The document discusses several doctrines in criminal law related to defenses against unlawful aggression, bail pending appeal, prosecution of illegal drug cases, and chain of custody requirements. It analyzes Supreme Court rulings that outline the elements required to successfully prosecute cases of illegal drug sale and possession. These include establishing the identity of the buyer and seller, delivery and consideration for illegal drug sales, and possession and lack of authorization for illegal drug possession. Non-compliance with procedural requirements like chain of custody rules will not automatically result in nullification if the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs are preserved.
The document discusses several doctrines in criminal law related to defenses against unlawful aggression, bail pending appeal, prosecution of illegal drug cases, and chain of custody requirements. It analyzes Supreme Court rulings that outline the elements required to successfully prosecute cases of illegal drug sale and possession. These include establishing the identity of the buyer and seller, delivery and consideration for illegal drug sales, and possession and lack of authorization for illegal drug possession. Non-compliance with procedural requirements like chain of custody rules will not automatically result in nullification if the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs are preserved.
The document discusses several doctrines in criminal law related to defenses against unlawful aggression, bail pending appeal, prosecution of illegal drug cases, and chain of custody requirements. It analyzes Supreme Court rulings that outline the elements required to successfully prosecute cases of illegal drug sale and possession. These include establishing the identity of the buyer and seller, delivery and consideration for illegal drug sales, and possession and lack of authorization for illegal drug possession. Non-compliance with procedural requirements like chain of custody rules will not automatically result in nullification if the integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs are preserved.
The doctrine of rational equivalence presupposes the consideration not only of the nature and quality of the weapons used by the defender and the assailantbut of the totality of circumstances surrounding the defense vis--vis, the unlawful aggression. (LADISLAO ESPINOSA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 181071, 15 March 2010)
BAIL PENDING APPEAL: Any application for bail pending appeal should be viewed from the perspective of two stages: (1) the determination of discretion stage, where the appellate court must determine whether any of the circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present; this will establish whether or not the appellate court will exercise sound discretion or stringent discretion in resolving the application for bail pending appeal and (2) the exercise of discretion stage where, assuming the appellants case falls within the first scenario allowing the exercise of sound discretion, the appellate court may consider all relevant circumstances, other than those mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114, including the demands of equity and justice; on the basis thereof, it may either allow or disallow bail. (JOSE ANTONIO LEVISTE v. THE COURT OF APPEALSand PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 189122, 17 March 2010)
PROSECUTION OF CASES OF ILLEGAL SALE AND ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE:
Under R.A. 9165 and its IRR, the following elements must be present in the prosecution of the offense: (1) that the transaction took place; (2) that the illegal drug was presented as evidence; and that the buyer and seller were identified. What is material is the presentation of the illegal drug in court for it establishes the fact that the crime is committed. Therefore, the identity of the illegal drug must be identified with unwavering exactitude; and this is achieved if the chain of custody if the said illegal drugs remains unbroken.
The failure to comply with the procedural requirement does not automatically result to the nullification of the seizure and custody of the illegal drugs, if the following are present: (1) that the non- compliance was attended by justifiable grounds; and (2) that the identity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 186498, 26 March 2010)
For illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
Admittedly, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. (ROSANA ASIATICO y STA. MARIA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 195005, 12 September 2011)
Drug pushing has been committed with so much casualness even between total strangers.Sec. 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is clear that the quantity of shabu sold is not material in the determination of the corresponding penalty therefor. Likewise applicable in the determination of the appropriate penalty is the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which provides that if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CAMILO D. NICART and MANUEL T. CAPANPAN, G.R. No. 182059, 4 July 2012)
In all prosecutions for the violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the existence of the prohibited drug has to be proved. The chain of custody rule requires that testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized up to the time it is offered in evidence. To this end, the prosecution must ensure that the substance presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEX WATAMAMA y ESIL, G.R. No. 194945, 30 July 2012)
To prove illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be present: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. And, to secure conviction, it is material to establish that the transaction or sale actually took place, and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as evidence.
