THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

DANTE CUBAY Y UGSALAN

G.R. No. 224597 & July 29, 2019

Appellant Dante Cubay y Ugsalan was charged with forty-four (44) counts of
rape. Complainant is a congenital deaf mute. In 2003, complainant started
studying at Special Education (SPED) Center. Appellant is the school
watchman assigned at XXX Elementary School, XXX SPED Center, and the
SPED dormitory. Complainant's physical and behavioral changes, including
her frequent headache and stomach ache aroused her aunts' suspicion.Then
CCC learned complainant had missed her menstrual period. CCC caused
complainant to take a pregnancy test which yielded a positive result. When
asked who the father of her child was and who molested her, complainant
motioned the name "Dante," herein appellant. She then charged appellant
with rape before the XXX Police Station. On January 28, 2008, Dr. Rubee
Ann Go-Gotil examined complainant and found old healed hymenal
lacerations at 3 and 9 o'clock positions. She also confirmed complainant's
pregnancy.  Appellant denied the charges. He admitted he had sexual
congress with complainant for more than forty-four (44) times but asserted
they were all consensual. Complainant filed the rape charges only because
her pregnancy and illicit affair with him brought embarrassment to her
family. The trial court found appellant guilty of forty-four (44) counts of
rape.

Issues
1. Did the Information validly charge the crime of rape?
2 .Assuming the affirmative, was the prosecution able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the forty-four (44) counts of rape?

Ruling
1. The Informations do not charge the crime of rape.

The principal purpose of an Information is to ensure that the accused

is formally informed of the facts and acts constituting the offense
charged in accordance with the rights of the accused enshrined in the
Constitution. Where the Information is insufficient, it cannot be the
basis of any valid conviction. The Rules of Court requires that the
Information clearly accurately allege every element of the offense
charged under Section 6, Rule 110. Where the Information is
insufficient, it cannot be the basis of any valid conviction. According to
jurisprudence, the main purpose of requiring the elements of a crime
to be set out in the Information is to enable the accused to suitably
prepare his defense because he is presumed to have no independent
knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. The rule is that a
variance between the allegation in the information and proof adduced
 during trial shall be fatal to the criminal case if it is material and
prejudicial to the accused so much so that it affects his substantial
rights. Hence, an Information which does not sufficiently charge an
offense is fatally defective and warrants the acquittal of the accused.
For an accused cannot be convicted of an offense, even if duly
proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the
complaint or information. In other words, the complaint must
contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary
to constitute the crime charged, the accused being presumed to have
no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.
2. The elements of rape were not established
The elements of rape were not established. Even assuming the
Informations validly charged the crime of rape, a verdict of acquittal
here is still in order. In convicting appellant of forty-four (44) counts of
rape, the trial court and the Court of Appeals mainly relied on
complainant's testimony on direct and cross. To emphasize, sexual
intercourse here between appellant and AAA happened at least forty-
four (44) times over only a period of five (5) months. And through all
these times, AAA never complained. She did not even want to leave
the dormitory where all her forty-four (44) sexual encounters with
appellant happened. She was even seen by one of her teachers "eating
snacks with appellant," hence her aunt BBB, also a SPED teacher,
proposed to AAA's grandfather to pull AAA from the dormitory and
make her live with her (BBB) because she did not want ugly rumors to
spread. It is settled that in every criminal prosecution, the accused is
presumed innocent until the contrary is established by the prosecution.

People v. Paradillo
G.R. NO. 219590

SPO1 Aparis and PO2 Sotto, on a roving patrol in an area where

drugtrafficking was prevalent, saw accused appellant holding two pieces of
white transparent sachets in his right hand, in an alley. Upon the suspicion
that they were dangerous drugs, SP01 approached and introduced himself as
a police officer and inquired what the accused was holding. He replied that
somebody just asked him to buy shabu. The police took him to the police
station and had marked the sachet MMP-1 and MMP-2 for laboratory
examination which were found to be positive for metamphetamine
hydrochloride.
Accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and sentenced him to imprisonment of 12
years and one day to 13 years, with a fine of 300,000 pesos.
Issues:
1. WON there was a valid warrantless arrest?
2. WON the chain of custody was unbroken
Held:
1. Yes. The warrantless arrest grounded on Section 5(a) Rule 113. A
peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense
The elements for the application of the rule where satisfied by the
factual circumstances surrounding the arrest. (1) Police officers were
on roving patrol because of the rampant drug-trafficking in said area.
(2) They saw accused holding two transparent sachets containing
white-crystalline substance (3) Police inquired about the substance (4)
accused-appellant replied that somebody just asked him to buy what
he was holding. Accused also tried to exculpate himself when he was
confronted.
2. Yes. Substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule is sufficient
and would not render the evidence inadmissible. The most important
factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused. In this case, SP01 Aparis marked the items
upon their arrival in the police station and prepared the request for
laboratory examination thereafter. Seized items were received by P02
Abesia from P03 Macarinas in the crime laboratory. Chemistry Report
by the Foreign Chemist Salinas on the seized items showed that it was
positive for metamphetamine hydrochloride.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDWIN REAFOR y COMPRADO G.R.
No. 247575. November 16, 2020 PERLAS-BERNABE, J
Facts: Respondent was charged before the RTC of Naga City, Branch 24 of
the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs (Section 5, Article II of RA
9165) for allegedly selling 2 heat-sealed transparent sachets containing a
total of 0.149 gram of shabu. Respondent filed a Motion to Plea Bargain that
he be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense of violation of Section 12,
Article II of RA 9165, a punishment of imprisonment ranging from six (6)
months and one (1) day to four (4) years, and a fine ranging from
P10,000.00 to P50,000.00. The prosecution opposed contending that
acceptable plea bargain is for violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of RA
9165, punishable by imprisonment ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 20
years, and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00 under DOJ
Circular No. 27. However, RTC granted respondent's motion and said that it
is ONLY the Supreme Court that has the power to promulgate rules of
procedure hence must prevail over the said DOJ Circular No. 27. Petitioner
filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the
CA but it dismissed the petition on purely procedural grounds.

