Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
complaint nor the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law."
This doctrine negates the due process argument of the accused, because he was sufficiently apprised of the facts that
pertained to the charge and conviction for estafa.
First, while the fiscal mentioned Article 315 and specified paragraph 1(b), the controlling words of the Information are
found in its body. Accordingly, the Court explained the doctrine in Flores v. Layosa as follows:
The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an information shall be deemed sufficient if it states, among others,
the designation of the offense given by the statute and the acts of omissions complained of as constituting the offense.
However, the Court has clarified in several cases that the designation of the offense, by making reference to the section or
subsection of the statute punishing, it [sic] is not controlling; what actually determines the nature and character of the crime
charged are the facts alleged in the information. The Courts ruling in U.S. v. Lim San is instructive:
Notwithstanding the apparent contradiction between caption and body, we believe that we ought to say and hold that the
characterization of the crime by the fiscal in the caption of the information is immaterial and purposeless, and that the facts
stated in the body of the pleading must determine the crime of which the defendant stands charged and for which he must
be tried. The establishment of this doctrine is permitted by the Code of Criminal Procedure, and is thoroughly in accord
with common sense and with the requirements of plain justice
From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no concern to the accused what is the technical name of the
crime of which he stands charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the merits. Whatever its purpose may be, its result
is to enable the accused to vex the court and embarrass the administration of justice by setting up the technical defense that
the crime set forth in the body of the information and proved in the trial is not the crime characterized by the fiscal in the
caption of the information. That to which his attention should be directed, and in which he, above all things else, should be
most interested, are the facts alleged. The real question is not did he commit a crime given in the law some technical and
specific name, but did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in the manner therein set forth. If he did, it
is of no consequence to him, either as a matter of procedure or of substantive right, how the law denominates the crime
which those acts constitute. The designation of the crime by name in the caption of the information from the facts alleged
in the body of that pleading is a conclusion of law made by the fiscal. In the designation of the crime the accused never has
a real interest until the trial has ended. For his full and complete defense he need not know the name of the crime at all. It is
of no consequence whatever for the protection of his substantial rights... If he performed the acts alleged, in the manner,
stated, the law determines what the name of the crime is and fixes the penalty therefore. It is the province of the court alone
to say what the crime is or what it is named.
The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the Information in this case may be interpreted as charging the accused
with both estafa under paragraph 1 (b) and estafa under paragraph 2(a). It is a basic and fundamental principle of criminal
law that one act can give rise to two offenses,41 all the more when a single offense has multiple modes of commission.
Hence, the present Petition cannot withstand the tests for review as provided by jurisprudential precedent. While the
designation of the circumstances attending the conviction for estafa could have been more precise, there is no reason for
this Court to review the findings when both the appellate and the trial courts agree on the facts. We therefore adopt the
factual findings of the lower courts in totality, bearing in mind the credence lent to their appreciation of the evidence.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 24 February
2009 and Resolution dated 25 May 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 31106 are AFFIRMED.SO
ORDERED.
2|P a ge
A Final Evaluation Report was issued which upgraded the complaint into a criminal case against petitioners. On March 27,
2003, the assigned Graft Investigation Officer Butch E. Caares (Caares) prepared a Resolution (March 27, 2003
Resolution), finding probable cause against petitioners for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019,
otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," and recommended the filing of the corresponding
information. On even date, the Information was prepared and signed by Caares and submitted to Deputy Ombudsman for
the Visayas Primo C. Miro (Miro) for recommendation. Miro recommended the approval of the Information on June 5,
2003. However, the final approval of Acting Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro (Casimiro), came only on May 21, 2009,
and on June 19, 2009, the Information was filed before the SB.
Petitioners alleged that they learned about the March 27, 2003 Resolution and Information only when they received a copy
of the latter shortly after its filing with the SB.