As to the crime of illegal possession of shabu, the prosecution clearly proved the presence of the following essential elements of the crime: (a) the accused [was] in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession [was] not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES v. JOHN BRIAN AMARILLO a.k.aJAO MAPA, G.R. No. 194721, 15 August 2012)
What must be proved beyond reasonable doubt is the fact of possession of the prohibited drug itself. This may be done by presenting the police officer who actually recovered the prohibited drugs as a witness, being the person who has the direct knowledge of the possession. In every criminal prosecution for possession of illegal drugs, the Prosecution must account for the custody of the incriminating evidence from the moment of seizure and confiscation until the moment it is offered in evidence. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO BELOCURA y PEREZ, G.R. No. 173474, 29 August 2012)
Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereto. The Court has already ruled in a number of cases that non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drugs cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CALEXTO DUQUE FUNDALES, JR., G.R. No. 184606, 05 September 2012)
The elements necessary for a prosecution for violation of R.A. 9165 or sale of dangerous drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE ALMODIEL alias "DO DONG ASTROBAL, G.R. No. 200951, 05 September 2012)
What assumes primary importance in drug cases is the prosecutions proof, to the point of moral certainty, that the prohibited drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same item recovered from his possession. Non-compliance with the prescribed procedure does not automatically render the seizure of the dangerous drug void and the evidence inadmissible. The law itself lays down certain exceptions to the general compliance requirement as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, the seizure of and the custody over the dangerous drugs shall not be rendered void and invalid. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONALD DE JESUS y APACIBLE and AMELITO DELA CRUZ y PUA, G.R. No. 191753, 17 September 2012) Non-presentation of the pre-operation orders and post operation report was not fatal to the cause of the prosecution in illegal sale of drugs. Pre-operational reports are not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. Further, the quantity of bills involved is a purely operational matter left to the discretion of the arresting team. The quantity of bills used will not affect the outcome of the case.
The marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MOHAMAD ANGKOB y MLANG, G.R. No. 191062, 19 September 2012)
What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. The commission of illegal sale merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by appellant, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated. In this case, the prosecution has amply proven all the elements of the drugs sale with moral certainty. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNA BATALUNA LLANITA and SOTERO BUAR Y BANGUIS, G.R. No. 189817, 3 October 2012)
For the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARICAR BRAINER y MANGULABNAN, G.R. No. 188571, 10 October 2012) Where the accused was likewise 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, the Court held, inter alia, that: (a) pursuant to Sec. 98 of R.A. 9165, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided in the same law shall be reclusion perpetua to death when the offender is a minor; and (b) that the penalty should be graduated since the said provision adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code. In the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs, the elements that should be proven are the following: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The prosecution must (1) prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, and (2) present in court evidence of the corpus delicti. As regards the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements to be proven are the following: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MERIAM GURU y KAZAN, G.R. No. 189808, 24 October 2012)
What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO MARIANO and ALLAN DORINGO, G.R. No. 191193, 14 November 2012)
Statutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and related items are designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence to be presented against the accused. Their observance is the key to the successful prosecution of illegal possession or illegal sale of dangerous drugs. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SAMIN ZAKARIA y MAKASULAY and JOANA SAMIN ZAKARIA y MAKASULAY, G.R. No. 181042, 26 November 2012)
Non-compliance with Section 21 does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible. What is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved which would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires that the police must apply fluorescent powder to the buy-bust money to prove the commission of the offense. The same holds true for the conduct of finger print examination on the money used in the buy-bust operation. What is crucial is that the prosecution proves, as in this case, the delivery of the prohibited drugs to the poseur-buyer and the presentation of the confiscated drugs before the court. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BERNABE ANESLAG y ANDRADE, et al., G.R. No. 185386, 21 November 2012)
Non-compliance with Section 21, Article II, of R.A. 9165 does not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSEPH ROBELO y TUNGALA, G.R. No. 184181, 26 November 2012)
In the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the two essential elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. R.A. No. 7659 provides that the unauthorized sale of 200 grams or more of shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SIMPRESUETA M. SERASPE, G.R. No. 180919, 9 January 2013)
In order for prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, there must be proof that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. (NELSON VALLENO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 192050, 9 January 2013)
It is material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that the sale actually took place. What consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the sellers receipt of the marked money. While the parties may have agreed on the selling price of the shabu and delivery of payment was intended, these do not prove consummated sale. Receipt of the marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after, is required. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE v. HONG YEN E AND TSIEN TSIEN CHUA, G.R. No. 181826, 09 January 2013)
If a person is found to have more than five (5) grams of shabu in his possession, then his purpose in carrying them is to dispose, traffic, or sell it. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CAMALODING LABA, G.R. No. 199938, 28 January 2013)
In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Of paramount importance in these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. The failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO NACUA, G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013)
The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place.