Issue/s: W/N the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed
before it

Ruling: YES Court disregarded procedural lapses to resolve the case on the
merits. Case law instructs that "the rules of procedure need not always be
applied in a strict technical sense, since they were adopted to help secure
and not override substantial justice.In clearly meritorious cases, the higher
demands of substantial justice must transcend rigid observance of
procedural rules.
In resolving the substantial issue, the court ruled that "Plea bargaining in
criminal cases is a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work
out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval.
The acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a demandable right but
depends on the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor , which is a
condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty. In short, the basic requisites of
plea bargaining are: (a) consent of the offended party; (b ) consent of the
prosecutor; (c) plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included
in the offense charged; and (d) approval of the court.
Hence, RTC gravely abused its discretion in granting respondent's motion to
plea bargain notwithstanding the prosecution's opposition to the same which
is grounded on DOJ Circular No. 27. DOJ Circular No. 27 merely serves as an
internal guideline for prosecutors to observe before they may give their
consent to proposed plea bargains. Since respondent's plea of guilt and
subsequent conviction for a lesser offense clearly lack one requisites of a
valid plea bargain, the plea bargaining is void. Resultanly, judgment
rendered by the RTC which was based on a void plea bargaining is also void
ab initio and cannot be considered to have attained finality for the simple
reason that a void judgment has no legality from its inception.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOSEPH SOLAMILLO AMAGO AND
CERILO BOLONGAITA VENDIOLA, JR. GR no. 227739
FACTS:
Version of the Prosecution:
PO2 Larena was on duty at the Dumaguete City Police Station, together with
Pińero, a civilian contractual employee. They were ordered by PSI Conag to
join in the conduct of a police checkpoint along the South National Highway,
at the crossing of Sta. Monica Road, Barangay Banilad, Dumaguete City. PO2
Larena and Pińero noticed two (2) persons onboard a blue and black Honda
Wave 125 motorcycle. Before reaching the checkpoint sign, the driver of the
motorcycle appeared to be rattled and he abruptly executed a U-turn and
went back towards the direction of PO2 Larena and Pińero. The action of the
two (2) persons led PO2 Larena and Pińero to believe that they have
committed traffic violations or were transporting/delivering something
illegal. PO2 Larena was prompted to walk in the middle of the road and
Pińero to drive his motorcycle to block the two (2) motorists. Before the two
(2) motorists could reach PO2 Larena and Pińero, the driver intentionally
slumped down his motorcycle and, in doing so, his t-shirt was lifted,
enabling PO2 Larena to see in plain view the handle of a handgun that was
tucked in his waistband. PO2 Larena asked the driver for the necessary
license and permit to carry the said firearm. However, the driver could not
produce the necessary papers, leading to his arrest for illegal possession of
firearm by PO2 Larena; he was simultaneously apprised of his constitutional
rights in the Visayan dialect.

As PO2 Larena confiscated from Amago the loaded handgun which was a
caliber .45 pistol colt with serial number 566124, he bodily searched Amago
and was able to recover and seize another load of magazine, a black-colored
holster, a cellular phone, and money amounting to five hundred sixty pesos
(P560.00). The utility box of the motorcycle was also searched by PO2
Larena to check if there were other illegal firearms concealed inside.
Eventually it was found out that the utility box contained one (1) peppermint
gum container with six (6) elongated heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
containing white crystalline granules. From his training and experience, PO2
Larena was able to conclude that the sachets contained "shabu." This led to
the rearrest of Amago for illegal possession of "shabu" and was again
apprised of his constitutional rights in Visayan dialect

Version of the Defense:

Amago was traversing the South National Highway onboard a borrowed
motorcycle allegedly owned by Roger Pamen. Vendiola saw Amago and
asked where Amago was headed. Amago replied that he was on his way to
Dumaguete City and Vendiola asked for a ride since he was also headed to
Dumaguete City to buy the said oil filter. Upon reaching Dumaguete City,
Amago saw a checkpoint sign somewhere near Sta. Monica Road, Banilad,
Dumaguete City. He slowed down and eventually stopped before reaching
the checkpoint knowing that the registration of the borrowed motorcycle had
already expired. While both accused-appellants were parked on the shoulder
of the road, they were approached by a male person in civilian clothes who
introduced himself as a police officer and later identified by Amago as PO2
Paclauna. Right after, Amago was asked to show his driver's license and
registration. He told PO2 Paclauna that the motorcycle he was driving had an
expired registration and that it was borrowed. Eventually, PO2 Paclauna
informed Amago that he would impound the motorcycle.

Vendiola disembarked from the motorcycle while Amago remained seated

there. PO1 Lee approached Vendiola and the two spoke with each other;
Amago did not hear the conversation. PO1 Lee then approached and
informed PO2 Paclauna that Amago still had not returned the three thousand
pesos (P3,000.00) that PO1 Lee gave him for the bamboo intended for the
fence of his house. PO2 Paclauna responded and told PO1 Lee, "butangan
nato ni" which means that they would plant evidence against Amago.

Amago was handcuffed by PO2 Paclauna, together with another police officer
in civilian clothes, and was dragged towards the grassy portion near an
acacia tree in the same direction where the Tamaraw FX was parked. Later
on, a table taken from the Tamaraw FX was set up on a grassy area. The
items recovered and seized from Amago were placed on the table. It was
then when Amago was told that the six (6) sachets, containing suspected
"shabu," came from the utility box of the borrowed motorcycle he was
driving.

When Amago was detained, it was the only time when he found out that he
was charged with possession of illegal drugs. Surprisingly, when Amago was
preparing his counter-affidavit, he was informed that he was already being
charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Amago
denied the crimes charged against him and claimed that he had no
knowledge of the drugs that were allegedly taken from the motorcycle he
was driving.

Vendiola, on the other hand, did not know that he was already arrested
when he was made to board the Tamaraw FX. He also denied ownership of
the drug paraphernalia allegedly recovered from him. He was surprised by
the fact that he was being chafed with violation of Section 5, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 as there were no illegal drugs confiscated from him. Lastly, he
denied knowing PO2 Larena and Pinero prior to the incident nor does he
have any grudge with either of the two.

RTC:
After trial, the RTC handed a guilty verdict on accused-appellants for
violation of Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 for the sale, trade, delivery,
administration, dispensation, distribution and transportation of shabu.

CA:
The CA affirmed the RTC Judgment.

ISSUE/s:
1. W/N THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AS EVIDENCE
THE SEIZED ITEM BEING THE FRUIT OF A POISONOUS TREE.

2. W/N THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

3. W/N THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE EXISTENCE

OF CONSPIRACY IN THE INSTANT CASE.

RULING:
We find the appeal bereft of merit.
1. The record shows that there have been valid in flagrante delicto arrests.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the
occasions on which a person may be arrested without a warrant, to wit:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a

private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is

actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.

the instant case falls within paragraph (a). For a warrantless arrest of an
accused caught in flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he
has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of
the arresting officer

It is apparent that Amago's act of making an abrupt U-turn, instead of

stopping at the checkpoint sign, made a reasonable belief for the police
officers to suspect that accused-appellants might have committed some
traffic violations or delivering something illegal. The police officers stopped
them and, in the course, Amago intentionally slumped down the motorcycle
he was riding causing his t-shirt to be lifted, thereby exposing the handle of
a handgun that was tucked in his waistband. At the same time, Pińero saw a
folding knife protruding from the left pocket of Vendiola who had fallen from
the motorcycle. Due to the failure of Amago to produce any license to carry
the firearm and for the illegal possession of a bladed weapon by Vendiola,
they were arrested.

