CRIMINAL LAW 1

1. Arlene was hired by Dr. Robillos as No. The Court explained that there
her clinic secretary and collector for is a need to qualify that the accused
payments of jewelries which the is not "eligible for parole" only in
latter sells. After receiving cases where the imposable penalty
P1,000.00 from Elena, Arlene should have been death were it not
resigned. However, when Dr. for the enactment of RA No. 9346
Robillos reminded Elena of her or the "Anti-Death Penalty Law."
installment payments, Elena Here, since Jerrie was found guilty
claimed that she had already paid only of simple rape, there is no
the same to Arlene which prompted need to indicate that he was
Dr. Robillos to file a case for ineligible for parole. Jerrie is ipso
qualified theft against Arlene, facto ineligible for parole because
alleging grave abuse of confidence he was sentenced to suffer an
in the crime of theft. indivisible penalty. Further, in
People v. Jugueta, it was held that
Q: Is Arlene liable for qualified when the circumstances call for the
theft? imposition of reclusion perpetua
only, there being no ordinary
ANSWER aggravating circumstance, the
No. When the gravity of victim is entitled to P75,000.00 civil
exploitation of trust is not proven, indemnity, P75,000.00 moral
the crime is only simple theft and damages, and P75,000.00
the abuse of confidence shall be exemplary damages. (People v.
treated as a generic aggravating Arraz, GR No. 252353, July 6, 2022,
circumstance. Here, it was not J. M. Lopez)
proven that Dr. Robillos had special
trust, or high degree of confidence 3. Information was filed against
in Arlene. The allegation in the Matobato et al, as officers of the
Information that Arlene is a Sangguniang Bayan, for conspiracy
"secretary/collector" of Dr. Robillos and gross inexcusable negligence
does not by itself, without more, when they issued a Resolution
create the relation of confidence authorizing Matobato, as the
and intimacy required in qualified Sanggunian treasurer, to deposit
theft. (Homol v. People, GR No. what they claim as idle funds to
191039, August 22, 2022, J. M. Davao Cooperative Bank, which
Lopez) later became bankrupt thus
disabling the Sanggunian to
2. In two of the information filed withdraw the funds. While the
against Jerrie, the CA found him Sandiganbayan acquitted Matabato
guilty of simple rape, and penalized of the crime due to reasonable
him with reclusion perpetua without doubt, it did find them civilly liable
parole, and awarded damages to for the unrecovered funds.
the victim amounting to
P100,000.00 as moral damages, Q: Should Matobato et al be
and P100,000.00 as exemplary held civilly liable?
damages.
ANSWER
Q: Was the imposed penalty Yes. Under the Revised Penal
correct? Code, every person criminally liable
for a felony is also civilly liable.
ANSWER Further, jurisprudence dictates that
the dismissal of the criminal action

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 CRIMINAL LAW 2

does not carry with it the extinction confiscation and marking of the
of the civil liability where: (a) the specimen seized from the accused
acquittal is based on reasonable by the apprehending officer; (2) the
doubt as only preponderance of turnover of the seized item by the
evidence is required; (b) the court apprehending officer to the
declares that the liability of the investigating officer; (3) the
accused is only civil; and (c) the civil investigating officer's turnover of
liability of the accused does not the specimen to the forensic
arise from or is not based upon the chemist for examination; and, (4)
crime of which the accused is the submission of the item by the
acquitted. The quantum of proof to forensic chemist to the court. Here,
establish civil liability is the records reveal a broken chain of
preponderance of evidence. It is custody. In this case, the
evidence which is more convincing prosecution failed to account the
to the court as worthy of belief than details on how the confiscated
that which is offered in opposition items were marked. PO1 Amante
thereto. Here, the required testified that he marked the sachet
quantum of proof was met to of shabu he bought with "NICO,"
sustain the Sandiganbayan's and the two sachets he recovered
findings on the civil liability of during frisking with "NICO-1" and
Matobato et al. (Matobato Sr. v. "NICO-2." Yet, there was no
People, GR No. 229265, February showing where and when the
15, 2022, J. M. Lopez) seized drugs were marked. lacking
material details regarding the
4. Nico was charged with illegal sale marking of the seized drugs, the
and possession of dangerous drugs prosecution failed to remove any
after he was caught selling suspicion of tampering, switching,
paraphernalia which contained or planting of evidence. Similarly,
shabu during an entrapment the chain of custody rule requires
operation. During such entrapment, the conduct of inventory and
after PO1 Amante bought the drugs photograph of the seized items
from Nico, he later marked that immediately after seizure and
sachet as “NICO” while the other confiscation, which is intended by
sachets recovered during the law to be made immediately after,
frisking as marked as “NICO-1” and or at the place of apprehension.
“NICO-2”. The police officers then Here however, the inventory and
proceeded to the barangay hall photograph of the confiscated items
where they conducted an inventory were not made immediately at the
and photograph of the seized items place of arrest but at the barangay
in the presence of Barangay hall. Lastly, the absence of a
Kagawad Cabo. representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media as
Q: Was the chain of custody an insulating witness to the
required in drug cases inventory and photograph of the
sufficiently complied with? seized items, puts serious doubt as
to the integrity of the confiscated
ANSWER items. Admittedly, only an elected
No. Jurisprudence dictates that the public official signed the inventory
prosecution must satisfactorily of evidence. There was no attempt
establish the movement and on the part of the entrapment team
custody of the seized drug through to comply with the law and its
the following links: (1) the implementing rules despite the

