bond. His act of endorsing Ecobels application to the
PGM despite his knowledge that the obligee of the loan was not PVB but a foreign lender, clearly
shows his disregard for the policy of GSIS requiring the existence of governmental interest in the
transaction. In the observation of the GSIS audit team, as it appeared in a report before the
Sandiganbayan, PVB was merely used to show that GSIS has an insurable interest in the loan. The
truth, however, is that BSIL was the funder and obligee of the credit sought to be guaranteed by the
bond. ALEX M. VALENCERINA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 206162, December
10, 2014, J. Mendoza
Page 22 of 49

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
PARRICIDE
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed (2) the deceased is killed by the accused (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. In this case, the prosecution
was able to satisfactorily establish that the victim, who is the legitimate spouse of Roy San Gaspar,
was shot and killed by the latter based on the eyewitnesses account, there being no showing that
said eyewitnesses were impelled by any ill motive to testify against him. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. ROY SAN GASPAR, G.R. No. 180496, April 2, 2014, J. Del Castillo
In the crime of parricide, only the following elements need to be satisfactorily established: (1) the
death of the deceased (2) that he or she was killed by the accused and (3) that the deceased was a
legitimate ascendant or descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. In this case, all these
elements have been proven beyond doubt. Moreover, there is no doubt that the accused George
Zapata intentionally killed his wife the shooting was not accidental. Both the trial court and the
appellate court correctly found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide. His
claim that he accidentally pulled the trigger while attempting to catch the same when it fell from the
cabinet is incredible. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GEORGE ZAPATA y VIANA, G.R. No.
197046, July 21, 2014, J. Del Castillo
MURDER/HOMICIDE
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the
offense was committed and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been
physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission. Hence, when the accused was not able to prove that he was in a certain place when the
crime was committed, and the witness positively identified him as the assailant, the denial and alibi
are weak defenses, which cannot prevail against positive identification. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. DANTE DULAY, G.R. No. 194629, April 21, 2014, J. Reyes
For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of
execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2)
the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. The victims in this case were
eating lunch on campus. They were not at a place where they would be reasonably expected to be
on guard for any sudden attack by rival fraternity men. The victims, who were unarmed, were also
attacked with lead pipes and baseball bats. The only way they could parry the blows was with their
arms. In a situation where they were unnamed and outnumbered, it would be impossible for them
to fight back against the attackers. The attack also happened in less than a minute, which would
preclude any possibility of the bystanders being able to help them until after the incident. The
swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even
to defend themselves. Treachery, therefore, was present in this case. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. DANILO FELICIANO, JR., et al., G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014, J. Leonen
The defense of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance because an accused invoking
the same admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of such
insanity. Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a
defense. Thus, when an adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists.
Page 23 of 49

Two (2) conditions must concur for treachery to be appreciated: first, the employment of means of
execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and,
second, the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted
The Court agrees in this case with the findings of the RTC and the CA that treachery was attendant
in the killing of Maureen. The facts of this case show that Umawid suddenly appeared at the terrace
of Vicentes house and started attacking Vicente with panabas. However, the latter was able to
evade Umawids attacks, resulting in Maureen being inadvertently hit and killed in the process.
While it was not shown that Umawid consciously employed treachery so as to insure the death of
Maureen, who was then just two (2) years old at the time, it is well to reiterate that the killing by an
adult of a minor child is treacherous, and thus, qualifies Maureens killing to Murder. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROGER RINGOR UMAWID, G.R. No. 208719, June 9, 2014, J. PerlasBernabe
The accused shot the victim in the head, which was found to be the direct cause of his death. The
accused was found guilty of murder. It was not a case of self-defense since there was no unlawful
aggression from the victim. It is settled that not every form or degree of aggression justifies a claim
of self-defense. The Court ruled that there was treachery since the sudden attack of the accused
upon the victim was clearly without warning and unexpected on the part of the victim, giving him
no chance for defense. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JEFFERSON WARRINER y NICDAO, G.R.
No. 208678, June 16, 2014, J. Reyes
Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying
circumstance of self-defense. Without it, there can be no self-defense, whether complete or
incomplete, that can validly be invoked. "There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim
when he puts in actual or imminent danger the life, limb, or right of the person invoking selfdefense. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon." "It is present only when the
one attacked faces real and immediate threat to ones life."
It has been repeatedly ruled that the nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the
victim disprove a plea of self-defense.
The essence of treachery lies in the attack that comes without warning, and the attack is swift,
deliberate and unexpected, and affords the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape, thereby ensuring its accomplishment without the risk to the aggressor, without the
slightest provocation on the part of the victim. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack
made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. ALEX DE LOS SANTOS, G.R. No. 207818, July 23, 2014, J. Reyes
To successfully prosecute the crime of murder, the following elements must be established: (1) that
a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any
of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) that the
killing is not parricide or infanticide. 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.
In this case, the prosecution was able to clearly establish that (1) Edgardo, Benjamin and Carlito
were shot and killed; (2) the accused appellants were three of the eight perpetrators who killed
Page 24 of 49

them; (3) Edgardo, Benjamin and Carlitos killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of
treachery as testified to by prosecution eyewitness, Roger; and (4) the killing of Edgardo, Benjamin
and Carlito were neither parricide nor infanticide.
In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. It does not need to be proven by direct evidence and
may be inferred from the conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime
indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments as in conspiracy.
In this case, all the accused/accused-appellants were convincingly shown to have acted in concert
to achieve a common purpose of assaulting their unarmed victims with their guns. Their acting in
concert was manifest not only from their going together to the fishpen located offshore on board
the same boat, but also from their joint attack commenced simultaneously, firing successive shots at
the four victims and immediately followed by clambering up the platform and resuming their
shooting of Roger, Edgardo, Benjamin and Carlito. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ROLANDO
LAS PIAS, JIMMY DELIZO AND MERWIN LAS PIAS, G.R. No. 191723, July 23, 2014, J.
Leonardo-De Casto
To escape liability, the accused must show by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that:
(a) the victim committed unlawful aggression amounting to an actual or imminent threat to the life
and limb of the accused claiming self-defense; (b) there was reasonable necessity in the means
employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c) there was lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the accused claiming self-defense or at least any provocation executed by
the accused claiming self-defense was not the proximate and immediate cause of the victims
aggression.
To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take
part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the
execution of the conspiracy.
In this case, the Court is not persuaded in the allegations of the petitioner Leopoldo that his
conviction was not supported by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His argument revolves
mainly on self-defense, defense of relatives and absence of conspiracy. The records of this case
show that the prosecution witnesses Eduardo Oyando, Robert dela Cruz and Felomina dela Cruz
positively and consistently identified the accused and relayed the sequence of events. LEOPOLDO
QUINTOS y DELAMOR vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 205298, September 10,
2014, Acting C.J. Carpio
Appellants were charged in conspiracy with others for murder of two jail guards and for
carnapping. They alleged however, that the prosecution has failed to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and that they denied such allegation. There is treachery when the following
essential elements are present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend
himself and thereby ensuring its commission withour risk of himself. In the instant case, despite
being armed, the jail officers were not afforded any chance of defending themselves. A conspiracy
exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. Conspiracy can be inferred from and established by the acts of the accused
themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of
Page 25 of 49