Meanwhile, regarding the admissibility of the confiscated items, they fall

within the exception of warrantless search. The search conducted inside the
utility box of the motorcycle was legal. A search incident to a lawful arrest
under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court states:

SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may
be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used
or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search
warrant.

In the instant case, tire shabu was found in a peppermint gum container
inside the utility box of accused-appellants' motorcycle that was within their
immediate control. Therefore, it is within the permissible area that the
apprehending officers could validly execute a warrantless search incidental
to a lawful arrest.

2. On the second issue, under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal
delivery or transportation of prohibited drugs, the provision reads:

Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution

and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away
to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug,
including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and
purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

Accused-appellants contend that the prosecution failed to prove the fact of

delivery or transport of the seized illegal drugs by them to another person or
entity. They are in the position that the act of passing on the dangerous
drugs from one to the other must be established. The mere presence of
dangerous drugs inside the motorcycle should not be construed to mean that
such items were intended for delivery.

"Transport" as used under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

means "to carry or convey x x x from one place to another." The essential
element of the charge is the movement of the dangerous drug from one
place to another.

In the instant case, records established that accused-appellants were found

in possession of six (6) sachets containing shabu.1avvphil It cannot be
denied that they used a motor vehicle to transport the said illegal drugs from
one place to another. As stated earlier, transportation means to carry or
convey from one place to another, the fact alone that the accused-appellants
were found in possession of the illegal drugs while traversing the South
National Highway is sufficient to justify their conviction.

3. Conspiracy is said to exist where two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It
can be proven by evidence of a chain of circumstances and may be inferred
from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the
crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose,
concert of action and community of interest.

Based on the evidence on record, We do not entertain any doubt that

conspiracy had animated the perpetrators in delivering or transporting the
seized illegal drugs: Amago conspired with Vendiola in a common desire to
transport the dangerous drugs using the motorcycle. Both were positively
identified to have been respectively carrying a firearm, a folding knife, an
improvised tooter and a folded strip of aluminum foil. As they approached
the checkpoint sign, accused-appellants appeared rattled and hastily
executed a u-turn, which clearly manifest that they were committing some
offense. They were then apprehended for illegal possession of firearm and
illegal possession of a bladed weapon. The arrest further resulted to the
confiscation of the illegal drugs in the u-box of the motorcycle. It is worth
noting as well that both the accused-appellants tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs AMURAO y TEJERO
GR. No. 229514
July 28, 2020

Facts:

Version of the Prosecution

On February 19, 2013 at around 8:30 in the evening, two NBI agents went
to Fields Avenue in Angeles City to verify the report. As poseur customers,
they went to Natalia Hotel where they met hotel security guard Jeffrey
Papauran, who called on appellant. The NBI agents talked to appellant and
inquired from him regarding the minor girls he was selling to customers.
Appellant told the NBI agents that he could provide them with girls at
P1,500.00 each. The agents then asked appellant to provide them with six
(6) girls the following night.

Minutes later, appellant, together with co-accused Marlyn D. Valencia,

arrived with six minor girls in tow. Realizing that the girls brought by
appellant and accused Marlyn D. Valencia were indeed minors, the
undercover NBI agents requested the girls to go inside their van.

Version of the defense

Accused-appellant was in front of Natalia Hotel vending cigarettes and

viagra. The security guard of Natalia Hotel introduced the NBI agents to him.
Accused-appellant claims that the agents gave him P500.00 to look for girls,
but, when he failed to provide the girls, the agents still gave him a tip of
P500.00 since the said agents won in the casino.

While in front of Natalia Hotel, two other girls passed by and w[ere] invited
by one of the girls they brought to the agents. The agents handed P9,000.00
to accused-appellant who took P1,000.00 as his tip and handed the
remaining P8,000.00 to the girls. Thereafter, the agents declared that they
were NBI agents and immediately arrested accused-appellant.

RTC - convicted accused-appellant Amurao in Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9736,

13-9737, and 13-9738. The RTC convicted Valencia in Criminal Cases Nos.
13-9737 and 13-9740. Meanwhile, in Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9736 and 13-
9738, Valencia was acquitted. Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9741 to 13-9744
charging both accused of violation of Section 5 of RA 761015 punishing Child
Prostitution and other Sexual Abuse, were dismissed on the ground of
double jeopardy.

CA - affirmed the RTC Decision, with modification only as to the award of

damages.

Issue: Whether or not the guilt of Amurao was proven beyond reasonable
doubt?

Ruling:

Given the foregoing, the Court affirms Amurao's conviction for one count of
simple Trafficking in Persons as defined under Section 4(a) of RA 9208 in
Criminal Case No. 13-9736 in connection with the trafficking of AAA.
Amurao's convictions for two separate counts of Qualified Trafficking in
Persons under Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of RA 9208, in
Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9737 and 13-9738 involving minor victims BBB and
CCC are also affirmed.

In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of
the offense of simple Trafficking in Persons and Qualified Trafficking in
Persons. The testimonies of AAA, BBB, and CCC were direct, 
straightforward,  and  consistent. Amurao himself corroborated the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He admitted that on February 19,
2013, he was at the Natalia Hotel where he met two NBI agents acting as
poseur-buyers who inquired about minor girls. Amurao likewise did not deny
that he brought the female victims to Natalia Hotel on February 20, 2013 for
the purpose of prostituting them.
KENNETH SANTOS Y ITALIG, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES - G.R.
No. 232950

SUMMARY:
Santos acquitted for illegal possession of dangerous drug on the
ground of violation of chain of custody rule.
DOCTRINE:
The mere marking of the seized drugs, unsupported by a physical
inventory and taking of photographs, and in the absence of the
necessary personalities under the law, as in this case, fails to
approximate compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section21 of
RA 9165.
(You can include this or not hehe; for notes purposes)