The chain of custody of the seized drugs in a buy-bust operation had been sufficiently established when there was proof of the following: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. (ELIZABETH DE LA VEGA y BAUTISTA, G.R. No. 177158, 6 February 2013)
For a case of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the prosecution must establish that (1) the illegal sale of the dangerous drugs actually took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the dangerous drugs seized in evidence. What is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
When prosecuting an illegal possession of dangerous drugs case, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. Mere possession of a prohibited drug, without legal authority, is punishable under Republic Act No. 9165. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MALIK MANALAO y ALAUYA, G.R. No. 187496, 6 February 2013)
The different links that the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely: First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SAIBEN LANGCUA y DAIMLA, G.R. No. 190343, 6 February 2013)
R.A. No. 6235 (The Anti-Hijacking Law) authorizes search for prohibited materials or substances. To limit the action of the airport security personnel to simply refusing an accused into the aircraft and sending him home, and thereby depriving them of the ability and facility to act accordingly, including to further search without warrant, in light of such circumstances, would be to sanction impotence and ineffectivity in law enforcement, to the detriment of society.
Failure of the prosecution to show compliance with the procedural requirements provided in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellants arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. As long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, the guilt of the accused will not be affected. (DON DJOWEL SALES y ABALAHIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 191023, 6 February 2013)
Despite the rigid procedural rules under the law on the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, it was held, however, that a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. What is essential is to preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR DE JESUS y GARCIA, G.R. No. 198794, 6 February 2013)
To prosecute illegal possession of dangerous drugs, there must be a showing that (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAMES GALIDO y NOBLE, G.R. No. 192231, 13 February 2013) The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, requires simply the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARNOLD TAPERE y POLPOL, G.R. No. 178065, 20 February 2013)
A guidance counsellor, who caught a school employee in the possession of marijuana, and who had initial custody of the seized drug is not expected to be familiar with the niceties of the procedures in the initial handling of the confiscated evidence. To impose on teachers and other school personnel the observance of the same procedure required of law enforcers (like marking) processes, unfamiliar to them is to set a dangerous precedent that may eventually lead to the acquittal of drug peddlers. (MARQUEZ y RAYOS DEL SOL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 197207, 13 March 2013)
Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the marking of the seized items to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE ALEX SECRETO y VILLANUEVA., G.R. No. 198115, 27 February 2013)
EXTINGUISHMENT OF LIABILITY: Paniterces death during the pendency of his appeal, extinguished not only his criminal liabilities for the rape and acts of lasciviousness committed against his daughters, but also his civil liabilities solely arising from or based on said crimes.
According to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO PANITENCE, G.R. No. 186382, 5 April 2010)
It is plain that both the personal penalty of imprisonment and pecuniary penalty of fine of Brillantes were extinguished upon his death pending appeal of his conviction by the lower courts. The extinguishment of Brillantes criminal and pecuniary liabilities is predicated on his death and not on his acquittal. Following the provision, the appeal taken by Brillantes and subsequent extinguishment of his liabilities is not applicable to De la Cruz. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SATURNINO DELA CRUZ and JOSE BRILLANTES, G.R. No. 190610, 25 April 2012)
It is also settled that upon the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FLORENCIO AGACER, et al., G.R. No. 177751, 7 January 2013)
REPUBLIC ACT 3019: Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest. (TERESITA G. NARVASA v. BENJAMIN A. SANCHEZ, JR., G.R. No. 169449, 26 March 2010)
An exception to the rule that the prescriptive period for offenses under R.A. 3019 commences to run on the day the crime is committed regardless of the lack of knowledge of the aggrieved person of his right to sue or of the facts out of which his right arises is the blameless ignorance doctrine, incorporated in Section 2 of Act No. 3326. Under this doctrine, the statute of limitations runs only upon discovery of the fact of the invasion of a right that will support a cause of action. The courts would decline to apply the statute of limitations where the plaintiff does not know or has no reasonable means of knowing the existence of a cause of action. Thus, it was held in a catena of cases, that if the violation of the special law was not known at the time of its commission, the prescription begins to run only from the discovery thereof, i.e., discovery of the unlawful nature of the constitutive act or acts. (PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT- FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. HONORABLE ANIANO A. DESIERTO, G.R. No. 135715, 13 April 2011)
Under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, three essential elements must thus be satisfied, viz:
1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and
3. His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. (JOSE R. CATACUTAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 175991, 31 August 2011)
The essential elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, are as follows: 1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; 2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and 3. His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is punishable by a special law, as in the present case, an indeterminate penalty shall be imposed on the accused, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the law, and the minimum not less than the minimum prescribed therein. (BENJAMIN A. UMIPIG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 17135, 18 July 2012; RENATO B. PALOMO and MARGIE C. MABITAD v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 171755, 18 July 2013; CARMENCITA FONTANILLA-PAYABYAB v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 171776, 18 July 2012)
Bad faith connotes, not only bad judgment or negligence, but also a dishonest purpose or conscious wrongdoing. But bad faith alone on the part of the accused is not sufficient. Such bad faith must be evident. (ELSA B. REYES v. SANDIGANBAYAN (4TH DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 167202; ARTEMIO C. MENDOZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN (4TH DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 167223; ELSA B. REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,G.R. NO. 167271; CARLOAD A. MIRANDA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 148607, 05 September 2012)