interest. Once conspiracy is shown the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. Carnapping is the
taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without consent, or by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. The elements of the
crime of carnapping are that: (1) there is an actual taking of the vehicle; (2) the offender intends to
gain from the taking of the vehicle; (3) the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender
himself; and (4) the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof, or it was committed by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. All the
elements of carnapping are present in this case. Both appellants admitted that they boarded the
Tamaraw jeep and drove away in it. The owner of the vehicle, Benjamin Bauzon, testified that he
did not consent to the taking of his vehicle by appellants. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
CHARLIE FIELDAD, RYAN CORNISTA, and EDGAR PIMENTEL, G.R. No. 196005, October 1,
2014, C.J. Carpio
Frustrated homicide requires intent to kill on the part of the offender. Without proof of such intent,
the felony may only be serious physical injuries. Intent to kill may be established through the overt
and external acts and conduct of the offender before, during and after the assault, or by the nature,
location and number of the wounds inflicted on the victim.
Here, both the trial and the appellate court agreed that intent to kill was present. Supreme Court
concurs with them. Contrary to the Alfredos submission, the wounds sustained by Alexander were
not mere scuffmarks inflicted in the heat of anger or as the result of a fistfight between them.
Alfredo wielded and used a knife in his assault on Alexander. The medical records indicate, indeed,
that Alexander sustained two stab wounds, specifically, one on his upper left chest and the other on
the left side of his face. There is also to be no doubt about the wound on Alexanders chest being
sufficient to result into his death were it not for the timely medical intervention. ALFREDO DE
GUZMAN, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 178512, November 26, 2014, J.
Bersamin
In order to establish a motorists liability for the negligent operation of a vehicle, it must be shown
that there was a direct causal connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages
complained of. To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act must be something more than a
mere negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle a willful and wanton disregard of the
consequences is required. Willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others within the
meaning of reckless driving statutes has been held to involve a conscious choice of a course of
action which injures another, either with knowledge of serious danger to others involved, or with
knowledge of facts which would disclose the danger to any reasonable person. ROGELIO J.
GONZAGA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 195671, January 21, 2015, J. PerlasBernabe
The records show that there was direct proof identifying the accused as the perpetrator of the
crime, thus, belying the claim of the accused. Furthermore, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
established without a shadow of doubt that it was accused who mercilessly killed his brother.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DOMINGO DILLA y PAULAR, G.R. No. 200333, January 21,
The fatal shooting of Agon was attended by treachery, a qualifying circumstance listed under Article
248 and notably, alleged in the Information. For treachery to be properly appreciated, two
conditions must be present: (1) at the time of the assault, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself; and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack
Page 26 of 49

employed by him. These conditions were present in the killing of Agon. The assault upon Agon was
deliberate, swift and sudden, denying him the opportunity to protect or defendhimself. He was
unarmed and unaware of the plot of appellants to kill him. Moreover, the means, method or manner
of execution of the attack was deliberately and consciously adopted by appellants, the same being in
accordance with their groups plan to liquidate Agon.
There is conspiracy "when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it. It arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or
impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it." Here, the evidence is sufficient
to prove that appellants conspired to murder Agon. In this case, upon their arrival thereat, the
members of the group which included appellants positioned themselves according to their plan and
waited for Agon to leave. Later on, Caballero signaled Vitan and the other alleged gunman, accused
Theo (Theo), that the target had left the arena and that his vehicle was already approaching their
position. When Agons vehicle came, Vitan and Theo fired at him. Vitan, Caballero, Alvarez, who
acted as one of the back-ups, and the rest of the group then fled the scene of the crime. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES vs. TOMAS DIMACUHA, JR., et al., G.R. No. 191060, February 2, 2015, J.
Mariano C. Del Castillo
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting the accused of the
crime of murder for stabbing his victim seven times in the body. The accused contends that the act
was merely for self-dense. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not persuaded by the appellants
defense of denial as this cannot prevail over the eyewitnesses positive identification of him as the
perpetrator of the crime. Denial, like alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is
negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. OSCAR SEVILLANO y RETANAL, G.R. No. 200800, February 09, 2015, J. Perez
There is passional obfuscation when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable burst of
passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to
overcome reason. On the other hand, a sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally or from
behind, is treachery if such mode of attack was coolly and deliberately adopted by him with the
purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. The rule does not apply,
however, where the attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered
by the sudden infuriation on the part of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim.
The attack, while sudden, cannot be said to have been unexpected or unprovoked. Accusedappellant alleged that before the attack, Gulane had been insulting him and mocking him in a loud
voice, "How many times did you have sexual intercourse with your mother?" This utterance, along
with testimonies of Gulane's previous insults, would have been sufficient provocation for accusedappellant to stab him. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARCELINO OLOVERIO, G.R. No.
211159, March 18, 2015, J. Leonen
PHYSICAL INJURIES
Since the accused alleges self-defense, he carries the burden of evidence to prove that he satisfied
the elements required by law; he who alleges must prove. By admitting the commission of the act
charged and pleading avoidance based on the law, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence
to prove that the facts that the legal avoidance requires are present; the weakness of the
prosecutions evidence is immaterial after he admitted the commission of the act charged. As
pointed out, Sabay failed to substantiate his claimed self-defense because he did not even present
any medical certificate as supporting evidence, notwithstanding his claim that he consulted a
Page 27 of 49

doctor. Nor did he ever present the doctor he allegedly consulted. His contention, too, that he was
attacked by Godofredo and was shot with a .38 caliber gun by Jessie was refuted by the prosecution
eyewitnesses Rodolfo and Dina who both testified that it was the petitioner who had attacked
Godofredo. FEDERICO SABAY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 192150, October 01,
2014, J. Brion
RAPE
The elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman and (2)
that the woman is below 12 years of age x x x. In this case, although the Informations alleged that
AAA was 11 years of age when the rape incidents transpired, she was actually 13 years of age
when the rape incidents transpired on December 25, 2004 and January 21, 2005, as her Certificate
of Birth showed that she was born on March 10, 1991. Thus, Santiago is guilty only of simple, not
statutory rape. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RENE SANTIAGO, G.R. No. 196970, April 2,
In adopting the sweetheart theory as a defense, the accused necessarily admitted carnal knowledge
of ABC, the first element of rape. This admission makes the sweetheart theory more difficult to
defend, for it is not only an affirmative defense that needs convincing proof, but also after the
prosecution has successfully established a prima facie case, the burden of evidence is shifted to the
accused, who has to adduce evidence that the intercourse was consensual. THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL DIOQUINO y GARBIN, G.R. No. 191390, April 2, 2014, J. Villarama, Jr.
Impregnation of a woman is not an element of rape. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL ABAT
y COMETA, G.R. No. 202704, April 2, 2014, J. Leonardo-De Castro
Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl,
particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to
show that rape has in fact been committed.
In statutory rape, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. MAURICIO HALLARTE y MENDOZA, G.R. No.205382, April 02, 2014, J. PerlasBernabe
Statutory rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the
accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force, threat or intimidation
whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness or whether it was done through fraud
or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was
sexual intercourse. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RODRIGO GUTIEREZ y ROBLES ALIAS ROD
AND JOHN LENNON, G.R. No. 208007, April 2, 2014, J. Leonen
Under Section 3(b), Article I of Republic Act No. 7610, the term "child abuse" is defined as the
maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, which includes the physical abuse of a child,
among other acts. In this case, AAA positively identified Delen as the person who kicked her in the
buttocks, hit her head with a hammer, and smashed her head on the wall on. Furthermore, the
Court finds no cogent reason to disbelieve AAAs testimony, which was corroborated by the medical
findings of Dr. Rivamonte and Dr. Arellano that the victims hymen had "complete healed
lacerations at 1, 3, 6, 9 oclock positions." Jurisprudence provides that the eloquent testimony of the
Page 28 of 49

victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her non-virgin state, should be enough to
confirm the truth of her charges of rape. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HERMENIGILDO
DELEN y ESCOBILLA, G.R. No. 194446, April 21, 2014, J. Leonardo-De Castro
Clearly, it is now acknowledged that rape, as a form of sexual violence, exists within marriage. A
man who penetrates her wife without her consent or against her will commits sexual violence upon
her, and the Philippines, as a State Party to the CEDAW and its accompanying Declaration, defines
and penalizes the act as rape under R.A. No. 8353. It is true that the Family Code, obligates the
spouses to love one another but this rule sanctions affection and sexual intimacy, as expressions of
love, that are both spontaneous and mutual and not the kind which is unilaterally exacted by force
or coercion. The definition of rape in Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 8353 pertains to: (a) rape, as traditionally
known; (b) sexual assault; and (c) marital rape or that where the victim is the perpetrator's own
spouse. The single definition for all three forms of the crime shows that the law does not distinguish
between rape committed in wedlock and those committed without a marriage. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. EDGAR JUMAWAN, G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014, J. Reyes
AAA was only ten (10) years old when Traigo raped her in September 2004. The minority of the
victim and her relationship to Traigo, however, raised the crime from statutory rape to qualified
rape. Simply put, qualified rape is statutory rape in its qualified form. The also evidence showed
that the she was 12 years old when she was raped on March 2006, as evidenced by her Certificate of
Live Birth showing that she was born on November, 18, 1993. The evidence also established that
the Traigo was the common-law spouse of BBB. 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. The SC cannot, however, impose the
death penalty in view of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled An Act Prohibiting the imposition of the
Death Penalty in the Philippines. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRED TRAIGO, G.R. No.
199096, June 02, 2014, J. Brion
The modification of the crime committed by the Valentin Sabal from statutory rape to qualified rape
is proper. The evidence also established that the appellant was the brother of the victims' father.
The minority of the victims and their relationship to the appellant in the present case raised the
crime from statutory rape to qualified rape. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VALENTIN SABAL
y PARBA, JR., G.R. No. 201861, June 2, 2014, J. Brion
Pregnancy is not an essential element of rape. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was
fathered by the accused, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is important and
decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter's will or without
her consent, and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful manner. Thus, when the victim,
a 17-year old girl who was the house helper of the sister of the accused, categorically and
consistently testified that the accused had carnal knowledge of her while pointing a gun in her
mouth, the courts will give credence to her testimony and convict the accused regardless of the
pregnancy of the victim. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DEMOCRITO PARAS, G.R. No. 192912,
June 4, 2014, J. Leonardo-De Castro
Inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are
not grounds for acquittal. As long as the inaccuracies concern only minor matters, the same do not
affect the credibility of witnesses. Truth-telling witnesses are not always expected to give error-free
Page 29 of 49