FACTS:
The prosecution alleges that on September 11, 2012, at around 5:30 in the
afternoon, the team of police officers led by one Police Chief Inspector
Mendoza conducted a routine patrol along Libis Talisay, Barangay 12,
Caloocan City. Thereafter, PO3 Pacis and SPO1 Bombase rested for a while
in front of a store. While there is a distance of about five(5)meters,PO3Pacis
noticed petitioner, standing at a street corner and removing something
from his pocket. PO3 Pacis saw that it was a plastic sachet, prompting him
to alert SPO1 Bombase. Discreetly, they approached petitioner to further
scrutinize what he was holding in his hands. At a distance of an arm's
length, PO3 Pacis saw that petitioner was holding a plastic sachet containing
marijuana. When PO3 Pacis and SPO1 Bombase introduced themselves as
police officers, petitioner attempted to run. However,PO3 Pacis was able to
immediately grab petitioner's hands and recover the plastic sachet from him.
Thereafter, SPO1 Bombase apprised petitioner of his rights, while PO3 Pacis
conducted a search on the body of petitioner. The search yielded another
twelve (12) plastic sachets of marijuana from petitioner's pocket. PO3 Pacis
marked the seized plastic sachetswith"KSI/JP-1"to"KSI/JP-14"andthedate09-
11-12;afterwhich,they returned to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs, Samson
Road, Caloocan City, and turned over the confiscated plastic sachets and
the person of petitioner to the investigator. Subsequently,petitioner and
the confiscated sachets were brought to the crime laboratory for
examination. While petitioner tested negativefor drug use, the specimens
found in the plastic sachets tested positivefor marijuana, a dangerous drug.
RTC convicted Santos of illegal possessionof dangerous drug, as charged. CA
affirmed.
ISSUES:
1. WoN Santos was legally arrested
YES. Records reveal that when PO3 Pacis and SPO1 Bombase approached
petitioner, they were not effecting a warrantless arrest just yet; hence,
there was no intrusion into the person of petitioner. Their purpose was
merely to investigate into what appeared to be suspicious actuations of the
latter. It was only upon closer scrutiny that they were able to discern exactly
what the plastic sachet contained; hence, the warrantless arrest that
they effected immediately thereafter is clearly justified under Section 5 (a)
above-quoted, it having been established that petitioner was actually
committing a crime, i.e., having in his possession marijuana, a dangerous
drug, without legal authority to do so, in the presence of the arresting
officers, and which personal knowledge they obtained in the performance of
their investigative duties as police officers.
2. WoN the chain of custody rule was complied with
NO. Notwithstanding the validity of petitioner's warrantless arrest, however,
the Court wont acquit him on the basis of the non-observance of the
stringent requirements under the IRR of RA 9165o. As the records disclose,
there were unjustified deviations committed by the police officers in the
handling of the confiscated items after petitioner's arrest in breach of
the chain of custody procedure as discussed above. First, while it is true
that a physical inventory of the seized items was prepared by the
investigating officer, SPO3 Fernando Moran (SPO3 Moran), no photographs
thereof were taken. Second, although it appears that the physical inventory
had been prepared in the presence of petitioner who merely refused to sign,
it was not shown that a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as an elected public official had
been present during the inventory. If any of them had been present, they
should have signed the physical inventory itself and been given a copy there
of. To make matters worse, no practicable reasons were given by the
arresting officers, such as a threat to their safety and security or the time
and distance which the other witnesses might need to consider, for such
non-compliance. Appeal GRANTED. Santos ACQUITTED.

People v. De Dios
Accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Illegal
Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs after he was apprehended in
a buy bust operation during which dangerous drugs were recovered from his
possession. Immediately thereafter, the police officer conducted the
marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items in the presence of
media representative Brotamonte, Department of Justice (DOJ)
representative Barbacena, Barangay Official Gascon, and accused appellant
at the place of apprehension. The seized items were then brought to the
crime laboratory, where after examination, tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Issue: WON Accused is guity of the crime.
Held: Yes. The elements of the crime were satisfied.
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs are:
1. the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration;
2. the delivery of the thing sold and the payment;
On the other hand, the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
are:
1. the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a
prohibited drug;
2. such possession was not authorized by law; and
3. the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
In this case, accused was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to the
poseur-buyer during a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by Tabaco
Police. Similarly, the courts a quo also correctly ruled that accused-appellant
committed the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs as he freely
and consciously possessed plastic sachets containing shabu when he was
arrested.
With respect to the compliance of the chain of custody rule, the same
were duly complied with. The buy-bust team immediately took custody of
the seized plastic sachets, and conducted the marking, inventory, and
photography of the seized items in the presence of Media Representative,
Barangay Official and accused-appellant at the place of arrest. The seized
items were then personally delivered by the apprehending officer to the
Forensic Chemist Pabustan Jr.
To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral certainty,
the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody
from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as
evidence of the crime. The law requires that the marking, physical inventory,
and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure
and confiscation of the same and be done in the presence of the accused or
the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or
counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely:
(a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640,23 a representative
from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official;24 or
(b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public
official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service25 or the
media
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ZALDY BERNARDO y ESPIRITU G.R.
No. 242696. November 11, 2020 PERLAS-BERNABE, J

Facts: The case involves two (2) separate Informations filed before the RTC
charging accused-appellants Bernardo, Flores, Cortez, and Galamay
(accused-appellants) and their co-accused with the crimes of Kidnapping for
Ransom with Homicide and Murder. Dr Andres Sr and retired Major Igmedio
Arcega went to Sta. Lucia Mall in Cainta, Rizal to separately meet with a
group of people selling gold bars. However, Dr. Andres Sr did not return
from the meeting. His son, Dr. Andres, Jr., informed Major Arcega that his
father was missing. On the same day, Major Arcega himself also went
missing. Later that evening, Dr. Andres, Jr. received a phone call from a
woman who claimed to have custody of his father and demanded ransom
money for his release. Dr. Andres, Jr. recognized the voice of the female
caller as that of Galamay, who was a frequent visitor in the Andres residence
and with whom Dr. Andres, Sr. had previous dealings. Dr. Andres, Jr. then
reported the matter to the Philippine National Police (PNP) and requested for
monitoring and assistance during the payment of the ransom money, which
date and place were earlier agreed upon. Two days after the disappearance
of Dr Andres Sr and Major Arcega, the actual payment of ransom money was
made. Dr. Andres, Jr. saw and identified the group of Bernardo, Pacpaco,
Time, Cabesa, and Ramirez. Dr. Andres, Jr. personally handed the ransom
money in a brown envelope to Bernardo, who gave it to Cabesa, who then
rode a motorcycle and sped away. The exchange had been completed right
there and then, Bernardo, Pacpaco, Time, and Ramirez were arrested by the
PNP-CIDG.

Issue: W/N the CA erred in accused-appellants' conviction for the crimes

charged.
Ruling: NO The accused-appellants are guilty of the special complex crime
of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide. The elements of Kidnapping for
Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, as amended, are as follows:(a) intent
on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of his/her liberty; (b) actual
deprivation of the victim of his/her liberty; and (c) motive of the accused,
which is extorting ransom for the release of the victim. In the special
complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide, 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 prosecution
had established the existence of the aforementioned elements. Anent the
first and second elements, accused-appellants and their co-accused intended
and later on, were able to actually deprive Dr. Andres, Sr. of his liberty when
the latter went missing after meeting a group of people in Sta. Lucia. Such
actual deprivation of Dr. Andres, Sr.'s liberty was confirmed by no less than
Galamay who informed Dr. Andres, Jr. of such a fact via a phone call. As to
the third element, their motive, which is to extort ransom in exchange for
Dr. Andres, Sr.'s release was manifest in: (a) Galamay's phone call to Dr.
Andres, Jr. in order to demand ransom; (b) Bernardo, Time, Pacpaco,
Ramirez, and Cabesa's receipt of the ransom money from Dr. Andres, Jr. on
July 4, 1998 at España, Manila as witnessed by the members of the PNP
CIDG; and (c) Cabesa's delivery of the ransom money to Flores, Cortez, and
Antonio, who were all caught while counting the same. Finally, the last
element is also present as Dr. Andres, Sr. was killed while in detention and
his body was found in Mabitac, Laguna. On the other hand, accused-
appellants must be acquitted of murder. Antonio's extrajudicial confession as
contained in his July 8 Salaysay detailing the abduction and killing of Major
Arcega cannot be used to convict accused-appellants in the absence of
independent evidence on this charge and on account of the principle of res
inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet expressed in Section 28, Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court, which states: Section 28. Admission by third-party. - The
rights of a third party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another, except as hereinafter provided
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ZALDY
BERNARDO Y ESPIRITU et al. GR no. 242696