The Sandiganbayan has criminal jurisdiction over graft charges filed against the Legal Department Head of the Armed Forces of the Philippines-Retirement and Separation Benefit System (AFP-RSBS). The Legal Department Head falls under the definition of manager of a government-owned or controlled corporation. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO, et al., G.R. Nos. 166948-59, 29 August 2012) RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS: The Court has ruled that a child is deemed subject to other sexual abuse when the child is the victim of lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. In lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult, there must be some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended partys free will. The Court has already ruled that it is inconsequential that sexual abuse under R.A. 7610 occurred only once. Section 3(b) of R.A. 7610 provides that the abuse may be habitual or not. Hence, the fact that the offense occurred only once is enough to hold the accused liable for acts of lasciviousness under R.A. 7610. (JOJIT GARINGARAO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 192760, 20 July 2011) The Court resolves this case guided by these time-tested principles in deciding rape cases, namely: (1) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove, and even more difficult to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DANILO MIRASOL AGUSTIN, G.R. No. 194581, 2 July 2012)
Courts use the following principles in deciding rape cases: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) due to the nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Due to the nature of this crime, conviction for rape may be solely based on the complainants testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO BARAOIL, G.R. No. 194608, 9 July 2012)
Conviction for rape may be solely based on the victims testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO BANIG, G.R. No. 177137, 23 August 2012)
The two elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age. If the victim is beyond 12 years of age, as in this case, accused cannot be convicted of statutory rape. However, even though accused-appellant cannot be convicted of statutory rape in the second criminal case, and despite the absence of evidence of resistance on the part of AAA on said count, his criminal liability for rape nevertheless remains. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTONIO OSMA, Jr. y AGATON, G.R. No. 187734, 29 August 2012)
Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the female organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHRISTOPHER PAREJA, G.R. No. 188979, 05 September 2012)
Rape is not a respecter of place and time. In this light, rape in this case was not an impossibility even if AAAs siblings were not awakened from their deep slumber. Neither does the lack of any form of injury or fresh hymenal lacerations negate the commission of rape. Settled is the doctrine that absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape.
In almost all rape cases, the credibility of the victims testimony is crucial in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only the participants therein can testify to its occurrence. The victims testimony is most vital and must be received with the utmost caution. Once found credible, the victims lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONINO VENTURINA, G.R. No. 183097, 12 September 2012)
It is well-established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is mala in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent is imperative. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud.
With the minority under 12 years of the offended party being an element in statutory rape, the proof of such minority age should conform to the Pruna guidelines in order that such essential element would be established beyond reasonable doubt: (1) The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party; (2) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age; (3) If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victims mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old; (4) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victims mother or relatives concerning the victims age, the complainants testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused; (5) It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him; (6) The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDGARDO LUPAC y FLORES, G.R. No. 182230, 19 September 2012)
Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. To convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (1) the age of the complainant; (2) the identity of the accused; and (3) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.
Although the information charged the accused of the crime of statutory rape, he can still be held liable for the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness as the latter is an offense subsumed or included in the former. The elements of acts of lasciviousness are: (1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances: a. By using force or intimidation; or b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) That the offended party is another person of either sex. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO GARCIA y GUMAY, G.R. No. 200529, 19 September 2012) Under Art. 335 of the RPC, the elements of rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under 12 years of age. Following a long line of jurisprudence, full penetration of the female genital organ is not indispensable. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Although the Court is convinced that indeed rape had been committed by appellant, we find that the prosecution failed to present VEAs birth certificate or to otherwise unequivocally prove that VEA was indeed below 12 years of age at the time of the incident in question. In view of this paucity in the prosecutions evidence on the matter of the victims age, jurisprudence compels us to reclassify appellants offense as simple rape. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEJANDRO VIOLEJA y ASARTIN, G.R. No. 177140, 17 October 2012)
A candid narration by a rape victim deserves credence particularly where no ill motive is attributed to the rape victim that would make her testify falsely against the accused. For no woman in her right mind will admit to having been raped, allow an examination of her most private parts and subject herself as well as her family to the humiliation and shame concomitant with a rape prosecution, unless the charges are true. Where an alleged rape victim says she was sexually abused, she says almost all that is necessary to show that rape had been inflicted on her person, provided her testimony meets the test of credibility. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VAL DELOS REYES, G.R. No. 177357, 17 October 2012)
Qualified rape is punishable by death under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, but the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, in view of the provisions of Republic Act No. 9346 that prohibit the imposition of death penalty. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NOEL T. LAURINO, G.R. No. 199264, 24 October 2012)
There must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. Documents such as her original or duly certified birth certificate, baptismal certificate or school records would suffice as competent evidence of her age.