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 CRIMINAL LAW 3

planned buy-bust operation. buy-bust was marked by PO1

(People v. Mazo, GR No. 242273, Malate only in front of Councilor
November 23, 2020, J. M. Lopez) Hinggan. Also, the pictures taken
during the physical inventory and
5. Leo was charged with Illegal Sale the Receipt/Inventory for Property
and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Seized showed that only one
Drugs after he was caught selling witness was present — Councilor
paraphernalia which contained Hinggan. The police officers did not
shabu during an entrapment give a sufficient explanation for
operation. During the entrapment their failure to summon a media
operation, PO1 Malate posed as the representative or one from the NPS
buyer. When Leo gave the sachet at the place of arrest; The second
containing the suspected shabu, link in the chain of custody is the
PO1 Malate placed the same in his transfer of the seized drugs by the
pocket which he marked as “PNP- apprehending officer to the
BB-1-14-17”, and informed Leo that investigating officer. In this case,
he was a police officer. After which, PO3 Reyes is the investigating
the other members of the buy-bust Officer. However, a perusal of the
team rushed into the scene, Chain of Custody Form shows that
together with Councilor Hinggan. PO3 Reyes’ name and signature are
The items were then seized and not reflected therein. This means
photographs where taken during that that seized items were not
the taking pf physical inventory transferred to the investigating
done by PO1 Malate in the presence officer. The same is true with the
of Leo and Hinggan. third link which involves the delivery
by the investigating officer of the
Q: Was the chain of custody in illegal drug to the forensic chemist,
drug cases sufficiently who will then test and verify the
complied with? nature of the substance. Going over
the Chain of Custody Form, one
ANSWER would notice that there are only two
No. Jurisprudence dictates that the entries — one indicates the name of
prosecution must satisfactorily the arresting officer PO1 Malate and
establish the movement and the other pertains to the Duty Desk
custody of the seized drug through Officer of the Crime Laboratory,
the following links: (1) the PO3 Legaspi. Notably, there is no
confiscation and marking of the information on how PO3 Legaspi
specimen seized from the accused handled the seized items and when
by the apprehending officer; (2) the these items were transferred to the
turnover of the seized item by the custody of the forensic chemist;
apprehending officer to the The last link involves the
investigating officer; (3) the submission of the seized drugs by
investigating officer's turnover of the forensic chemist to the court
the specimen to the forensic when presented as evidence in the
chemist for examination; and, (4) criminal case. No testimonial or
the submission of the item by the documentary evidence was given
forensic chemist to the court. Here, whatsoever as to how the drugs
the first link that involves the were kept while in the custody of
marking and inventory of the seized the forensic chemist until it was
items already displays infirmities. transferred to the court. The
The heat-sealed plastic sachet forensic chemist should have
containing the shabu subject of the personally testified on the