The instant case stemmed from two (2) separate Informations filed before
the RTC

Criminal Case No. 115554-H

Above-named accused being private individuals, while conspiring, conniving,

confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, with
criminal and malicious intent willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for the
purpose of extorting ransom from one Dr. Eliezer Andres, Sr. and his family,
in the amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) Philippine Currency,
kidnap, take and carry away Dr. Eliezer Andres, Sr. and brought him to
Jalajala, Rizal, deprived him of his liberty, against his will and consent, that
during his (Dr. Eliezer Andres, Sr.) detention, accused with intent to kill,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault and inflict physical harm on the
victim and later shoot the victim with a firearm which caused his
instantaneous death and afterwards dumped his body in Mabitac, Laguna, to
the damage and prejudice of his heirs in such amount as maybe (sic)
awarded to them by the provision of the Civil Code.

Criminal Case No.115555-H8

above-named accused, while confederating, conniving conspiring and

mutually helping one another, with evident premeditation, taking advantage
of superior strength and employing means to weaken the defense of the
victim, did then and there, with criminal and malicious intent to kill, willfully,
unlawfully, feloniously assault and hit Igmedio U. Arcega with hard
instruments, object, article causing the victim to suffer head injuries and
with the use of firearm shoot the victim which caused his instantaneous
death to the damage and prejudice of his heirs in such amount as maybe
(sic) awarded to them by the provisions of the Civil Code.

FACTS:

The prosecution alleged that on July 2, 1998, Dr. Eliezer Andres, Sr. (Dr.
Andres, Sr.) and retired Major Igmedio Arcega (Major Arcega) went to Sta.
Lucia Mall in Cainta, Rizal to separately meet with a group of people selling
gold bars. However, Dr. Andres, Sr. did not return from the meeting. His
son, Dr. Eliezer Andres, Jr. (Dr. Andres, Jr.), informed Major Arcega that his
father was missing.

Dr. Andres, Jr. received a phone call from a woman who claimed to have
custody of his father and demanded ransom money for his release. Dr.
Andres, Jr. then reported the matter to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
and requested for monitoring and assistance during the payment of the
ransom money.

Thus, on July 4, 1998, at the actual payment of the ransom money in front
of Aladdin Bus Terminal at España, Manila with the furtive presence of P/C
Inspector Arthur de Guzman, P/C Inspector Warren de Leon, and other
members of the PNP-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP
CIDG), Dr. Andres, Jr. saw and identified the group of Bernardo, Pacpaco,
Time, Cabesa, and Ramirez. Dr. Andres, Jr. personally handed the ransom
money in a brown envelope to Bernardo, who gave it to Cabesa, who then
rode a motorcycle and sped away. The exchange having been completed
right there and then, Bernardo, Pacpaco, Time, and Ramirez were arrested
by the PNP-CIDG. Meanwhile, the police officers followed Cabesa to a house
in Camarin, Caloocan City where they found him together with Flores,
Antonio, and Cortez in the living room, counting the previously-marked
ransom money. They were all arrested and brought to the police station.

Meanwhile, the cadaver of an unidentified male person was discovered at

Brgy. Amuyong, Mabitac, Laguna the previous day or on July 3, 1998.15 The
autopsy conducted on the body revealed various injuries17 and the cause of
death was a gunshot wound on the head and asphyxia by strangulation.
Later on, Dr. Andres, Jr. positively identified the body as that of his father,
Dr. Andres, Sr.

RTC: Found all accused guilty of both Criminal Charges

CA: affirmed the conviction

ISSUE:

W/NThe issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in
affirming accused-appellants' conviction for the crimes charged.

RULING:

At the outset, it is well to note that during the pendency of this appeal, the
Court received a letter38 dated May 8, 2019 from the Bureau of Corrections
stating that one of the accused-appellants, Cortez, had already died on May
17, 2016, as evidenced by copies of his Death Report39 and Certificate of
Death.40 In light of Cortez' supervening death, the Court is constrained to
dismiss the instant criminal actions against him inasmuch as he can no
longer stand as an accused herein. In the same vein, the civil action
impliedly instituted for the recovery of the civil liability ex delicto is likewise
ipso facto dismissed, grounded as it is on the criminal action. However, it is
well to clarify that Cortez' civil liability, if any, in connection with his acts
against the victims, may be based on sources other than delicts; in which
case, the victims' heirs may file separate civil actions against Cortez' estate,
as may be warranted by law and procedural rules. As such, the instant
criminal cases must be declared closed and terminated as to Cortez in view
of his supervening death

Affirms accused-appellants' and their co-accused's conviction for

Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide of Dr. Andres, Sr.; and (b)
acquits accused-appellants and their co-accused, except for Antonio,
for the Murder of Major Arcega.
Accused-appellants are guilty of the special complex crime of
Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide

The elements of Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, as
amended, are as follows:(a) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the
victim of his/her liberty; (b) actual deprivation of the victim of his/her
liberty; and (c) motive of the accused, which is extorting ransom for the
release of the victim. In the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom
with Homicide, 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 prosecution had established the existence of the aforementioned

elements.Ꮮαwρhi ৷ Anent the first and second elements, accused-appellants
and their co-accused intended and later on, were able to actually deprive Dr.
Andres, Sr. of his liberty when the latter went missing after meeting a group
of people in Sta. Lucia Mall on July 2, 1998. Such actual deprivation of Dr.
Andres, Sr.'s liberty was confirmed by no less than Galamay who informed
Dr. Andres, Jr. of such fact via a phone call. As to the third element, their
motive, which is to extort ransom in exchange for Dr. Andres, Sr.'s release
was manifest in: (a) Galamay's phone call to Dr. Andres, Jr. in order to
demand ransom; (b) Bernardo, Time, Pacpaco, Ramirez, and Cabesa's
receipt of the ransom money from Dr. Andres, Jr. on July 4, 1998 at España,
Manila as witnessed by the members44 of the PNP CIDG; and (c) Cabesa's
delivery of the ransom money to Flores, Cortez, and Antonio, who were all
caught while counting the same. Finally, the last element is also present as
Dr. Andres, Sr. was killed while in detention and his body was found in
Mabitac, Laguna.