It is settled that when either one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENJAMIN SORIA, G.R. No. 179031, 14 November 2012)
Laceration of the hymen, even if considered the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of sexual assault, is not always essential to establish the consummation of the crime of rape. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NEIL B. COLORADO, G.R. No. 200792, 14 November 2012)
The absence of external signs of physical injuries does not negate rape.Proof of injuries is not necessary because this is not an essential element of the crime. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILLIAM MANGUNE y DEL ROSARIO, G.R. No. 186463, 14 November 2012)
Factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. When the offended parties are young and immature girls, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true. Also, the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR LANSANGAN, G.R. No. 201587, 14 November 2012)
It is relevant to mention that carnal knowledge as an element of rape does not require penetration. Carnal knowledge is simply the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman. Indeed, all that is necessary for rape to be consummated, according to People v. Campuhan, is for the penis of the accused to come into contact with the lips of the pudendum of the victim. Hence, rape is consummated once the penis of the accused touches either labia of the pudendum.
The rape that was committed was not qualified rape because the accused and the victims mother were not legally married to each other. What the records show, instead, was that they were in a common-law relationship. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIC ABRENCILLO, G.R. No. 183100, 28 November 2012)
Rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-B shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JERRY BATULA, alias "CESAR", G.R. No. 181699, 28 November 2012)
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
xxx (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FELIX MORANTE, G.R. No. 187732, 28 November 2012)
Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty is imposed if the rape is committed with the attendance of any aggravating/ qualifying circumstances. One of such aggravating/qualifying circumstances is when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO BUADO, JR., y CIPRIANO, G.R. No. 170634, 8 January 2013)
Paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, provides for two (2) circumstances when carnal knowledge of a woman with mental disability is considered rape. Subparagraph (b) thereof refers to rape of a person deprived of reason while subparagraph (d) refers to rape of a demented person. The term deprived of reason has been construed to encompass those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency or retardation. The term demented, on the other hand, means having dementia, which Webster defines as mental deterioration; also madness, insanity. Thus, a mental retardate can be classified as a person deprived of reason, not one who is demented and carnal knowledge of a mental retardate is considered rape under subparagraph (b), not subparagraph (d) of Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Without doubt, carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under the provisions of law. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary, as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REY MONTICALVO, G.R. No. 193507, 30 January 2013)
The accused in a prosecution for rape may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO BASALLO, G.R. No. 182457, 30 January 2013)
Sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 has three elements: (1) the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is below 18 years old.
The elements of statutory rape are that: (a) the victim is a female under 12 years or is demented; and (b) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim. Considering that the essence of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a female without her consent, neither the use of force, threat or intimidation on the female, nor the females deprivation of reason or being otherwise unconscious, nor the employment on the female of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority is necessary to commit statutory rape. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TOMAS TEODORO y ANGELES, G.R. No. 175876, 20 February 2013)
To raise the crime of simple rape to qualified rape under Article 266-B, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the twin circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANASTACIO AMISTOSO, G.R. No. 201447, 09 January 2013)
The stepfather-stepdaughter relationship as a qualifying circumstance presupposes that the victims mother and the accused are married to each other. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO CABUNGAN, G.R. No. 189355, 23 January 2013)
The Court has often reiterated the jurisprudential principle of affording great respect and even finality to the trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses. The trial judge is the one who hears the testimony of the witnesses presented firsthand and sees their demeanor and body language. The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if the witnesses are telling the truth being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JONATHAN "UTO" VELOSO y RAMA, G.R. No. 188849, 13 February 2013)
REPUBLIC ACT 9262: Notably, while it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman, for R.A. 9262 to be applicable, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship. As correctly ruled by the RTC, it is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed. (KARLO ANGELO DABALOS y SAN DIEO v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, ANGELES CITY, et al., G.R. NO. 193960, 7 January 2013)
EXTENT OF AUTHORITY OF THE OMBUDSMAN TO FILE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE:
Although the Ombudsman is not precluded by Section 20(5) of R.A. 6770 from conducting the investigation, the Ombudsman can no longer institute an administrative case against Andutan because the latter was not a public servant at the time the case was filed. (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v.ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., G.R. No. 164679, 27 July 2011) BIGAMY: The elements of the crime of bigamy are: 1. That the offender has been legally married. 2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code. 3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage. 4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. (ATILANO O. NOLLORA, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 191425, 7 September 2011)
The elements of the crime of bigamy are: (a) the offender has been legally married; (b) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (c) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The felony is consummated on the celebration of the second marriage or subsequent marriage if the first marriage was still subsisting as the same had not yet been annulled or declared void by a competent authority. (MERLINDA CIPRIANO MONTAEZ v. LOURDES TAJOLOSA CIPRIANO, G.R. No. 181089, 22 October 2012)
GRAVE COERCION:
In the crime of grave coercion, violence through material force or such a display of it as would produce intimidation and, consequently, control over the will of the offended party is an essential ingredient. (JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO, FIRDAUSI I.Y. ABBAS, CARMINA A. ABBAS and MA. ELENA GO FRANCISCO v. ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS, ATTY. MARIE LOURDES SIA- BERNAS, FERNANDO AMOR, EDUARDO AGUILAR, JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, G.R. No. 179243, 7 September 2011)
MOTIVE, GENERALLY IMMATERIAL: In every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold, that is, (1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged; and (2) to establish with the same quantum of proof the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor, because, even if the commission of the crime is a given, there can be no conviction without the identity of the malefactor being likewise clearly ascertained.