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 CRIMINAL LAW 4

safekeeping of the drugs, but the thereof the crime of

parties resorted to a general homicide was committed.
stipulation of her testimony.
Unfortunately, the stipulations All the elements are present in this
made in lieu of the testimony of case. Herminia and Marieta were
Forensic Chemist Huelgas failed to certain that it was Ronald who
state the precautions taken in boarded the jeepney, wielded an ice
safekeeping the seized drugs; pick and declared a hold-up.
hence, did not produce the desired Evidently, the taking was with
result in the matter pertaining to intent to gain and was
the last link in the chain of custody. accomplished with intimidation
(People v. Ilagan, GR No. 244295, against persons. Also, Carlo
November 09, 2020, J. M. Lopez) recounted that he was talking with
Magno when they heard someone
6. Hermininan and Marieta were in a shouting "tulong, may hold-up."
jeepney when they were held up. They approached the scene and it
After taking their belongings, the was then that Ronald maneuvered
man disembarked from the jeepney the tricycle and his companion shot
and proceeded to the driver’s seat Magno in the head. Verily, Ronald's
of a tricycle where three other men primary objective was to rob the
were waiting. When police officers jeepney passengers. The killing of
Magno and Carlo approached the Magno was only incidental to
jeepney, the robbers drove the prevent the apprehension of the
tricycle back to the scene where robbers and facilitate their escape.
one of them shot Magno in the (People v. Laguda, GR No. 244843,
forehead causing his death. The October 07, 2020, J. M. Lopez)
man who robbed the jeepney and
the companion of the person who 7. XXX was convicted for the rape of
shot Magno was later identified as AAA, a mentally retarded person
Ronald. Accordingly, Ronald was who, while already 29 years old,
charged with the complex crime of had the mental age of a 6-year-old.
robbery with homicide. XXX however, contends that he and
AAA were lovers and that their
Q: Were the elements of the sexual intercourse was a free and
complex crime of robbery with voluntary act.
homicide proven?
Q: Was the conviction of XXX
ANSWER proper?
Yes. The special complex crime of
robbery with homicide has the ANSWER
following elements, to wit: Yes. The crime of statutory Rape
1. the taking of personal is defined under Article 266-A,
property with the use of paragraph l(d) of the RPC; as
violence or intimidation amended by RA No. 8353, and has
against the person; the following elements: (1) the
2. the property taken belongs offended party is under 12 years of
to another; age; and (2) the accused had carnal
3. the taking is characterized knowledge of the victim. Further,
by intent to gain or animus the Court settled that the crime is
lucrandi; and, statutory rape when the victim has
4. on the occasion of the a mental age of a person below 12
robbery or by reason years old. A person's capacity to

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 CRIMINAL LAW 5

decide whether to give consent or commit, in order to prosecute him.

to express resistance to an adult On the other hand, entrapment is
activity is determined not by his or the employment of ways and
her chronological age but by his or means in order to trap or capture a
her mental age. Therefore, in lawbreaker. Instigation
determining whether a person is presupposes that the criminal intent
"twelve (12) years of age" under to commit an offense originated
Article 266-A (1) (d), the from the inducer and not the
interpretation should be in accused who had no intention to
accordance with either the commit the crime and would not
chronological age of the child if he have committed it were it not for
or she is not suffering from the initiatives by the inducer. In
intellectual disability, or the mental entrapment, the criminal intent or
age if intellectual disability is design to commit the offense
established. (People v. XXX, GR No. charged originates in the mind of
243988, August 27, 2020, J. M. the accused; the law enforcement
Lopez) officials merely facilitate the
apprehension of the criminal by
8. III and JJJ sought the help of the employing ruses and schemes. In
brgy. Chairperson to file criminal instigation, the law enforcers act as
charges against Rosario, alleging active co-principals. Instigation
that the latter recruited them to leads to the acquittal of the
work at an establishment owned by accused, while entrapment does
Kenneth and managed by Jocelyn, not bar prosecution and conviction.
where they were forced to engage Here, the victims testified that
in prostitution. The police then Rosario regularly dealt with
staged an entrapment operation customers regarding their bar fine.
where P/Supt. Puapo, posing as a Rosario's act of transacting with the
customer, introduced the foreigner customers who pay the bar fine
assets to Rosario and mentioned when taking the victims out for
that the two wanted to avail of sexual services was first revealed to
sexual services from the girls the police operatives during the
dancing on stage. Rosario asked surveillance operation, which
them to choose one and told them enabled them to secure the search
that the girls are available for a bar warrant implemented during the
fine. The entrapment resulted in the entrapment.
arrest of Rosario, who was then
charged with the crime of Qualified 9. Dexter contacted his brother, PO3
Trafficking in Persons. Rosario Adalim, who was a member of the
however, alleges that she was Police Intelligence Branch, seeking
merely instigated to commit human the latter’s help claiming that
trafficking. Rochard was after him. Adalim then
Q: Was Rosario merely induced responded with PO1 Tare. At that
to commit the crime? time, PO3 Adalim and PO1 Tare
were in civilian clothes since
ANSWER members of the Intelligence Branch
No. In People v. Mendoza, the are not required to be in uniform
Court clarified the distinctions except during inspections. Upon
between instigation and seeing Rochard and Dexter about to
entrapment: Instigation means charge at each other, Adalim
luring the accused into a crime that shouted to for them to stop and
he, otherwise, had no intention to introduced himself as a police