The extrajudicial confession executed by Antonio as embodied in his July 6

Salaysay relative to the commission of the kidnapping of Dr. Andres, Sr. is
merely corroborative of the prosecution evidence on this particular charge.
To be admissible, a confession must comply with the following requirements:
it "must be (a) voluntary; (b) made with the assistance of a competent and
independent counsel; (c) express; and (d) in writing." In this case, not only
was the prosecution able to establish that these requirements had been
complied with, it was also able to show that the contents of Antonio's July 6
Salaysay merely corroborated independent evidence pointing to accused-
appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. Indeed, there is sufficient
evidence showing the complicity of accused-appellants beyond moral
certainty, consisting in the positive identification of Bernardo and Galamay
by Dr. Andres, Jr., as well as the in flagrante arrest of Flores.

Accused-appellants must be acquitted of Murder

In contrast to the above, Antonio's extrajudicial confession as contained in

his July 8 Salaysay detailing the abduction and killing of Major Arcega cannot
be used to convict accused-appellants in the absence of independent
evidence on this charge and on account of the principle of res inter alios acta
alteri nocere non debet expressed in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court, which states:

Section 28. Admission by third-party. - The rights of a third party cannot be

prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided.

In this regard, case law states that "in order that the admission of a
conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is
necessary that: (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the
admission itself; (b) the admission relates to the common object; and (c) it
has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the
conspiracy." Here, aside from Antonio's extrajudicial statements in his July 8
Salaysay, there is a glaring dearth of evidence showing the participation of
accused-appellants in a plan or conspiracy to abduct and kill Major Arcega.
As such, Antonio's statement in his July 8 Salaysay is binding on him alone;
it cannot be admitted against his co-accused and is considered as hearsay
against them

In this light, the Court is constrained to acquit not only herein accused
appellants, but also their co-accused - except for Antonio who executed the
July 8 Salaysay - for the Murder of Major Arcega. This is pursuant to Section
11 (a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reads:
Section. 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. -

(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those
who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is
favorable and applicable to the latter.

While it is true that it was only accused-appellants who successfully

perfected their appeal before the Court, it is well to reiterate the rule that an
appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the entire case out in the open,
including those not raised by the parties. Considering that, under Section 11
(a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as above-quoted, a
favorable judgment - as in this case - shall benefit the co-accused who did
not appeal or those who appealed from their judgments of conviction but for
one reason or another, the conviction became final and executory, accused-
appellants' acquittal for the crime of Murder is likewise applicable to the rest
of the accused, save for Antonio, against whom his confession in his July 8
Salaysay shall be solely binding, and Cortez, who had since died.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS DERECO Y HAYAG
GR No. 243625
December 02, 2020

Facts:

On August 26, 2009, at around 4 o'clock in the morning, while victim AAA
was texting on her cellphone and walking along Quirino Highway on her way
to work, she was suddenly approached by two (2) men. One of them, later
identified as accused-appellant, grabbed her and immediately poked a knife
on her left side, while the other, identified as alias "Biboy," grabbed her bag
and rummaged through her belongings. They dragged her towards a vacant
lot where the accused-appellant, still poking a knife at her, lifted her blouse
and mashed her breasts, with Biboy serving as lookout. AAA struggled, but
to no avail. Accused-appellant pulled her pants and underwear down to her
knees and inserted his finger in her genitalia. 

The Medico-Legal Report concluded that the laceration signified previous

blunt force or penetrating genital trauma, specifically a male erect organ. It
was also reported that there was a positive presence of spermatozoa which
shows definite evidence of sexual contact.

RTC ruled that accused-appellant cannot be convicted of the special crime of

robbery with rape as the prosecution failed to establish the presence of all
the elements of robbery with rape. Nonetheless, it found accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as all the elements of
rape were duly proven and established. The Court of Appeals affirmed with
modification the decision of the trial court.
Issue: whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt?

Ruling:

In the instant case, both the RTC and the CA correctly found that all the
elements of rape were established by the prosecution. It was also proven
that accused-appellant employed force, threat, and intimidation upon AAA
when he continuously poked a knife at AAA's left side. Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code defines when and how the felony of rape is committed.
It is settled that the RTC's findings on the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are entitled great weight and respect and the same should not
be overturned on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the trial
court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances
which would have affected the case. The Court finds no reason to doubt the
findings of both the RTC and the CA, especially since no evidence was
adduced showing that AAA had ill motive to falsely charge appellant with the
crime of rape.

Moreover, accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi cannot stand

against the prosecution's evidence. Alibi is an inherently weak defense be-
cause it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit approbation, he
must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than
the situs criminis at the time when the crime was committed, such that it
was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime
when it was committed. This accused-appellant failed to prove.
Vaporoso v. People

Accused was convicted of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous

Drugs. P02 Torculas saw accused with a lady bag and later confirmed
through the owner that such item was in fact stolen. He chased the accused
in a dark secluded area, called for backup, and conducted a stake out.
Eventually accused were apprehended. The police conducted two searches
incident to the lawful arrest. The first was an initial cursory body search
which yielded nothing and the second “more thorough” search was done in
the police station which yielded drugs.

Issue: WON the seized items were inadmissible.

Held: Yes. The seized drugs were inadmissible evidence and given that said
illegal drugs is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, petitioners must
necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability. Initially, it is
worth noting that even if the illegality of an arrest is cured by the accused’s
own failure to timely object and in fact actively participated in trial, only
constituted as a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest. It is well-settled that
a waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of
the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.

The factual circumstances satisfied the elements of a valid warrantless hot

pursuit arrest. The requirement of personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances were observed from the accused’s sudden flight upon being
flagged by a police officer, coupled with owner’s narration of what had just
transpired. Likewise, the requirement of immediacy, to ensure that the
police officers’ determination of probable cause would necessarily be limited
to raw or uncontaminated facts or circumstances, gathered as they were
within a very limited period of time, was observed when P02 Torculas chased
the accused in a secluded area after gaining personal knowledge and
conducted a stake-out until they were able to arrest petitioners about six (6)
hours later.

Although P02 Torculas effected a valid hot pursuit warrantless arrest and did
not waver in his continuous and unbroken pursuit of petitioners until they
were arrested, the seized items are still inadmissible for the reason that the
second search conducted in the police station which yielded the drugs were
done in a place other than the place of arrest.

In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending
officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the
suspect, but also in the permissible area within the latter's reach. Otherwise
stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons
either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate
control. The phrase "within the area of his immediate control" means the
area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible
evidence.