testimonies considering the lapse of time and treachery of human memory. Inaccuracies may even
suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed.
Authorities in forensic medicine agree that the determination of the exact date of fertilization is
problematic. The exact date thereof is unknown; thus, the difficulty in determining the actual
normal duration of pregnancy. Pregnancy is not an essential element of the crime of rape. Whether
the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused, or by some unknown individual,
is of no moment. What is important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the
victim against the latter's will or without her consent, and such fact was testified to by the victim in
a truthful manner. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DEMOCRITO PARAS, G.R. No. 192912, June
4, 2014 , J. Leonardo-De Castro
To convict an accused for statutory rape, two elements must be proven: 1.) the victim is a female
under 12 years of age or is demented; and the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim. Thus,
where the prosecution was able to present a 7-year old girls credible, positive and categorical
testimony relative to the circumstances surrounding her rape; and the physical evidence consistent
with AAAs assertion that she was raped, the accused must be held guilty of statutory rape. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RENATO BESMONTE, G.R. No. 196228, June 4, 2014, J. Leonardo-De
Castro
When a de facto foster father was alleged to have raped his de facto minor adopted child, and the
victim had clearly and categorically testified that he had penetrated her vagina, the absence of
hymenal laceration does not preclude rape, because it is possible for a womans hymen to remain
intact even after having been raped if it is lax, thick and elastic. Carnal knowledge is the element of
rape, not hymenal laceration. Further, delays in the reporting of the rape does not destroy the
credibility of the rape victim, especially when the accused had performed acts of violence on the
victim, which are enough to cow the 13-year old victim into silence. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. ELIAS BUENVINOTO y PAGLINAWAN, G.R. No. 207990, June 9, 2014, J. Reyes
No sane girl would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and
subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to
seek justice for the wrong done to her. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and
sincerity.
The Court has time and time again ruled that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses as these
are self-serving. The absence of fresh lacerations in the hymen cannot be a firm indication that the
complainant was not raped. It is settled that hymenal lacerations are not an element of rape.
After a thorough perusal of the records of this case, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to
establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC. AAA,
who was then only 13 years old, testified that Esteban succeeded in having carnal knowledge with
her and, thus, being AAAs father, is presumed to have employed force and/or intimidation. Both
the lower courts found AAAs testimony in this matter clear, convincing and credible. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES vs. JERUSALEM ESTEBAN y BALLESTEROS, G.R. No. 200920, June 9, 2014, J.
Reyes
The term statutory rape should only be confined to situations where the victim of rape is a person
less than 12 years of age. If the victim of rape is a person with mental abnormality, deficiency, or
retardation, the crime committed is simple rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1) (b) as she is
Page 30 of 49

considered "deprived of reason" notwithstanding that her mental age is equivalent to that of a
person under 12. In short, carnal knowledge with a mental retardate whose mental age is that of a
person below 12 years, while akin to statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d), should
still be designated as simple rape under paragraph 1(b). PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE
DALAN y PALDINGAN, G.R. No. 203086, June 11, 2014, J. Brion
Accused, the biological father of the 15-year-old victim, committed rape twice. Medical examination
results indicate that the victim did not suffer injuries. The Court held that the foremost
consideration in a rape case is the victims testimony which, in this case, was candid and
straightforward. It is doctrinally settled that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the
credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed.
Absence of physical evidence does not necessarily negate commission of rape. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. OLIVER A. BUCLAO, G.R. No. 208173, June 11, 2014, J. Leonen
Accused was charged of raping the 7-year-old victim. The victims testimony was found credible
and it sufficiently established the guilt of the accused. The Court ruled that testimonies of victims of
tender age are credible, more so if they are without any motive to falsely against their offender.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BRICCIO BACULANTA, G.R. No. 207513, June 16, 2014, J.
Reyes
Rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or even secrecy. As such, it is usually only the
victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced coitus. In its prosecution, therefore, the
credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important issue to deal with. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HERMNIGILDO T. ABAYAN, G.R. No. 190620, June 18, 2014, J. Perez
Delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge
unworthy of belief. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her
defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny. Only when the delay is unreasonable or
unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CARLOS
ALHAMBRA, G.R. No. 207774, June 30, 2014, J. Reyes
It has been held that when the victims testimony is corroborated by the physicians finding of
penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of
carnal knowledge; that laceration, whether healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible
defloration. The Court, however, finds no physical evidence of sexual penetration and no
corroboration of other vital details in AAAs narration of the rape. when the victim says that the
accused inserted his penis into her vagina and pushed and pulled inside her "for a long time," and
she felt pain and blood oozed from her organ, the stark absence of any vaginal tear or laceration
will have to be medically explained, or else, the Court is left with no inference other than that the
charge of rape may have been a mere fabrication. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLANDO
RONDINA, G.R. No. 207763, June 30, 2014, J. Reyes
The elements of the crime of forcible abduction, as defined in Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code,
are: (1) that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation (2)
that she is taken against her will and (3) that the abduction is with lewd designs. On the other
hand, rape under Article 266-A is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman by: (1) force
or intimidation, or (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or is unconscious, or (3) when she is
under twelve years of age. The prosecution was able to prove all these elements in this case.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROSENDO AMARO, G.R. No. 199100, July 18, 2014, J. Perez
Page 31 of 49

Jurisprudence strictly dictates that the guardian must be a person who has a legal relationship with
his ward, which does not obtain in this case. Ineluctably, guardianship cannot be considered as a
qualifying circumstance and the accused-appellant can only be convicted of simple rape. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VIRGILIO ANTONIO y RIVERA, G.R. No. 208623, July 23, 2014, J.
Reyes
Rape may be committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman through threat or
intimidation. According to "AAA," every time Juan will have sexual intercourse with her, he would
issue threats that he would kill her, her mother and grandmother
Although "AAAs" minority was alleged, the same was not proved during trial; neither was her Birth
Certificate submitted in evidence. Her relationship with the Juan was likewise not established.
Although the Information alleged that Juan is an uncle of "AAA," such relationship was not proved
during trial. Based on Juans testimony, he was never married to "AAAs" relative. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. STANLEY BUNAGAN y JUAN, G.R. No. 196786, July 23, 2014, J. Del Castillo
Under the Revised Penal Code, as amended, rape is committed when: (1) the offender had carnal
knowledge of a woman; and (b) that the same was committed by using force and intimidation.
Despite her low mentality, AAA was able to narrate her harrowing experience in the hands of the
two accused, who took turns in raping her. The SC ruled that a victim who cries rape, more so if she
is a minor, almost always says all that is needed to signify that the crime has been committed, and
so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis
thereof. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEONARDO BATTAD, et al., G.R. No. 206368, August
6, 2014, J. Reyes
The precise date or time of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime of
rape. Hence, the fact that the victim could not remember the exact dates when each of other rapes
occurred will not affect the conviction of the accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMEO
CLOSA Y LUALHATI, G.R. No. 211049, August 6, 2014, J. Reyes
"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 twelve years of age, or is demented." In
the instant appeal, the RTC and the CA both found AAAs testimony that she was raped in 2005 as
credible. AAA did not specifically refer to an exact month and date when the sordid act was
committed. Her testimony that the he threatened to kill her, pushed her to the wall and inserted his
penis in her vagina, while she was alone washing dishes at home, was positive, clear and
categorical. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SAMUEL "TIW-TIW" SANICO, G.R. No. 208469,
August 13, 2014, J. Reyes
AAA while going home, was suddenly abducted by Edison and dragged into a dark portion. In the
said area, Wendel through force and intimidation, committed rape against AAA while Dante and
Edison held her and pointed a knife at her. Wendel posited the sweetheart defense. In disregarding
the said defense, the Court ruled that the "sweetheart theory" is an admission of carnal knowledge
of the victim and consequently places on the accused the burden of proving the supposed
relationship by substantial evidence. Otherwise called as the "sweetheart defense," it is an oftabused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests the Courts
Page 32 of 49