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 CRIMINAL LAW 6

officer. Rochard then ran to the official duties, or on

direction of his house. When PO3 occasion of such
Adalim was able to hold the right performance. Rochard was
arm Rochard, the latter punched charged under the second
the chest of the former, and upon mode of direct assault which
reaching the gate, Rochard quickly has the following elements,
closed it injuring the fingers of to wit: (1) that the offender
police officer Adalim after his makes an attack, employs
fingers were caught with the metal force, makes a serious
of the gate. This eventually led to intimidation, or makes a
Rochard being charged with direct serious resistance; (2) that
assault. Rochard however, denies the person assaulted is a
knowing that Adalim was a police person in authority or their
officer since he was in civilian agent; (3) that at the time
clothes. Moreover, Rochard argued of the assault, the person in
that he is only liable for resistance authority or their agent is
or disobedience considering that engaged in the actual
PO3 Adalim's injuries are not of a performance of official
serious nature. duties, or that they are
assaulted by reason of the
Q: past performance of official
a) Was it proper to charge duties; (4) that the offender
Rochard with direct assault? knows that the one they are
b) Was it proper to charge assaulting is a person in
Rochard with resistance or authority or his or her agent
disobedience? in the exercise of their
duties; and (5) that there is
ANSWER no public uprising. Here,
a) No. Direct assault is a crime while the lower courts have
against public order and the sufficiently proven the
principal object is to second to fifth elements,
penalize the spirit of the controversy lies on the
lawlessness or lack of first element: whether the
respect for the rule of law. nature and amount of force
There are two modes of that Rochard employed
committing direct assault: against PO3 Adalim
First, by any person or constitute direct assault. the
persons who, without a facts show that PO3 Adalim
public uprising, shall employ chased Rochard and
force or intimidation for the grabbed his right arm.
attainment of any of the Rochard punched PO3
purposes enumerated in Adalim in the chest in order
defining the crimes of to free himself and evade
rebellion and sedition; and, arrest. The act is done not
second, by any person or to assault PO3 Adalirn or to
persons who, without a defy his authority. Rochard
public uprising, shall attack, blindly slammed the gate
employ force, or seriously while running away without
intimidate or resist any knowing that it hit PO3
person in authority or any of Adalirn's arm and fingers.
their agents, while engaged More telling is that PO3
in the performance of Adalim sustained slight

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 CRIMINAL LAW 7

abrasions and swollen affirmed the RTC's findings. Milo

fingers. Also, PO3 Adalim conceded during trial that he killed
was able to run after AAA but disavowed criminal liability
Rochard punched him in rhe since it was supposedly accidental.
chest, and withstand the
pain from his injured Q: Should Milo be exempt from
fingers. Taken together, the criminal liability due to
circumstances surrounding exempting circumstance of
the act, the motive accident?
prompting it, and the real
importance of the ANSWER
transgression reveal that No, Milo is criminally liable.
Rochard's use of force
against PO3 Adalim is not It is incumbent upon the accused to
dangerous, grave, or prove the essential requisites of
severe. Again, the force accident as an exempting
involved in direct assault circumstance, namely: (1) a person
must be serious or more is performing a lawful act; (2) with
than a sudden blow, due care; (3) he/she causes an
slapping, or punching. injury to another by mere accident;
and (4) without fault or intention of
b) Yes. Corollarily, although causing it.
the charge is direct assault,
the prosecution was able to In this case, the exempting
prove resistance or circumstance of accident is
disobedience. Direct assault inapplicable because AAA suffered a
and resistance or total of 33 injuries and died due to
disobedience have similar asphyxia. Inarguably, the autopsy
elements, varying only as to report loudly speaks against Milo's
the degree of seriousness of alleged lack of intent. (People vs
the offender's resistance. Milo Leocadio y Labrador, G.R. No.
Direct assault necessarily 227396. February 22, 2023, J. M.
includes resistance or Lopez)
disobedience. (Balsamo v.
People, GR No. 260109, 11. Jerrico was charged with the crime
April 12, 2023, J. M. Lopez) of robbery with homicide. Jerrico
pleaded not guilty. Amalia testified
10. AAA’s lifeless body was found that she saw a man wearing a white
underneath Milo's wooden bed lying cap, red and blue jacket, and whose
flat on her back with a cloth face was covered with a blue
wrapped around her mouth and handkerchief. The man shot
nose, and with both hands tied and Florante on his temple, and
twisted at her back. After thereafter, took Florante's two (2)
investigation, the autopsy reported bags. Angel testified that on the
that AAA sustained hymenal same day, a man stained with blood
lacerations, and died due to wearing a white cap, red and blue
asphyxia by suffocation. Milo was jacket, and blue handkerchief
charged with complex crime of rape arrived and requested to use the
with homicide. The RTC found comfort room in the carinderia
adequate circumstantial evidence where she worked. The police
that Milo was guilty of rape with officers investigated and learned
homicide. On appeal, the CA that Jerrico also had a pending case