Generally, the motive of the accused in a criminal case is immaterial and does not have to be proven. Proof of the same, however, becomes relevant and essential when, as in this case, the identity of the assailant is in question. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMOGENES DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 192250, 11 July 2012)
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE:
Robbery with homicide occurs when, by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed. In Article 249 of the RPC, any person who shall kill another shall be deemed guilty of homicide. Homicide, as used in robbery with homicide, is to be understood in its generic sense to include parricide and murder. Theft, on the other hand, is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latters consent. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CESAR CONCEPCION y BULANIO, G.R. No. 200922, 18 July 2012)
In charging Robbery with Homicide, the onus probandiis to establish: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized with animus lucrandior with intent to gain; and (d) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense, was committed.
Taking as an element of robbery means depriving the offended party of ownership of the thing taken with the character of permanency. The taking should not be under a claim of ownership. One who takes the property openly and avowedly under claim of title offered in good faith is not guilty of robbery even though the claim of ownership is untenable. (LILY SY v. HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE MERCEDITAS GUTIERREZ, et al., G.R. No. 171579, 14 November 2012)
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RAUL BERIBER y FUENTES, G.R. No. 195243, 29 August 2012)
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when the concurrence of the following factors obtain: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as would prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. These circumstances and facts must be absolutely incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis propounding the innocence of the accused. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERALD SORIANO alias PEDRO, G.R. No. 191271, 13 March 2013)
MINOR INCONSISTENCIES DO NO IMPAIR CREDIBILITY: Criminal law jurisprudence invariably holds that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details do not impair their credibility. The totality of the prosecutions evidence sufficiently proved the identity of the seized prohibited items despite the intervening changes in their custody and possession. The chain of custody from the time items were confiscated and eventually marked until they were presented during trial has likewise been established. This Court finds no circumstance whatsoever that would raise any doubt as to the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the items subject matter of this case. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JAIME FERNANDEZ y HERTEZ a.k.a. DEBON, G.R. No. 188841, 9 March 2013)
COMPLEX CRIMES:
In a complex crime, two or more crimes are actually committed, however, in the eyes of the law and in the conscience of the offender they constitute only one crime, thus, only one penalty is imposed. There are two kinds of complex crime. The first is known as compound crime, or when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies while the other is known as complex crime proper, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. The classic example of the first kind is when a single bullet results in the death of two or more persons. A different rule governs where separate and distinct acts result in a number killed. Deeply rooted is the doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WENCESLAO NELMIDA "ESLAO" and RICARDO AJOK "PORDOY", G.R. No. 184500, 11 September 2012)
DEFENSE OF ALIBI/DENIAL: Alibi is inherently weak and unreliable in the face of positive and credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses. It becomes less plausible, especially when it is corroborated by relatives and friends who may not be impartial witnesses. Physical impossibility is essential in the defense of alibi. Physical impossibility refers to distance and the facility of access between the situs criminis and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENJAMIN BRAVO y ESTABILLO, G.R. No. 185282, 24 September 2012)
The rule is well settled that in order for alibi to prosper, it must be demonstrated that the person charged with the crime was not only somewhere else when the offense was committed, but was so far away that it would have been physically impossible to have been at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDGAR BALQUEDRA, G.R. No. 191192, 22 August 2012)
SELF-DEFENSE: On the claim of self-defense, the accused had to prove the following essential elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof. He must prove all the elements of self-defense. However, the most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EFREN LAURIO y ROSALES, G.R. No. 182523, 13 September 2012) Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARK JOSEPH R. ZAPUIZ, G.R. No. 199713, 20 February 2013)
Verily, to invoke self-defense successfully, there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack.