patience. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the
instant case. Independent proof is required such as tokens, mementos, and photographs.
Appellant presented no such evidence to substantiate his claim. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
WENDEL OCDOL y MENDOVA, EDISON TABIANAN, AND DANTE BORINAGA, G.R. No. 200645,
August 20, 2014, J. Perez
A minor was allegedly raped by the common law husband of her mother two times. The Court
upheld the conviction of the lower courts and stated that statutory rape is committed by sexual
intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the
sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of
statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the
victim is below the age of 12. At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess
discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, to convict an
accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of
the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused
and the complainant. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CHARLES REYES y MARASIGAN, G.R. No.
210619, August 20, 2014, J. Reyes
When the rape victim had testified in a straightforward and categorical manner that the accused
had used force and intimidation to insert his penis into her vagina, and the trial court gave credence
to her testimony, such findings are binding upon the Supreme Court. In addition, the sweetheart
theory, absent any substantial evidence as proof of a relationship between the victim and the
accused, will not be a sufficient defense for rape. Besides, the fact that both parties are sweethearts
does not negate rape. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ECO YABA y BASA a.k.a. Plok, G.R. No.
194946, September 3, 2014, J. Perez
According to Article 266-A (1) (a), Revised Penal Code, rape is committed: 1) by a man who have
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) through force, threat or
intimidation.
In the instant case, according to AAA, Belgar poked a knife at her neck, forced her to get up from her
sleep, and dragged her outside of the house. She resisted and would have shouted but he warned
her against shouting, and threatened to stab her and her sleeping sisters. Once they were outside,
he injected a substance into her belly, thereby causing her to lose consciousness. Upon regaining
her consciousness, she was already naked and had blood in her vagina. Belgar employed force,
threat and intimidation in order to commit carnal knowledge of AAA.
The commission of the rape was competently established although AAA had been unconscious
during the commission of the act. Proof of the commission of the crime need not always be by direct
evidence, for circumstantial evidence could also sufficiently and competently establish the crime
beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the Court affirmed convictions for rape based on circumstantial
evidence. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BOBBY BELGAR, G.R. No. 182794, September 8,
2014, J. Bersamin
The behavior of a rape victim in reacting to the incidents of rape after the offense varies from one
victim to another. The act of the victim of going back to the place where the crime was committed
does not ipso facto make the sexual intercourse consensual. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
ADEL RAMOS y ABELLANA, G.R. No. 200077, September 17, 2014, J. Perez
Page 33 of 49

Japson was charged of the crime of raping AAA, who admitted she had a relationship with the him.
Japson claimed it was a consensual act. The Court held that the invocation of the sweetheart theory
cannot stand. To be credible, the sweetheart defense should be substantiated by some documentary
or other evidence of relationship such as notes, gifts, pictures, mementos, and the like. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES vs. PRIMO P. JAPSON alias "Longlong," G.R. No. 210658, September 17,
2014, J. Reyes
The Court ruled that as to the first incident, accused is guilty of rape. Despite the absence in AAAs
testimony that there was actual carnal knowledge considering that she lost consciousness before
that, circumstances indicate that the bloodied vagina was a result of insertion of the accuseds penis
to the vagina of the victim. Even without direct evidence, the accused may be convicted on the basis
of circumstantial evidence, provided the proven circumstances constitute an unbroken chain
leading to one fair reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as
the guilty person. The Court held that there was only an act of lasciviousness on the second
incident. Accused mounted himself on top of AAA, touched and sucked her nipple and kissed her on
her lips. Lascivious conduct is the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the
genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious
exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JULITO
GERANDOY, G.R. No. 202838, September 17, 2014, J. Perez
Rape is committed 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; 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. In the case at bar,
AAA positively identified her father Lumaho as the person who had carnal knowledge of her in his
shanty. She narrated that when she visited her father, he brought her to a shanty and while inside,
he removed all her pieces of clothing, from her shirt up to her panty. He then successfully had a
carnal knowledge of her by inserting his penis into her vagina. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
ELADIO B. LUMAHO alias "ATTUMPANG, G.R. No. 208716, September 24, 2014, J. Perez
The intent of the offender to lie with the female defines the distinction between attempted rape and
acts of lasciviousness. The felony of attempted rape requires such intent; the felony of acts of
lasciviousness does not. Only the direct overt acts of the offender establish the intent to lie with the
female. However, merely climbing on top of a naked female does not constitute attempted rape
without proof of his erectile penis being in a position to penetrate the female's vagina. NORBERTO
CRUZ y BARTOLOME vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 166441, October 8, 2014, J.
Bersamin
The Court differentiated the terms "deprived of reason" and "demented," as follows, the term
demented refers to a person who has dementia, which is a condition of deteriorated mentality,
characterized by marked decline from the individual's former intellectual level and often by
emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. On the other hand, the phrase deprived of reason under
paragraph 1 (b) has been interpreted to include those suffering from mental abnormality,
deficiency, or retardation. Thus, AAA, who was clinically diagnosed to be a mental retardate, can be
properly classified as a person who is "deprived of reason," and not one who is "demented."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEONARDO CATAYTAY y SILVANO, G.R. No. 196315, October
22, 2014, J. Leonardo-De Castr
Page 34 of 49

The accused was charged for raping an intellectually challenged girl. The Supreme Court convicted
the accused and ruled that a person commits rape when he sexually assaults another who does not
consent or is incapable of giving consent to a sexual act. Children, either in chronological or mental
age, are incapable of giving consent to a sexual act. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ENRIQUE
QUINTOS Y BADILLA, G.R. No. 199402, November 12, 2014, J. Leonen
It is well-settled rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped, she
says in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. Courts give greater weight to
the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, for it is most unnatural
for a young and immature girl to fabricate a story as sordid as her own defilement, allow a medical
examination of her genitalia, subject herself to a public trial and expose herself to public ridicule for
no reason other than her thirst for justice. Based on the foregoing guiding principle, the Court
upholds the RTC in giving full faith and credence to AAAs testimony rather than the mere denial
and alibi of Ducay. AAAs clear, straightforward and candid narration sufficiently established the
fact of rape and the identity of Ducay as the perpetrator. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
GABRIEL DUCAY y BALAN, G.R. No. 209590, November 19, 2014, J. Reyes
What is clear in this case is that the nine-year old victim, candidly and spontaneously testified that
she was raped by Sato. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined
to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but
also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth
and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Both denial and alibi are inherently
weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses that Sato committed the crime. For alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place
must be strictly met. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAUL SATO, G.R. No. 190863, November
19, 2014, J. Del Castillo
Castrodes argued that it was highly improbable that AAA was raped in broad daylight and in a very
highly visible area surrounded by eight houses. The Court upheld his conviction. There is no rule
that rape is committed only in seclusion. A mans carnality is not hindered by time or placehis
prurient desire impels him to commit rape even in the most public of places. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. LEONARDO CASTRODES, G.R. No. 206768, December 03, 2014, J. Perez
When the crime of rape was committed by a father to his daughter, he shall be liable for qualified
rape and not simple rape. Also, the reactions of rape victims after the commission of the offense
may vary and shall not be confined to one classification. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE
ESTALIN PRODENCIADO, G.R. No. 192232, December 10, 2014, J. Del Castillo
The failure of the prosecution to prove that the rape victim is below 12 years old does not
exonerate the convict from the offense but shall only be liable for simple rape. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. FRANCASIO DELFIN, G.R. No. 190349, December 10, 2014, J. Del Castillo
Nestor was indicted before the RTC for the rape of his minor niece. It is a well-entrenched principle
that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child
says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed
committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. NESTOR SUAREZ y MAGTANOB, G.R. No. 201151, January 14, 2015, J. Perez
Page 35 of 49

Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as instrument or object rape,
gender-free rape, or homosexual rape. The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is the
insertion of the penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into
another persons genital or anal orifice. RICHARD RICALDE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015, J. Leonen
The failure of the victim to shout for help or resist the sexual advances of the rapist is not
tantamount to consent. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and
intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to her attackers of because of fear.
Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman voluntarily
succumbed to the lust of an accused. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer
strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. After all,
resistance is not an element of rape. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MICHAEL JOSON y
ROGANDO, G.R. No. 206393. January 21, 2015, J. Perez
The mere fact that AAA did not tell her parents about what happened to her immediately after the
first incident on 10 August 2003 does not discredit her accusations of rape and sexual molestation
against Espejon. Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair
the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained. In this connection, fear of
reprisal, social humiliation, familial considerations, and economic reasons have all been considered
by this Court as sufficient explanations for such delay. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PACITO
ESPEJON y LEBIOS, G.R. No. 199445, February 04, 2015, J. Perez
The RTC and the Court of Appeals convicted the accused of qualified rape. It is the contention of the
accused that he cannot be held liable for the crime charged because the testimony of AAA is
inconsistent and should not considered as a basis for his conviction. The Supreme Court ruled that
testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly
if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that
rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are
inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative
vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified
is not true. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NILO COLENTAVA, G.R. No. 190348, February 09,
The RTC and the CA convicted the accused of 1 count of rape and 15 counts of acts of lasciviousness.
The accused interposed a defense of denial and alibi. The Supreme Court ruled Denial and alibi,
which are self-serving negative evidence and easily fabricated, especially when uncorroborated,
cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive testimony of a credible witness.
Appellants denial and uncorroborated defense of alibi cannot prevail over the credible and positive
testimony of AAA that appellant raped her and committed acts of lasciviousness against her. As
found by the trial court and the appellate court, AAA categorically identified appellant as the person
who repeatedly molested her. AAAs testimony was replete with delicate details which she could
not have concocted herself. She was consistent in her testimony and never wavered even during
cross-examination. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. OSCAR SANTOS y ENCINAS, G.R. No.
205308, February 11, 2015, J. Carpio
Alminario insisted that he could not be convicted of rape because the medical examination results
showed that AAA suffered no lacerations or contusions. It is settled that the absence of physical
injuries or fresh lacerations does not negate rape, and although medical results may not indicate
Page 36 of 49

physical abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be established since medical findings or proof
of injuries are not among the essential elements in the prosecution for rape. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. RONALD NICAL y ALMINARIO, G.R. No. 210430, February 18, 2015, J. Reyes
Rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation or in secret, usually leaving only the
victim to testify about the commission of the crime. As such, the accused may be convicted of rape
on the basis of the victim's sole testimony provided such testimony is logical, credible, consistent
and convincing. Moreover, the testimony of a young rape victim is given full weight and credence
considering that her denunciation against him for rape would necessarily expose herself and her
family to shame and perhaps ridicule.
Gallano was guilty only of simple rape, not of qualified rape. In order that the accused is convicted
of qualified rape under Article 266-B (1) of the Revised Penal Code, two requisites must be met,
namely: (1) the victim must be a less than 18 years old; and (2) the offender must either be related
to the victim by consanguinity of by affinity within the third civil degree, or is the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim. These two requisites must be both alleged and proved with
absolute certainty. Otherwise, the accused could only be held guilty of simple rape. The qualifying
circumstances of relationship and minority remain to be relevant in the crime of rape despite the
abolition of the death penalty under R.A. No. 9346. The accused's civil liability depends on the mode
of rape he committed. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DOMINGO GALLANO y JARANILLA, G.R.
No. 184762, February 25, 2015, J. Bersamin
In reviewing rape cases, the lone testimony of the victim is and should be, by itself, sufficient to
warrant a judgment of conviction if found to be credible. Also, it has been established that when a
woman declares that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to mean that she has
been raped, and where her testimony passes the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted on
that basis alone. This is because from the nature of the offense, the sole evidence that can usually
be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainants testimony itself. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES AND AAA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 21ST DIVISION, MINDANAO STATION,
RAYMUND CARAMPATANA, JOEFHEL OPORTO, AND MOISES ALQUIZOLA, G.R. No. 183652,
February 25, 2015, J. Peralta
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN
The trial court directed AFPFC to automatically deduct a percentage from the retirement benefits of
S/Sgt. Charles Yahon, and to give the same directly to his wife Daisy Yahon as spousal support in
accordance of the permanent protection order issued for his violation of the Anti-Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004. Despite the provision of exemption of funds provided in PD
No. 1638, the Court held that Sec. 8(g) of R.A. No. 9262, being a later enactment, should be
construed as laying down an exception to the general rule that retirement benefits are exempt from
execution. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES FINANCE CENTER (AFPFC) vs. DAISY R. YAHON, G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 2014,
J. Villarama, Jr.
It bears stressing that Sec. 23(d) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC20 explicitly prohibits compromise on any
act constituting the crime of violence against women. Thus, in Garcia vs. Drilon, the Court declared
that: [v]iolence, however, is not a subject for compromise. A process which involves parties
mediating the issue of violence implies that the victim is somehow at fault.
Page 37 of 49

AM No. 10-4-16-SC,23 on the other hand, directs the referral to mediation of all issues under the
Family Code and other laws in relation to support, custody, visitation, property relations and
guardianship of minor children, excepting therefrom those covered by R.A. No. 9262.
While AAA filed her application for a TPO and a PPO as an independent action and not as an
incidental relief prayed for in a criminal suit, the instant petition cannot be taken outside the ambit
of cases falling under the provisions of R.A. No. 9262. Perforce, the prohibition against subjecting
the instant petition to compromise applies. BBB vs. AAA, G.R. No. 193225, February 9, 2015, J.
Reyes
ANTI-HAZING LAW
It is a settled rule that the case against those charged as accomplices is not ipso facto dismissed in
the absence of trial of the purported principals; the dismissal of the case against the latter; or even
the latters acquittal, especially when the occurrence of the crime has in fact been established.
Hence, the Sandiganbayan erred when it dismissed outright the case against respondents Bayabos,
on the sole ground that the case against the purported principals had already been dismissed.
Nonetheless, the SC affirmed the quashal of the Information against respondents Bayabos. The
indictment merely states that psychological pain and physical injuries were inflicted on the victim.
There is no allegation that the purported acts were employed as a prerequisite for admission or
entry into the organization. Failure to aver this crucial ingredient would prevent the successful
prosecution of the criminal responsibility of the accused, either as principal or as accomplice, for
the crime of hazing. Plain reference to a technical term in this case, hazing is insufficient and
incomplete, as it is but a characterization of the acts allegedly committed and thus a mere
conclusion of law. Thus, the information must be quashed, as the ultimate facts it presents do not
constitute the crime of accomplice to hazing. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LTSG.
DOMINADOR BAYABOS, et al., G.R. No. 171222, February 18, 2015, CJ. Sereno
CHILD ABUSE LAW
In the crime of child abuse, the maltreatment may consist of an act by deeds or by words that
debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. Such act,
as settled, need not be habitual. Although a school teacher could duly discipline her pupil, the
infliction of the physical injuries on the child was unnecessary, violent and excessive. The Family
Code has even expressly banned the infliction of corporal punishment by a school administrator,
teacher or individual engaged in child care exercising special parental authority (i.e., in loco
parentis). Hence, a school teacher may be convicted of the said crime and, all the more when her
propensity for violence has been established clearly by the prosecution. FELINA ROSALDES vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 173988, October 8, 2014, J. Bersamin
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT
In determining the age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 6
thereof clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary of ones birth date, and not the
mental age of the accused. Thus, a person who is eighteen years old at the time of the commission of
the crime of rape is not exempt from criminal liability despite having a mental age of nine years old.
Mere allegation that the victim is the niece of the accused is insufficient unless proven. Thus, if what
was proven is only the minority of the victim and not the relationship between accused and the
Page 38 of 49