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 CRIMINAL LAW 8

for theft. The police officers was with intent to gain

requested the booking sheet of and was accomplished
Jerrico and showed it to Angel, with violence against
Amalia and her companion. Angel person. Thereafter,
positively identified Jerrico as the Jerrico steered away
person who used the comfort room and fled. Verily, the
in the carinderia. primary objective of
Jerrico was to rob and
Q: the killing of the victim
a) Should Jerrico be was only incidental to
convicted with a crime facilitate the taking of
of robbery with the property and to
homicide? prevent apprehension.
b) Should treachery be
considered as generic b) Yes, treachery should be
aggravating considered as generic
circumstance in fixing aggravating circumstance.
the proper penalty of the
accused? In the case at bar,
"treachery is not an element
ANSWER of robbery with homicide".
a) Yes, Jerrico should be Neither is it "inherent in the
convicted of robbery with crime of robbery with
homicide. homicide". As such,
treachery may be properly
The special complex crime considered in increasing the
of robbery with homicide penalty for crime. The
has the following elements: presence of treachery as a
1) the taking of generic aggravating
personal property circumstance would have
with violence or merited the imposition of
intimidation against the death penalty.
persons;
2) the property taken However, in view of the
belongs to another; subsequent passage of
3) the taking was done Republic Act (RA) No. 9346,
with animo entitled "An Act Prohibiting
lucrandi; and the Imposition of the Death
4) on the occasion of Penalty in the Philippines,"
the robbery or by we are mandated to impose
reason thereof, on the appellant the penalty
homicide was of reclusion perpetua
committed. without eligibility for
parole.
All the elements are
present in this case. Thus, the aggravating
Jerrico, on board a circumstance of treachery is
motorcycle and armed appreciated in the crime of
with a gun, shot and robbery with homicide only
divested Florante of his as to the killing but not as to
personal properties. the robbery. (People vs.
Evidently, the taking Juada y Navarro, G.R. No.

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 CRIMINAL LAW 9

252276, Nov 11, 2021, J. M. the crime requires solidarity, and

Lopez) each debtor may be compelled to
12. Carlo Diega y Zapico (Carlo), pay the entire obligation. (THE
together with three (3) "John PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
Does", were charged with the crime CARLO DIEGA Y ZAPICO, G.R. No.
of Rape. Carlo pleaded not guilty, 255389, 14 Sep 2021, J. M. Lopez)
trial then ensued. On April 16,
2018, the RTC found Carlo guilty of 13. XXX was charged with three counts
Rape and gave credence to the of qualified rape before the
account of AAA which was Regional Trial Court. The three
supported by medical findings. The counts alleged that the accused had
RTC further held that Carlo and his three instances of carnal knowledge
three (3) companions conspired of AA255677, a minor, which act is
with each other to commit the crime qualified by minority and
of Rape. Lastly, the RTC rejected relationship with the accused, who
Carlo's defense of alibi. is the stepfather of the
complainant.
Aggrieved, Carlo elevated the case At the joint pre-trial, the parties
to the CA docketed as CA-G.R. CR stipulated on the complainant’s
HC No. 11398. Carlo contended that minority. Trial ensued. The RTC, in
AAA's testimony is incredible. CA a Joint Decision,8convicted XXX for
affirmed the RTC's hence this qualified rape in the first count. The
recourse. prosecution proved that XXX
had carnal knowledge of minor
Q: Is an accused responsible not AAA255677. Moreover, the
only for the Rape he personally prosecution established the
committed but also for the other minority of AAA255677 based on
counts of Rape that his co- the stipulation of the parties during
conspirators perpetrated, although the pre-trial, and her relationship to
they were unidentified or are at XXX as his stepdaughter based on
large? How is civil liability affected XXX's own admission during
in such instance? the direct examination. Also,
the RTC found XXX guilty in the
ANSWER second count for acts of
Yes. In view of the established lasciviousness punished under
conspiracy among the three, each Article 336 of the Revised Penal
one of them is guilty of three (3) Code in relation to Section 5(b) of
Rapes, for the one (1) he Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610
committed and for the two (2) considering that AAA255677 was
where he helped his companions to just 10 years old at the time of the
commit. Consequently, Carlo must sexual violation. The RTC pointed
be held liable for four counts of out that the prosecution's evidence
Rape. negates carnal knowledge because
it was inconclusive whether XXX
Carlo should be made solidarily inserted his penis into AAA255677's
liable to pay the award of damages vagina. Nonetheless,
for each count. It is settled that the the RTC acquitted XXX in the third
nature of the obligation of the co- count for insufficiency of evidence.
conspirators in the commission of