On this note, case law requires a strict application of this rule, that is, "to
absolutely limit a warrantless search of a person who is lawfully arrested to
his or her person at the time of and incident to his or her arrest and to
'dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
commission of the offense.' Such warrantless search obviously cannot be
made in a place other than the place of arrest."
PRUDENCIO GANAL, JR. y BADAJOS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 248130. December 2, 2020 LAZARO-JAVIER, J

Facts: Petitioner was charged with homicide for the death of Julwin Alvarez.
On trial, petitioner admitted the killing but invoked self-defense and defense
of relative. Trial court found the petitioner guilty of homicide. It did not give
credence to its claim of self-defense on the ground that the force he
employed was not commensurate with Julwin's supposed unlawful
aggression. In CA, petitioner argued that the 3 justifying circumstances of
self-defense, defense of ascendant, and lawful defense of property rights
should have been appreciated but CA uphold the order of the Trial court.

Issue/s: W/N justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of

relatives should be appreciated and therefore acquit petitioner

Ruling: YES Petitioner's primary invocation is self-defense and his claim of

defense of relative should be deemed subsumed. To successfully claim self-
defense, an accused must satisfactorily prove these elements: (1) unlawful
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself or herself.
All the elements are present in this case. First, there is unlawful aggression
under aggression put in real peril to the life or personal safety of the person
defending himself,the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat.
There is actual unlawful aggression when the attack is with physical force or
with a weapon that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to
cause the injury while imminent unlawful aggression is a positively strong
impending attack but does not consist of a mere threatening attitude, nor
must it be merely imaginary. Here, Petitioner saw when Julwin hit the father
of the petitioner with a stone on the chest that caused him to fall on the
plant box made of hollow blocks and passed out. Watching Julwin, who had a
knife tucked in his waistband and holding 2 stones forced him to act
accordingly. The peril was certainly far from fiction or imaginary.
As for the second element, there is reasonable necessity of the means
employed because in emergencies of this kind, human nature does not act
upon processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-
preservation. When it is apparent that a person has reasonably acted upon
this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to hold the actor not responsible in
law for the consequences. Hence, though petitioner inflicted 5 bullet wounds
and 2 lacerations on Julwin, the number of wounds alone should not
automatically lead to the conclusion that there was a determined effort on
petitioner's part to kill the victim. Petitioner was overcome by the instinct of
self-preservation on seeing that Julwin brashly entered into his property and
even knocked his father unconscious for getting in the way.
The third element of self-defense, lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself or herself, is also present here. In fact, both
the prosecution and defense were one in saying that it was Julwin who went
to the petitioner's house and instigated the incident. Remember, the right of
a person to take life in self defense arises from his belief in the necessity for
doing so; and his belief and the reasonableness thereof are to be judged in
the light of the circumstances as they then appeared to him, not in the light
of circumstances as they would appear to others.

ANGELA USARES Y SIBAY VS. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES. G.R. No.

209047

FACTS:

RTC found Usares guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide
and the RTC cancelled the bond posted for the provisional liberty of Usares.

Atty. Jojo Soriano Vijiga (Atty. Vijiga), representing Usares, thereafter

manifested in open court that they "intend to file a Notice of Appeal within
fifteen (15) days from [March 21, 2012]" and moved that Usares be
"released under the same bond. The RTC granted the said motion in an
Order issued on even date.
CA dismissed Usares's appeal and referred the Motion for the Issuance of
Warrant of Arrest to the RTC for its appropriate action. According to the CA,
despite the judgment of conviction against her and the cancellation of her
bail bond, Usares nonetheless continued to enjoy her liberty during the
pendency of the appeal proceedings without a valid bail bond having been
posted and approved by the court. she is considered to have jumped bail,
and thus, her appeal should be dismissed in accordance with Section 8, Rule
124 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and the prevailing
jurisprudence

Usare filed a motion for reconsideration. CA denied Usares's motion. Aside

from reiterating its earlier ruling anent the cancellation of Usares's bail bond,
it further observed that an entry of judgment had already been issued, and
hence, her motion for reconsideration was already considered filed out of
time.

ISSUE/S

Whether or not the CA was correct in dismissing Usares's appeal.

RULING:

The petition is meritorious.

Under Section 8, Rule 124 ofthe Rules of Court, theCA is authorized to

dismiss an appeal, whether upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio,
once it is determined that the appellant, among others, jumps bail.

The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio,
dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement,
jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.
The reason for this rule is x x x once an accused escapes from prison or
confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing
in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court
he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.
However, records reveal that Usares, through Atty. Vijiga, had manifested in
open court during the promulgation of the RTC Decision on March 21, 2012,
that she intended to appeal within fifteen (15) days therefrom, and further
moved that she be released under the same cash bail bond. As clearly
reflected in the March 21, 2012 RTC Order, the RTC granted the said motion.
Under Section 5, Rule 114 ofthe Rules of Court, when the RTC, after the
conviction of the accused, grants the latter's application for bail based on its
discretion, the accused-appellant may be allowed to continue on provisional
liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the
consent of the bondsman

Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to
continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the
same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.

Thus, considering that Usares has an existing cash bail bond- which the CA
should have known had it reviewed more carefully the records of this case -
she cannot be considered to have jumped bail, which thus renders erroneous
the dismissal of her appeal on the said ground.

Notably, while it appears that Usares belatedly filed her motion for
reconsideration before the CA, which resulted in the issuance of an entry of
judgment against her, the Court finds it proper to relax such technicalities in
the interest of substantial justice given that there was, in the first place, no
cogent basis for the dismissal of her appeal. In addition, the Court
recognizes that Usares had duly explained in her petition that her previous
lawyer, Atty. Vijiga, who received the copy of the February 14, 2013 CA
Resolution on February 21, 2013,[36] unfortunately abandoned her cause
without any explanation to her whatsoever. It was only when she asked her
present lawyer, Atty. Cuaresma, to check on the status of her appeal that
she found out that the same had long been dismissed by the CA. "While as a
general rule, the negligence of counsel may not be condoned and should
bind the client, the exception is when such negligence is so gross, reckless
and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his [or her] day in court," as in
Usares's case. Time and again, the Court has ruled that "dismissal of appeals
purely on technical grounds is frowned upon, and the rules of procedure
ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted
to help secure, not override, substantial justice, and thereby defeat their
very aims.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ZZZ

GR. No. 229209

February 12, 2020

Facts:

Sometime in December 2010, she had been weeding grass near their house
prior; it was when she went home, she recalled, that her grandfather raped
her. ZZZ placed himself on top of her and kissed her lips and genitals. Then,
when he had already undressed her, he turned her sideways and inserted his
penis into her vagina. Finally, when the ordeal was over, AAA left the house,
went to the forest, and there slept.

When AAA tried to come home the following day, ZZZ allegedly attacked her
with a bolo. She was allegedly able to parry ZZZ's attacks, allowing her to
run and seek help from Lotec, the barangay captain.
Although she could only recall the December 2010 incident, AAA testified
that such incidents where ZZZ raped her would often happen.

For the defense, only ZZZ was presented as witness. He denied the
accusation that he raped his granddaughter, claiming that his advanced age
has long made him incapable of having an erection.