victim, only minority will be considered as the aggravating circumstance. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. MILAN ROXAS, G.R. No. 200793, June 4, 2014, J. Leonardo-De Castro
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
KIDNAPPING
Amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of special complex crime of
kidnapping with murder or homicide. It effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts
between those cases where the killing of the kidnapped victim was purposely sought by the
accused, and those where the killing of the victim was not deliberately resorted to but was merely
an afterthought. Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course
of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an
afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48,
nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last
paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
Thus, further taking into account the fact that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom, accused-appellants conviction must be modified from Kidnapping and Serious
Illegal Detention to the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide, which
carries the penalty of death. As earlier intimated, the enactment of R.A. No. 9346 had suspended the
imposition of the death penalty. This means that the accused-appellants could, as the CA and trial
court properly ruled, only be sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. To this, the Court adds
that the accused-appellants are not eligible for parole. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
ARMANDO DIONALDO, et al., G.R. No. 207949, July 23, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
An American national was allegedly kidnapped by the accused. The victim positively identified the
accused as his kidnapper. In every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold, that
is, (1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged; and (2) to establish
with the same quantum of proof the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor, because,
even if the commission of the crime is a given, there can be no conviction without the identity of the
malefactor being likewise clearly ascertained. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PETRUS YAU,
A.K.A. JOHN AND RICKY, AND SUSANA YAU, G.R. No. 208170, August 20, 2014, J. Mendoza
ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT
Shirley Casio was charged with violation of Anti-Trafficking by soliciting the services of minor
victims. However, she alleged the prosecution has failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt
and that the minor victims were willing to do such. The court ruled that Trafficking in Persons as a
Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts.
Regardless of the willingness of AAA and BBB, therefore, to be trafficked, [the Court affirms] the
text and spirit of our laws. Minors should spend their adolescence moulding their character in
environ-ments free of the vilest motives and the worse of other human beings. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. SHIRLEY A. CASIO, G.R. No. 211465, December 03, 2014, J. Leonen
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
ROBBERY
Page 39 of 49

The court has held that what is imperative and essential for a conviction for the crime of robbery
with homicide is for the prosecution to establish the offenders intent to take personal property
before the killing, regardless of the time when the homicide is actually carried out. In cases when
the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that homicide was committed for the purpose of
robbing the victim, no accused can be convicted of robbery with homicide. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. MARK JASON CHAVEZ Y BITANCOR ALIAS NOY, G.R. No. 207950, September
22, 2014, J. Leonen
In People vs. Ibaez, 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. 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.
In the instant case, the CA correctly upheld the RTCs finding that 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 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNEL BALUTE, G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015,
J. Perlas-Bernabe
Accused-appellants conspired to commit robbery in the house of Sps. Clavel. Said robbery resulted
to the death of Freddie Clavel. The RTC and CA convicted the accused-appellants of Robbery with
Homicide. In affirming the ruling of the RTC and CA, the Supreme Court ruled that, it is settled that
the positive identification of accused-appellants prevails over their defense of alibi considering that
in this jurisdiction the latter is considered as inherently weak and, thus, cannot outweigh the
testimony of eyewitnesses establishing that accused-appellants committed the crime. Moreover,
conspiracy having been established, when a homicide takes place by reason of or on occasion of the
robbery, all those who took part shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide whether they actually participated in the killing, unless there is proof that there was an
endeavour to prevent the killing. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JAY HINLO aka INDAY
KABANG, et al., G.R. No. 212151, February 18, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
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,
Page 40 of 49

was committed. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNEL BALUTE Y VILLANUEVA, G.R. No.
189272, January 21, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
Charlie and John Doe had to kill Yap to accomplish their main objective of stealing her money. In
robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with
homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery
must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or after the
robbery. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CHARLIE OROSCO, G.R. No. 209227, March 25,
2015, J. Villarama, Jr.
THEFT AND QUALIFIED THEFT
To warrant a conviction for theft of damaged property, the prosecution must prove beyond
reasonable that the accused maliciously damaged the property belonging to another and,
thereafter, removed or used the fruits or object thereof, with intent to gain. When the [Magsumbol]
was ordered by his brother-in-law to cut down coconut trees on the latters property, and he asked
permission from the barangay captain to do so, and the fact that even the land owner was unsure as
to the position of the boundary of his land, then the accused had no criminal intent when he
mistakenly cut the trees of the complainant. EDUARDO MAGSUMBOL vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 207175, November 26, 2014, J. Mendoza
Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of Qualified Theft, must be the result of the relation by
reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the appellant and the offended party
that might create a high degree of confidence between them which the appellant abused. Applying
this, Cahiligs act of deliberately misleading the board of directors into authorizing disbursements
for money that eventually ended up in her personal account makes him guilty of the crime of
qualified theft considering that his position was one reposed with trust and confidence as it
involves handling, managing, receiving, and disbursing money from complainant-depositors and
other funds. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. TRINIDAD A. CAHILIG, G.R. No. 199208, July 30,
2014, J. Carpio
The elements of qualified theft, committed with grave abuse of discretion, can simply be
enumerated as follows: 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; and6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. The accused in this case,
it bears stressing, were guards and drivers with access to the entrance and exit of the CEO
premises. In other words, they enjoyed the trust and confidence reposed on them by their employer
to have access throughout the CEO premises on account of their respective duties. It was this trust
and confidence that was gravely abused by them that makes the theft qualified. JOEL YONGCO and
JULIETO LAOJAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 209373 (consolidated), July 30,
2014, J. Velasco, Jr.
Nielles questions the decision of the CA finding her guilty of the crime of qualified theft. The
elements of qualified theft are as follows 1) taking of personal property; 2) that said property
belongs to another; 3) that the said taking was done with intent to gain; 4) that it was done without
the owners consent; 5) that it was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against
persons, or of force upon things; and 6) that it was done with grave abuse of confidence. For having
established all the elements abovementioned, the SC affirmed the findings and decision of the trial
Page 41 of 49

court and appellate court that petitioner had indeed committed the crime of qualified theft.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MERA JOY ELEUTERIO NIELLES, AND MERA NIELLES
DELOS REYES, G.R. No. 200308, February 23, 2015, J. Del Castillo
ESTAFA
The CA convicted the accused for the commission of the crime of estafa. Gamboa denied the
allegations. The Court has ruled that findings of fact of the trial court when affirmed by the CA is
binding upon it unless there is proof that such facts where overlooked, ignored, misconstrued, and
misinterpreted. The fact of misappropriation cannot be refuted by the mere allegation that the
amount claimed against Gamboa is unliquidated. Its effect is merely to put into question the actual
amount misappropriated and the damage sustained by TFS Pawnshop. JEAN D. GAMBOA vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 188052, April 21, 2014, J. Perez
The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: (a) that money, goods or other
personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same; (b) that
there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his
part of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of
another; and (d) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. The
prosecution was able to prove the existence of all the elements of the crime. Tangcoy gave Corpuz
the pieces of jewelry in trust, or on commission basis, as shown in the receipt dated May 2, 1991
with an obligation to sell or return the same within sixty (60) days, if unsold. There was
misappropriation when Corpuz failed to remit the proceeds of those pieces of jewelry sold, or if no
sale took place, failed to return the same pieces of jewelry within or after the agreed period despite
demand from Tangcoy to the prejudice of the latter. LITO CORPUZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014, J. Peralta
It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment and Estafa.
Rodericks contention that he cannot be convicted of estafa because the element of deceit is lacking
is without merit, as private complainants were able to establish, through their positive and credible
testimonies, that appellant acted in conspiracy with his co-accused to mislead private complainants
into believing that appellant and his co-accused, for a fee, can deploy private complainants abroad
for employment. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANGELITA I. DAUD, HANELITA M.
GALLEMIT and RODERICK GALLEMIT y TOLENTINO, G.R. No. 197539, June 2, 2014, J.
Leonardo-De Castro
As regards the first element, the Court finds that there was neither abuse of confidence nor deceit in
this case. On the charge of abuse of confidence, [the Court again finds] that there is no evidence that
could possibly lead to a conclusion that respondents committed abuse of confidence in dealing with
Madrigal. First, a perusal of the evidence reveals that Madrigal did not sign a blank document nor
was she deceived by respondents regarding the terms of the CSA. On its face, the CSA was a
standard preprinted form. A plain reading thereof shows that the signatory guarantees the punctual
payment of indebtedness that may have been due or owed by the borrower. Madrigal ought to have
read the terms of the CSA before she signed it.
Second, considering the accountability of the signatory upon signing the CSA, Madrigal must have
observed prudence in order to protect her interests. Hence, she should have personally indicated
her own terms in the CSA whether she was signing as a representative, a surety, or a witness. It is
Page 42 of 49