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 CRIMINAL LAW 10

liable for the qualified nature of a

Q: Is XXX guilty of simple rape crime and be condemned to suffer
absent allegation and proof as a higher penalty based on his own
to the concurrence of the admission, the bare testimony of
special qualifying circumstance the complainant, or the stipulation
of minority and relationship? of the parties. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. XXX, G.R. No.
ANSWER 255677, 07 Dec 2022, J. M. Lopez)
Yes. In this case, the prosecution
failed to present the marriage 14. Marvin Balbarez is the second in the
contract between XXX and list of top ten drug personalities in
AAA255677's mother. Neither of the Los Banos, Laguna. On April, 2011
parties stipulates on the - PO2 Michael Angelo, et. al., with
relationship between the accused- coordination with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement, executed a buy-
appellant and the victim. The
bust operation where they
admission of XXX during his direct apprehended Balbarez. Thereafter,
examination that he was married to markings were done by his fellow
AAA255677's mother is not part of police officers, on the Corpus Delicti
the prosecution evidence in chief, being the plastic sachets containing
and did not dispense the duty to white crystalline substance, who
offer the proof of marriage. The then forwarded it to Police Chief
prosecution must rely on the Inspector Huelgas for Laboratory
strength of its own evidence, and Examination which accordingly
not anchor its success upon the yielded a positive result for shabu.
weakness of the defense.35 Had Balbarez was thereafter detained
XXX waived his right to testify, the and prosecuted for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act.
CA and the RTC would have no
basis to qualify the crime. To be
Q: May Balbarez be held liable
sure, the prosecution had already for violation of the Dangerous
rested its case when XXX made the Drugs Act?
admission. Inarguably, the
prosecution did not present ANSWER
independent evidence to prove the
fact of marriage. Evidently, the flaw No, Balbarez cannot be held liable
committed by the prosecution for violation of the Dangerous
spared XXX from the gallows of Drugs Act.
qualified rape and its prescribed
penalty. At most, XXX is liable only In earlier cases, this Court ruled
for simple rape in Criminal Case No. that the deviation from the
standard procedure in Section 21
MC15-4661-FC.
dismally compromises the
evidence, unless (1) such
Qualifying and aggravating noncompliance was under
circumstances are integral justifiable grounds; and (2) the
components of a crime that must be integrity and the evidentiary value
sufficiently alleged in the of the seized items are properly
Information and established during preserved by the apprehending
trial with proof beyond reasonable team.
doubt. The accused cannot be held

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 CRIMINAL LAW 11

Later, we emphasized the

importance of the presence of the Q: Is the appeal meritorious?
three insulating witnesses during
the physical inventory and the Answer
photograph of the seized items.In No, the appeal is unmeritorious. he
People v. Lim, it was explained that exempting circumstance of
in case the presence of any or all "accident" is anchored on the
the insulating witnesses was not complete absence of intent or
obtained, the prosecution must negligence on the part of the
allege and prove not only the accused. The accused must rely on
reasons for their absence, but also the strength of his own evidence
the fact that earnest efforts were and not on the weakness of that of
made to secure their attendance the prosecution.