The means employed by a person claiming self-defense must be commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted, and must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. (SIMON A. FLORES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 181354, 27 February 2013)
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER, MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE: For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites should be present: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and (3) the surrender was voluntary. The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture. (RODOLFO BELBIS, JR. and ALBERTO BRUCALES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 181052, 14 November 2012)
ARREST, SEARCH OR SEIZURE: An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured. (ABRAHAM MICLAT, JR. y CERBO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 176077, 31 August 2011)
INSANITY, EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE: The exempting circumstance of insanity is not easily available to an accused as a successful defense. Insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human condition. Under Article 800 of the Civil Code, the presumption is that every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDWIN ISLA y ROSSELL, G.R. No. 199875, 21 November 2012)
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT, ESTAFA:
Unlike in illegal recruitment where profit is immaterial, a conviction for estafa requires a clear showing that the offended party parted with his money or property upon the offenders false pretenses, and suffered damage thereby. In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the accused. It is imperative, therefore, that damage as an element of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) be proved as conclusively as the offense itself. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MELISSA CHUA a.k.a CLARITA NG CHUA, G.R. No. 187052, 13 September 2012)
NOTICE OF DISHONOR:
A notice of dishonor received by the maker or drawer of the check is indispensable before a conviction can ensue. The notice of dishonor may be sent by the offended party or the drawee bank. The notice must be in writing. A mere oral notice to pay a dishonored check will not suffice. The lack of a written notice is fatal for the prosecution.
Considering that the sending of the written notices of dishonor had been done by registered mail, the registry return receipts by themselves were not proof of the service on the petitioner without being accompanied by the authenticating affidavit of the person or persons who had actually mailed the written notices of dishonor, or without the testimony in court of the mailer or mailers on the fact of mailing. The authentication by affidavit of the mailer or mailers was necessary in order for the giving of the notices of dishonor by registered mail to be regarded as clear proof of the giving of the notices of dishonor to predicate the existence of the second element of the offense. (AMADA RESTERIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 177438, 24 September 2012)
ARSON: In the prosecution for arson, proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes: (1) the corpus delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency; and (2) the identity of the defendant as the one responsible for the crime. In arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare fact of the fire and of it having been intentionally caused.
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION:
To be a principal by indispensable cooperation, one must participate in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose and cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act without which it would not have been accomplished. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DINA DULAY y PASCUAL, G.R. No. 193854, 24 September 2012)
ROBBERY: The crime of robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code has the following elements: (a) intent to gain, (b) unlawful taking, (c) personal property belonging to another, and (d) violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things. Under Article 296 of the same Code, "when more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band." KIDNAPPING: As for the crime of kidnapping, the following elements, as provided in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, must be proven: (a) a person has been deprived of his liberty, (b) the offender is a private individual, and (c) the detention is unlawful. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOVEL S. APOLE, et al., G.R. No. 189820, 10 October 2012)
CONSPIRACY:
In order for conspiracy to exist, there need not be a prior agreement among the assailants. It would suffice that at the moment of its perpetration; the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. There is no need for direct evidence proving conspiracy for the community of their perpetration may be deduced from their individual acts. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES v. MARCELO BUSTAMANTE y ZAPANTA, NEIL BALUYOT y TABISORA, RICHARD DELOS TRINO y SARCILLA, HERMINIO JOSE y MONSON, EDWIN SORIANO y DELA CRUZ and ELMER SALVADOR y JAVALE, G.R. No. 172357, 19 March 2010) There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Actions indicating close personal association and shared sentiment among the accused can prove its presence. Proof that the perpetrators met beforehand and decided to commit the crime is not necessary as long as their acts manifest a common design and oneness of purpose. While the existence of conspiracy among appellants in selling shabu was duly established, there was no proof that appellants were a group organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain, which is the essence of the aggravating circumstance of organized/syndicated group under Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ASIA MUSA y PINASILO, ARA MONONGAN y PAPAO, FAISAH ABAS y MAMA, and MIKE SOLALO y MLOK, G.R. No. 199735, 24 October 2012)
At any rate, conspirators are persons who, under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Because witnesses are rarely present when several accused come to an agreement to commit a crime, such agreement is usually inferred from their concerted actions while committing it. On the other hand, accomplices, according to Article 18 of the RPC, are the persons who, not being included in Article 17 which identifies who are principals, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. It is settled that direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy as it may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime. It can be presumed from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when the said acts point to a joint purpose, design, concerted action, and community of interests. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. P/SUPT. ARTEMIO E. LAMSEN, et al., G.R. No. 198338, 20 February 2013)