unlikely that FEBTC officers would make it appear that she was personally liable as surety of a loan
without her knowledge and authority. Madrigal failed to overcome the presumption in favor of
respondents that the ordinary course of business has been followed. MA. ANA CONSUELO A.S.
MADRIGAL vs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNDERSECRETARY MA. MERCEDITAS N.
GUTIERREZ, CELESTINO M. PALMA III, and HELEN T. CHUA, G.R. No. 168903, June 18, 2014,
C.J. Sereno
Tria received pieces of jewelry from Seven Sphere for her to sell on the condition that she will
deliver the proceeds and to return if unsold. Half of the jewelries were returned, but [she] failed to
pay the remaining value. She argued that the element of fraud is missing since she returned the
jewelry. The Court held that all elements of estafa through misappropriation or conversion are
present. Trias argument implies an admission of her receipt of the jewelry items and her failure to
account for all of them. The words convert and misappropriate connote the act of using or
disposing of anothers property as if it were ones own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use
different from that agreed upon. SOLEDAD TRIA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
204755, September 17, 2014, J. Reyes
The offense of estafa committed with abuse of confidence requires that money, goods or other
personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; that there
be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part
of such receipt that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another;
and that there is demand by the offended party to the offender. NENITA CARGANILLO vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 182424, September 22, 2014, J. Brion
While a BP Blg. 22 case and an estafa case may be rooted from an identical set of facts, they
nevertheless present different causes of action, which, under the law, are considered separate,
distinct, and independent from each other. Therefore, both cases can proceed to their final
adjudication both as to their criminal and civil aspects subject to the prohibition on double
recovery. Perforce, a ruling in a BP Blg. 22 case concerning the criminal and civil liabilities of the
accused cannot be given any bearing whatsoever in the criminal and civil aspects of a related estafa
case. Clearly, the simultaneous filing of BP Blg. 22 and estafa cases do not amount to double
jeopardy.
As such, an acquittal and subsequent exoneration in the BP Blg. 22 cases had no effect in the estafa
case, even if both cases were founded on the same factual circumstances. There being no deceit
employed to induce another for the investment of money, the civil liability did not arise from any
purported act constituting the crime of estafa. Verily, the case at bar involves a liability traceable
from being an accommodation party. Thus, not being based upon the crime she is charged with, the
lower court correctly upheld the same despite her acquittal in the estafa case. LEONORA B.
RIMANDO vs. SPOUSES WINSTON and ELENITA ALDABA and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 203583, October 13, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
Here, Balerta held the funds in behalf of BABMPC. Over the funds, she had mere physical or material
possession, but she held no independent right or title, which she can set up against BABMPC.
Balerta was nothing more than a mere cash custodian, thus one of the elements of estafa by
misappropriation - the juridical possession of the funds - is not proven. In addition, the testimony of
the BABMPCs manager, without corroborating evidence, does not prove misappropriation on
Balertas part.
Page 43 of 49

When the accused in an estafa case is acquitted due to reasonable doubt as to her criminal liability,
civil liability may still be proven by preponderance of evidence. Timonera made references to the
alleged falsifications and misappropriations committed by Balerta. However, he denied specific
knowledge of where exactly the falsifications and misappropriations were shown and recorded.
This, plus the fact that the prosecution made no formal offer of documentary evidence, leaves the
Court in the dark as to how Balerta's civil liability, if any, shall be determined. MARGIE BALERTA
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 205144, November 26, 2014, J. Reyes
The elements of estafa through conversion or misappropriation under Art. 315(1)(b) of the [RPC]
are: (1) that personal property is received in trust, on commission, for administration or under any
other circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though the
obligation is guaranteed by a bond; (2) that there is conversion or diversion of such property by the
person who has so received it or a denial on his part that he received it; (3) that such conversion,
diversion or denial is to the injury of another; and (4) that there be demand for the return of the
property.
Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the
transferee may set up even against the owner.
In this case, it was Velayo alone who transacted with WJA and AIMS in behalf of ARDC. It was to her
that all the above checks were handed in payment for the lots, and she alone opened a deposit
account with UCPB, although in the name of ARDC, where she deposited all the check payments she
received from WJA. Then, only her signature is in the UCPB signature cards, and thus she alone was
the sole authorized signatory for the said account. There is then no doubt that Velayo had sole
possession and control of the missing funds intended for payment of the capital gains and
documentary stamps taxes. Velayo did not receive the missing funds in behalf of ARDC, but received
it for herself, through her own representations. WJA had no obligation to pay to ARDC the
withholding tax; its obligation was to pay the same to the BIR itself. It was only due to Velayos own
representations that she was able to get hold of the money. MARIA LINA S. VELAYO vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 204025, November 26, 2014, J. Reyes
The elements of syndicated estafa are: (a) estafa or other forms of swindling, as defined in Arts. 315
and 316 of the RPC, is committed; (b) the estafa or swindling is committed by a syndi-cate 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.
In this case, 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. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. PALMY TIBAYAN AND RICO Z. PUERTO, G.R. Nos. 209655-60, January 14, 2015, J. PerlasBernabe
Page 44 of 49

The elements of estafa under this Art. 315 of RPC are: (a) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or
other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (b) misappropriation or conversion
by the offender of the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (c)
the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) demand by the
offended party that the offender return the money or property received.
It bears to stress that a sum of money received by an employee on behalf of an employer is
considered to be only in the material possession of the employee. The material possession of an
employee is adjunct, by reason of his employment, to a recognition of the juridical possession of the
employer.
In this case, Benabaye maintains that the first element of estafa through misappropriation has not
been established, insisting that her possession of the collected loan payments was merely material
and not juridical; therefore, she cannot be convicted of the said crime. The Court agrees. Records
show that Benabaye was merely a collector of loan payments from Siam Bank's clients. At the end of
every banking day, she was required to remit all cash payments received together with the
corresponding cash transfer slips to her supervisor, Tupag. As such, the money merely passes into
her hands and she takes custody thereof only for the duration of the banking day. Hence, as an
employee of Siam Bank, specifically, its temporary cash custodian whose tasks are akin to a bank
teller, she had no juridical possession over the missing funds but only their physical or material
possession. CHERRY ANN M. BENABAYE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 203466,
February 25, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
The estafa charged in the information may be committed, therefore, when: (1) the offender has
post-dated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or
issuance; (2) at the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender has no funds in the
bank, or the funds deposited are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; (3) the payee has
been defrauded. The deceit here should be the efficient cause of the defraudation, and should either
be prior to, or simultaneously with, the act of the fraud.
All the elements of estafa were present in this case. The first element was admitted by Villanueva,
who confirmed that she had issued the checks to Madarang in exchange for the jewelry she had
purchased. There is no question that Madarang accepted the checks upon the assurance
of Villanueva that they would be funded upon presentment. It is clear that Madarang would not
have parted with and entrusted the pieces of valuable jewelry to Villanueva whom she barely knew
unless Villanueva gave such assurance to her. The second element was likewise established because
the checks were dishonored upon presentment due to insufficiency of funds or because the account
was already closed. The third element was also proved by the showing that Madarang suffered
prejudice by her failure to collect from Villanueva the balance of PhP995,000.00. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. JULIE GRACE K. VILLANUEVA, G.R. No. 163662, February 25, 2015, J.
Bersamin
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
The Court, however, considers Campos' defense that she exerted efforts to reach an amicable
settlement with her creditor after the checks which she issued were dishonored by the drawee
bank. Campos categorically declared in her petition that, she has in her favor evidence to show that
Page 45 of 49