In this case, the absence of the Article 12 (4) of the RPC states that
required insulating witnesses any person who, while performing a
during the inventory and lawful act with due care, causes an
photograph of the seized items puts injury by mere accident without
serious doubt as to the integrity of fault or intention of causing it.
the chain of custody. Admittedly,
there was no representative from Thus, it is incumbent upon the
the media and the Department of accused to prove the essential
Justice, and any elected public requisites of accident as an
official. (People vs Marvin Balbarez, exempting circumstance, namely:
G.R. No. 246999, July 28, 2020, J. (1) a person is performing a lawful
M. Lopez) act; (2) with due care; (3) he/she
causes an injury to another by mere
15. In a case of rape with homicide accident; and (4) without fault or
perpetrated against a child, the intention of causing it.
accused herein pleaded not guilty.
At the trial, the accused admitted In this case, the exempting
killing the child but claimed that it circumstance of accident is
was accidental because he was inapplicable. Foremost, accident
sleeping at the time of the incident presupposes that the act done is
when the child suddenly touched lawful. However, the accused’s act
his shoulder which abruptly awaken of boxing the victim on the chest is
him. He unconsciously threw a unlawful, constituting at least the
punch that hit the child’s chest felony of physical injuries. Further
which lead to the child’s death. The the evidence to prove intent to kill
prosecution presented in crimes against persons may
circumferential evidence to consist, inter alia, in the means
establish beyond reasonable doubt used by the malefactors, the
that the accused and no other, had nature, location, and number of
raped and killed the child. The wounds sustained by the victim.
victim was found under the wooden The intent to kill is presumed if the
bed of the accused lying flat on her victim dies as a result of a
back with a cloth wrapped around deliberate act of the malefactors.
her mouth and nose and with both (PEOPLE VS. LEOCADIO, G.R. No.
hands tied and twisted at her back. 227396, FEBRUARY 22, 2023. J.
The medical examination revealed M.V LOPEZ)
that the child sustained hymenal
lacerations.

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 CRIMINAL LAW 12

16. Leo and his wife were heading COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R.
home on board their motorcycle NO. 243968, MARCH 22, 2022, J.
when Leo saw Cesar and his son, M.V. LOPEZ)
Charles, who were armed with a fan
knife (balisong) and a gun blocked 17. District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special
their way. Leo swerved the Operations Task Group planned a
motorcycle towards the house of his buy-bust operation against the
father, Leonardo. The two respondents based on a tip that
aggressors followed. Leonardo tried they were selling shabu. The police
to pacify Charles but Cesar arrived officer acting as the poseur-buyer
and stabbed Leonardo in the lower received a plastic sachet containing
left part of his chest. Leonardo ran white crystalline substance from
towards Leo's house, but Cesar still Nurodin which was later on
pursued him with the fan knife. At confirmed to be methamphetamine
that instance, Leo went outside and hydrochloride. The seized item was
chased Cesar to the former's house. marked, subjected to inventory and
In their confrontation, Cesar tried to photograph at the Greater Lagro
stab Leo. As a defense, Leo got hold Barangay Hall, and delivered to the
of a bolo on top of the table and Quezon City District Crime
hacked Cesar's right hand. Cesar Laboratory for examination. RTC
dropped the fan knife, he managed convicted the accused individuals of
to pick up the fan knife but Leo illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The
stabbed him again in the lower part CA affirmed the RTC's findings,
of his stomach. Cesar died due to ruling that there was an unbroken
stab injury on his left abdomen and chain of custody of the dangerous
multiple lacerated wounds on his drugs. Aggrieved, the respondents
right hand. Leo voluntarily sought a reconsideration arguing
surrendered himself. He was that the police officers did not
charged with homicide but he observe the proper handling and
claimed self-defense and the custody of the seized item in the
defense of a relative. course of the buy-bust operation.

Q: Was there a valid self- Q: Has the prosecution

defense on the part of Leo? established an unbroken chain
of custody of the seized drugs?
Answer
Answer
Yes, the circumstances of self-
No, in illegal sale of dangerous
defense and defense of a relative
drugs, the contraband itself
are present in this case.
constitutes the very corpus delicti of
In selfdefense, the following eleme the offense and the fact of its
nts must concur: (1) unlawful existence is vital to a judgment of
aggression on the part of the conviction.
victim; (2) reasonable necessity of
the means employed to preventor The prosecution must satisfactorily
repel such aggression; and (3) lack establish the movement and
of sufficient provocation on the part custody of the seized drug through
of the person resorting to self- the following links: (1) the
defense. In defense of a relative, confiscation and marking, if
the accused likewise needs to practicable, of the specimen seized
establish the first two requisites of from the accused by the
self-defense. (DE ALBAN VS. apprehending officer; (2) the