Issue: whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the guilt of accused-appellant ZZZ for the crime of rape?

Ruling:

This Court finds that AAA positively identified accused-appellant as the

assailant. The elements of simple rape — that he had carnal knowledge of
AAA without her consent and by using his moral ascendancy over her given
their paternal relationship — were duly established by AAA's testimony,
admissions by accused-appellant, and the prosecution's other corroborating
evidence.

Here, AAA's account of having been attacked by accused-appellant was

sufficiently corroborated by Barangay Captain Lotec's testimony that he saw
AAA "pale and trembling." Such description is based on his personal
knowledge, having actually observed and spoken to AAA regarding her
ordeal. This, taken with the prosecution's other corroborating evidence and
AAA's straightforward identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator,
makes AAA's testimony sufficiently credible — independent of her perceived
propensity for truthfulness based on gender stereotypes.

The argument of impotency is unmeritorious. The lower courts correctly held

that impotence must be proven with certainty in order to overcome the
presumption of potency — one that ZZZ failed to do, with only bare
allegations as his proof.

PP v. Natividad
Facts:
Armed with a search warrant PDEA agents raided the accused’s house which
yielded drugs and a .45 pistol with a magazine and live ammunitions. The
confiscated items were marked with IO3 Asayco's and agent Sanchez' initials
before turning them over to their Chief Investigator Danilo Natividad (CI
Natividad). The marking was done at the room of Policarpio in the presence
of said accused, his mother, the barangay officials, the media and CI
Natividad. Policarpio signed the confiscation receipts at the place of search in
the presence of his mother, the media and the operating team. The other
witnesses also affixed their signatures on the confiscation receipts.
Thereafter, the accused was arrested and later on found guilty of the crime
possession of illegal drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia, and violation
of the Comelec gun ban.

ISSUE:
1.WON the search warrant was fatally defective?
2. WON the chain of custody rule was violated?

Held.
1. No. There was compliance with the constitutional requirement that
there be a particular description of "the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
With respect to the particularity of description of the place to be
searched, a description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the
officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and
identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the
community. Any designation or description known to the locality that
points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads
the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement. In
the case at bench, while the address stated in Search Warrant No.
0085 is merely "Purok 4, Malvar, Santiago City," the deponents in the
application for the search warrant, namely, Fred Manabat and PSI De
Vera, were able to provide an outline of the location of Policarpio's
house sufficient to distinguish it from other houses in Purok 4, Malvar
Santiago City and, hence, there was no doubt as to the location of the
intended subject of the search and seizure operation. The operating
team were also accompanied by Brgy Officials.
With respect to the particularity of the items to be seized, it is
sufficient that the description therein is as specific as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow; or when the description expresses
a conclusion of fact not of law - by which the warrant officer may be
guided in making the search and seizure; or when the things described
are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which
the warrant is being issued. In the case at bar, the phrase
"Undetermined quantity of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride known as
shabu; Several drug paraphernalia used in repacking shabu" as stated
in the Search Warrant No. 0085 has satisfied the Constitution's
requirements on particularity of description of the items to be seized.
Said warrant imposes a meaningful restriction upon the objects to be
seized by the officers serving the warrant, and thus, it prevents
exploratory searches.
2. No inasmuch as there was no justifiable reason for the non-compliance
with the chain of custody rule. The apprehending officer/team having
initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
 and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
However, records are bereft of proof that photographs of the
allegedly seized shabu and drug paraphernalia were taken after their
confiscation in the presence of the above-mentioned four persons. SC
believes that the inventory of the confiscated narcotics and drug
paraphernalia was not witnessed by a representative from the media
and by a DOJ official. A perusal of the nine (9) confiscation receipts
would show that the same were signed only by CI Natividad,
Policarpio, Barangay Chairman Tangonan and Barangay Kagawad
Calimag. The confiscation receipts did not bear the signature of the
representative from the media, which cast serious doubt as to whether
the latter was indeed present during the inventory. No DOJ official
attended the inventory of the allegedly confiscated shabu and
drug paraphernalia. Lastly, there is no clear showing that Policarpio
was given a copy of the nine confiscation receipts

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs SALAHUDIN BARAGUNA y

DIBARATAN A.K.A. "KULOT'' G.R. No. 252137. August 4, 2021

Facts: Baraguna was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA

9165 when one piece of large heat sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance weighing more or less 102.4912
grams was taken from him during a buy-bust operation. RTC found
Baraguna guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs. It ruled mainly on the sufficiency of evidence established
by the straightforward and consistent testimonies of the seizing officer,
Agents Villafuerte and Ampongan. Meanwhile, it did not give credence to
Baraguna's defense of hulidap or extortion for lack of evidentiary basis.
Aggrieved, Baraguna filed a Notice of Appeal. He argued that the trial court
heavily relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of the
apprehending officers' duties and overlooked that the prosecution failed to
establish the chain of custody. He contended that the prosecution failed to
submit the Chain of Custody Form which specified the movement of the
allegedly seized item. Also, the seizing officer failed to state the condition of
the alleged shabu upon seizure and the steps he took to secure its integrity
and evidentiary value.He also claimed that the apprehending officers failed
to observe the procedural safeguards under Section 21, Article II of RA
9165. He argued that without justifiable reason, the conduct of inventory
was done at the Civic Center where the PDEA office was located instead of at
the place of arrest. More importantly, the witnesses did not actually witness
the inventory of the seized item since the Certificate of Inventory was
already prepared beforehand.

Issue/s: W/N Baraguna is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of

Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs

Ruling: NO After careful review of the records of the case, this Court holds
that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody and
establish the very corpus delicti of the crime charged. In prosecuting the
crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be
proven: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object and
consideration of the sale; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and its payment.
Both are present in this case. However, it is also essential that the identity of
the seized drugs from the accused be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 requires that the seized drugs be
photographed and inventoried immediately after seizure in the presence of
the required witnesses, who shall all sign the copies of the inventory.A closer
look at the records reveals that the Certificate of Inventory was not signed
by the accused and/or his representative. Moreover, the witnesses were not
actually present during the conduct of inventory. Witness signed the
Certificate of Inventory after almost three hours from the conduct of the
buy-bust operation.This is a deviation from the procedure under Section 21
which requires the witnesses to be physically present as early as the time of
arrest. Another fatal error by the prosecution is their failure to establish an
unbroken chain of custody of the seized items from 1) the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; to (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; down to (3) the turnover by
the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and lastly (4) the turnover and submission of the
seized and marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.It has
also not escaped Us that the weight of the seized drugs does not appear in
any of the documents required to be accomplished in the handling of
evidence.The weight of the seized item only appears in the Chemist Report.
Due to the omission of seized item's weight from the documents, coupled
with the lapses in the chain of custody and Section 21, Article II of R.A.
9165, there exists reasonable doubt