she was in good faith and indeed made arrangements for the payment of her obligations
subsequently after the dishonor of the checks. Clearly, this statement was a confirmation that she
actually received the required notice of dishonor from FWCC. Campos would not have entered into
the alleged arrangements beginning January 1996 until May 1998 if she had not received a notice of
dishonor from her creditor, and had no knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds with the bank
and the dishonor of her checks. MA. ROSARIO P. CAMPOS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and
FIRST WOMENS CREDIT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 187401, September 17, 2014, J. Reyes
Lim questions the decision of the CA finding him guilty of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 despite the fact
that he had already paid the amount of the dishonored checks even before the informations against
him were filed in court. Ruling in favor of Lim, the Court ruled that although generally, only the full
payment of the value of the dishonored check during the five-day grace period would exculpate the
accused from criminal liability under B.P. Blg. 22 the Court acknowledges the existence of
extraordinary cases where, even if all the elements of the crime or offense are present, the
conviction of the accused would prove to be abhorrent to society's sense of justice. The spirit of the
law which, for B.P. Blg. 22, is the protection of the credibility and stability of the banking system,
would not be served by penalizing people who have evidently made amends for their mistakes and
made restitution for damages even before charges have been filed against them. In effect, the
payment of the checks before the filing of the informations has already attained the purpose of the
law. ARIEL T. LIM vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 190834, November 26, 2014, J.
Peralta
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
Fernandez allegedly recruited several persons for overseas employment in Hongkong. The persons
recruited, for failure to be deployed, instituted a case of illegal recruitment against Fernandez. The
RTC and CA convicted Fernandez. The Supreme Court then ruled that for illegal recruitment in large
scale to prosper, the prosecution has to prove three essential elements, namely: (1) the accused
undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of
the Labor Code; (2) the accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the
recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the accused committed such illegal activity against
three or more persons individually or as a group. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JERIC
FERNANDEZ y JAURIGUE, G.R. No. 199211, June 4, 2014, J. Brion
The appellant assails the decision of the CA finding guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale. Affirming the decision of the CA the SC ruled that Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. It is necessary
that the prosecution prove the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the offender undertakes
any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13 (b) of the
labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now
Section 6 of RA 8042) and (2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to
enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. In the case of illegal
recruitment in large scale, a third element is added: that the offender commits any of the acts of
recruitment and placement against three or more persons, individually or as a group. In this case,
appellant engaged in recruitment when she represented herself to be capable of deploying workers
to South Korea upon submission of the pertinent documents and payment of the required fees. It is
also clear from the evidence presented that the crime of illegal recruitment was committed by
against against five persons. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MILDRED SALVATIERRA y
MATUCO, G.R. No. 200884, June 4, 2014, J. Peralta
Page 46 of 49

Illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate carried out by a group of 3 or more persons
conspiring with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against 3 or more
persons individually or as a group. Both the RTC and the CA found that the prosecution has
established that petitioner and her co-accused committed the acts enumerated under the
provisions of Section 6 (a), (1) and (m) of RA 8042 when: (1) they separately charged the private
complainants placement fees; (2) they failed to actually deploy the private complainants without
valid reasons, and; (3) they failed to reimburse the said complainants after such failure to deploy.
The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following, viz.: (a) that there must be a false
pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent
representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
(c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was
induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage. In the instant case, all the elements are present. It was proven beyond reasonable
doubt, that Suliman and her co-accused misrepresented and falsely pretended that they had the
capacity to deploy the private complainants for employment either in South Korea, Saudi Arabia
and Canada. It was the misrepresentation and false pretenses made by petitioner and her coaccused that induced the private complainants to part with their money. As a result the private
complainants suffered damages as the promised employment abroad never materialized and the
various amounts of money they paid were never recovered. VILMA M. SULIMAN vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 190970, November 24, 2014, J. Peralta
CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS
BIGAMY
The marriage between Lasanas and Patingo was void because of the absence of a marriage license
or of an affidavit of cohabitation. The ratificatory religious wedding ceremony could not have
validated the void marriage. Neither can the church wedding be treated as a marriage in itself for to
do so, all the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage should be present. But then, as the
law and jurisprudence say, Lasanas should have first secured a judicial declaration of the nullity of
his void marriage to Patingo before marrying Josefa Eslaban. Actually, he did just that but after his
marriage to Josefa Eslaban. Consequently, he violated the law on bigamy. To reiterate, before one
could validly contract a subsequent marriage, he must first secure a judicial declaration of nullity of
his first marriage although such first marriage is void ab initio. NOEL A. LASANAS vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, G.R No. 159031, June 23, 2014, J. Bersamin
ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY
Art. 352 of the RPC, as amended, penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer who shall perform or
authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. The elements of this crime are as follows: (1) authority of
the solemnizing officer; and (2) his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony. In the present
case, Ronulo admitted that he has authority to solemnize a marriage. Ronulo admitted that the
parties appeared before him and this fact was testified to by witnesses. Further, the prosecution has
proven, through the testimony of Florida that the contracting parties personally declared that they
take each other as husband and wife. Hence, the Court found Ronulo guilty of violation of Art. 352 of
Page 47 of 49

the RPC. RENE RONULO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 182438, July 02, 2014, J.
Brion
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
LIBEL
In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their
entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as they would naturally
be understood by the persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood
in another sense. In the instant case, the letters tag respondent as a reknown black mailer, a
vengeful family member who filed cases against his mother and siblings, and with nefarious
designs. Even an impartial mind reading these descriptions would be led to entertain doubts on the
persons character, thereby affecting that persons reputation.
Malice can also be presumed inasmuch as the letters are not privileged in nature. Respondents
contention that he has the legal, moral or social duty to make the communication cannot be
countenanced because he failed to communicate the statements only to the person or persons who
have some interest or duty in the matter alleged, and who have the power to furnish the protection
sought by the author of the statement. A written letter containing libelous matter cannot be
classified as privileged when it is published and circulated among the public. ALEJANDRO C.
ALMENDRAS, JR. vs. ALEXIS C. ALMENDRAS, G.R. No. 179491, January 14, 2015, C.J. Sereno
OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
The DENR personnel had the authority to arrest the Cresencio, even without a warrant. Sec. 80 of
the Forestry Code authorizes the forestry officer or employee of the DENR or any personnel of the
PNP to arrest, even without a warrant, any person who has committed or is commit-ting in his
presence any of the offenses defined by the Forestry Code and to seize and confiscate the tools and
equipment used in committing the offense or the forest products gathered or taken by the offender.
It is immaterial whether the cutting, gathering, collecting and removal of the forest products are
legal or not. Mere possession of forest products without the proper documents consummates the
crime. Whether or not the lumber comes from a legal source is immaterial because the Forestry
Code is a special law which considers mere possession of timber or other forest products without
the proper documentation as malum prohibitum. MA. MIMIE CRESCENCIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 205015, November 19, 2014, J. Reyes
Under Art. 128 of the RPC, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods (2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years) if Violation of Domicile be committed at night time
or if any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after
the search made by the offender. In this case, petitioners barged in the house of Baleriano while
they were sleeping at night and, in addition, they took away with them his airgun. The penalty
prescribed by Art. 128 of the RPC is composed of only two, not three, periods. In which case, Art. 65
of the same Code requires the division into three equal portions the time included in the penalty,
forming one period of each of the three portions. EDIGARDO GEROCHE, et al. vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 179080, November 26, 2014, J. Peralta
Page 48 of 49

Hubilla insists, however, that the maximum of his indeterminate sentence of eight years and one
day of prison mayor should be reduced to only six years of prision correccional to enable him to
apply for probation under P.D. No. 968. This argument is bereft of legal basis. Neither the RPC, nor
R.A. No. 9344, nor any other relevant law or rules support or justify the further reduction of the
maximum of the indeterminate sentence. To yield to his insistence would be to impose an illegal
penalty, and would cause the Court to deliberately violate the law. Thus, when he was convicted at
age 23, the suspension of his sentence is not available. ROSAL HUBILLA vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014, J. Bersamin
In the case at bar, the men manning the checkpoint in the subject area and during the period
material appeared not to have performed their duties as required by law, or at least fell short of the
norm expected of peace officers. They spotted the Sionzons purported swerving vehicle. They then
signaled him to stop which he obeyed. But they did not demand the presentation of the drivers
license or issue any ticket or similar citation paper for traffic violation as required under the
particular premises by Sec. 29 of R.A. No. 4136 (Driving under the Influence of Liquor). Instead,
they inspected the vehicle, ordered the Sionzon and his companions to step down of their pick up
and concluded that the Sionzon was then drunk mainly because of the cases of beer found at the
trunk of the vehicle. EDMUND SYDECO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 202692,
November 12, 2014, J. Velasco
Page 49 of 49

Pals - Crim Law 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pals - Crim Law 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pals - Crim Law 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

BOOK II, RPC AND SPECIAL LAWS

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

Recent Jurisprudence (April 2014 - March 2015) Criminal Law

You might also like