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH: There is abuse of superior strength when the aggressors purposely use excessive force rendering the victim unable to defend himself. The notorious inequality of forces creates an unfair advantage for the aggressor. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CHITO NAZARENO, G.R. No. 196434, 24 October 2012)
LIBEL: Not only is the person who published, exhibited or caused the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing shall be responsible for the same, all other persons who participated in its publication are liable, including the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, who shall be equally responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof. (LITO BAUTISTA and JIMMY ALCANTARA v. SHARON G. CUNETA-PANGILINAN, G.R. No. 189754, 24 October 2012)
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION:
Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARCIAL MALICDEM, G.R. No. 184601, 12 November 2012)
TECHNICAL MALVERSATION:
The crime of technical malversation as penalized under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code has three elements: a) that the offender is an accountable public officer; b) that he applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and c) that the public use for which such funds or property were applied is different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance. (ARNOLD JAMES M. YSIDORO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 192330, 14 November 2012)
TREACHERY: There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICHARD NAPALIT y DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 181247, 19 March 2010)
There is treachery, according to Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in attacking his victim, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOEL ARTAJO, G.R. No. 198050, 14 November 2012)
There is treachery when the attack against an unarmed victim is so sudden that he had clearly no inkling of what the assailant was about to do. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARK JOSEPH R. ZAPUIZ, G.R. No. 199713, 20 February 2013)
The Court has time and again declared that the essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape, and that it may still exist even if the attack is frontal so long as the same is sudden and unexpected. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENJAMIN PETELUNA and ABUNDIO BINONDO, G.R. No. 187048, 23 January 2013)
Theft, Estafa, distinguished: The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while in estafa the accused receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit. However, there may be theft even if the accused has possession of the property. If he was entrusted only with the material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if he has the juridical possession of the thing his conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement or estafa. (PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORPORATION vs. SPOUSES YVES AND MARIA TERESA REMONDUELAZ, G.R. No. 173773, 28 November 2012)
DESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME CHARGED, CONTROLLING IN AN INFORMATION:
What is controlling in an Information should not be the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being, by and large, mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. In addition, the Information need not use the language of the statute in stating the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. What is required is that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense are stated in ordinary and concise language sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know the offense charged.
The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, xxx but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PATRICIO RAYON, SR., G.R. No. 194236, 30 January 2013)
INSTIGATION v. ENTRAPMENT: Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. Thus, in instigation, officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense which he or she would otherwise not commit and has no intention of committing. But in entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused, and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes; thus, the accused cannot justify his or her conduct. In instigation, where law enforcers act as co-principals, the accused will have to be acquitted. But entrapment cannot bar prosecution and conviction. As has been said, instigation is a trap for the unwary innocent, while entrapment is a trap for the unwary criminal. Applying the foregoing, we declare that Bartolome was not arrested following an instigation for him to commit the crime. Instead, he was caught in flagrante delicto during an entrapment through buy-bust. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NOEL BARTOLOME y BAJO, G.R. No. 191726, 6 February 2013)
Enshrined in the fundamental law is a persons right against unwarranted intrusions by the government. While it is true that the legality of arrest depends upon the reasonable discretion of the officer or functionary to whom the law at the moment leaves the decision to characterize the nature of the act or deed of the person for the urgent purpose of suspending his liberty, this should not be exercised in a whimsical manner, else a persons liberty be subjected to ubiquitous abuse. (RAMON MARTINEZ y GOCO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 198694, 13 February 2013)
ESTAFA: Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
Only those who formed and manage associations that receive contributions from the general public who misappropriated the contributions can commit syndicated estafa. (RAFAEL H. GALVEZ and KATHERINE L. GUY v. ASIA UNITED BANK/ASIA UNITED BANK Vs. GILBERT, et al., GILBERT GUY, et al. v. ASIA UNITED BANK, G.R. Nos. 187919, 187979 & 188030, 20 February 2013)
ACCOMPLICES: Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed; but they assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and MIRIAM RUTH T. MAGSINO v. PO1 RICARDO EUSEBIO, SPO2 ROMEO ISIDRO, and JOJIT GEORGE CONTRERAS, G.R. No. 182152, 25 February 2013)