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 CRIMINAL LAW 13

turnover of the seized item by the Development Authority (MMDA) or

apprehending officer to the as field coordinators in the Office of
investigating officer; (3) the Congresswoman Nanette C. Daza
investigating officer's turnover of thus, were receiving double or even
the specimen to the forensic triple compensations from the three
chemist for examination; and, (4) government agencies. Due to this
the submission of the item by the irregularity, an administrative case
forensic chemist to the court. Here, for dishonesty, gross neglect of
the records reveal a broken chain of duty, grave misconduct, and
custody. conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, was filed
Foremost, the absence of a against Ricardo and the other
representative of the National approving authorities of the other
Prosecution Service or the media as government agencies involved for
an insulating witness to the signing the workers' DTRs. The
inventory and photograph of the Office of the Ombudsman found
seized item puts serious doubt as to Trinidad guilty of gross neglect of
the integrity of the first link. We duty and imposed the penalty of
emphasized that the presence of dismissal from service.
the insulating witnesses is the first
requirement to ensure the Q: Is Ricardo’s reliance on the
preservation of the identity and logbook constitutive of gross
evidentiary value of the seized negligence?
drugs. Absence of insulating
witnesses, without a justifiable Answer
reason or genuine and sufficient No, Ricardo is guilty only of simple
effort to secure their attendance, negligence.
cannot justify noncompliance with Dereliction of duty may be classified
the procedural requirements. as gross or simple neglect of duty
Presumption of regularity in the or negligence. Simple negligence is
performance of duty by law defined as the failure of an
enforcers cannot prevail over the employee to give proper attention
constitutional right of the accused to a required task expected of him,
to be presumed innocent. or to discharge a duty due to
Prosecution's failure to prove an carelessness or indifference. On the
unbroken chain of custody led to other hand, gross negligence is
the acquittal of the respondents. characterized by want of even the
(PEOPLE VS. GANDAWALI Y slightest care, or by acting or
MAWARAO, G.R. NO. JUNE 9, 2020, omitting to act in a situation where
J. M.V. LOPEZ) there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and
18. Ricardo served as Engineer II in the intentionally, with a conscious
Department of Public Works and indifference to the consequences,
Highways. Trinidad was tasked to or by flagrant and palpable breach
oversee laborers of the DPWH- of duty. It denotes a flagrant and
QCSED's Oyster Program. This culpable refusal or unwillingness of
includes the signing of the daily a person to perform a duty.
time records (DTRs) of said (TAGHOY VS. TECSON III, A.C. NO.
workers. It was discovered that 12446, NOVEMBER 16, 2020, J.
some of the workers were M.V. LOPEZ)
simultaneously employed as traffic
aides of the Metropolitan Manila

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024

 CRIMINAL LAW 14

19. Respondent was charged with 3 RTC's findings, treachery should be

counts of murder before the RTC. ruled out for failure of the
During arraignment, he pleaded prosecution to demonstrate how
guilty and the RTC convicted him of the accused commenced and
the said charges meting upon him executed the attack upon the
the penalty of death penalty. Upon victims.
appeal, the respondent contends
that the prosecution failed to allege Jurisprudence provides that
the specific facts constituting the treachery cannot be appreciated
qualifying aggravating where the prosecution only proved
circumstances and to prove the the events after the attack
essential elements of murder. happened, but not the manner of
how the attack commenced or how
However, the CA affirmed the the act which resulted in the victim
decision of the RTC also ruled that s death unfolded. In treachery,
the prosecution proved treachery. there must be clear and convincing
evidence on how the aggression
Q: May the respondent be held was made, how it began, and how
liable for murder if the it developed. Where no particulars
prosecution fails to allege the are known as to the manner in
qualifying aggravating which the aggression was made or
circumstance? how the act which resulted in the
death of the victim began and
Answer developed, it cannot be established
No, respondent will only be liable from the suppositions drawn only
for three counts of homicide for from the circumstances prior to the
failure of the prosecution to prove very moment of the aggression,
the alleged qualifying that an accused perpetrated the
circumstances. killing with treachery. Accordingly,
treachery cannot be considered
Treachery exists when the offender where the lone witness did not see
commits any of the crimes against the commencement of the assault.
the person, employing means, (PEOPLE VS. SUALOG, G.R. NO.
methods, or forms in the execution 250852, OCTOBER 10, 2022, J.
thereof which tend directly and M.V. LOPEZ)
specially to ensure its execution,
without risk to them arising from
the defense which the offended
party might make. In order for
treachery to be appreciated, two
requirements must be established:
"(1) the victim was in no position to
defend himself or herself when
attacked; and, (2) the assailant
consciously and deliberately
adopted the methods, means, or
form of one's attack against the
victim." Contrary to the CA and the

AUSL BOC OMNIBUS NOTES 2024