On July 9, 2009, Coscolluela filed a Motion to Quash, arguing, among others, that his constitutional right to speedy
disposition of cases was violated as the criminal charges against him were resolved only after almost eight (8) years since
the complaint was instituted. Nacionales, Malvas, and Amugod later adopted Coscolluela's motion. In reply, the
respondents filed their Opposition explaining that although the Information was originally dated March 27, 2003, it still
had to go through careful review and revision before its final approval. It also pointed out that petitioners never raised any
objections regarding the purported delay in the proceedings during the interim. The Sandiganbayan denied their Motion to
Quash for lack of merit as well as their respective Motions for Reconsideration.
ISSUE/S:
Whether the SB gravely abused its discretion in finding that petitioners' right to speedy disposition of cases was not
violated.
HELD:
A person's right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution (Constitution) which provides:
SEC. 16.All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.
Jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious,
and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or even without cause or
justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. The following factors
may be considered and balanced: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert
such right by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay.
The Court holds that petitioners' right to a speedy disposition of their criminal case had been violated.
First, it is observed that the preliminary investigation proceedings took a protracted amount of time to complete.
Section 4, Rule II of the Administrative Order No. 07 dated April 10, 1990, otherwise known as the "Rules of Procedure of
the Office of the Ombudsman," reveals that there is no complete resolution of a case under preliminary investigation until
the Ombudsman approves the investigating officer's recommendation to either file an Information with the SB or to dismiss
the complaint. Therefore, in the case at bar, the preliminary investigation proceedings against the petitioners were not
terminated upon Caares' preparation of the March 27, 2003 Resolution and Information but rather, only at the time
4|P a ge
Casimiro finally approved the same for filing with the SB. In this regard, the proceedings were terminated only on May 21,
2009, or almost eight (8) years after the filing of the complaint.
Second, the above-discussed delay in the Ombudsman's resolution of the case largely remains unjustified.
Verily, the Office of the Ombudsman was created under the mantle of the Constitution, mandated to be the "protector of
the people" and has the inherent duty not only to carefully go through the particulars of case but also to resolve the same
within the proper length of time. Its dutiful performance should not only be gauged by the quality of the assessment but
also by the reasonable promptness of its dispensation.
Third, the Court deems that petitioners cannot be faulted for their alleged failure to assert their right to speedy disposition
of cases.
They were only informed of the March 27, 2003 Resolution and Information against them only after the lapse of six (6)
long years, or when they received a copy of the latter after its filing with the SB on June 19, 2009. In this regard, they
could have reasonably assumed that the proceedings against them have already been terminated. This serves as a plausible
reason as to why petitioners never followed-up on the case altogether. Being the respondents in the preliminary
investigation proceedings, it was not the petitioners' duty to follow up on the prosecution of their case. Conversely, it was
the Office of the Ombudsman's responsibility to expedite the same within the bounds of reasonable timeliness in view of its
mandate to promptly act on all complaints lodged before it.
Fourth, the Court finally recognizes the prejudice caused to the petitioners by the lengthy delay in the proceedings against
them.
Akin to the right to speedy trial, its "salutary objective" is to assure that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety
and expense of litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible time compatible with
the presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose. This looming unrest as well as the
tactical disadvantages carried by the passage of time should be weighed against the State and in favor of the individual. For
the SB's patent and utter disregard of the existing laws and jurisprudence surrounding the matter, the Court finds that it
gravely abused its discretion when it denied the quashal of the Information. Perforce, the assailed resolutions must be set
aside and the criminal case against petitioners be dismissed.
While the foregoing pronouncement should, as matter of course, result in the acquittal of the petitioners, it does not
necessarily follow that petitioners are entirely exculpated from any civil liability, assuming that the same is proven in a
subsequent case which the Province may opt to pursue.
Section 2, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides that an acquittal in a criminal case does not bar the private offended
party from pursuing a subsequent civil case based on the delict, unless the judgment of acquittal explicitly declares that
the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. As explained in the case of Abejuela v.
People, citing Banal v. Tadeo, Jr.:
The Rules provide: "The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not
exist. In other cases, the person entitled to the civil action may institute it in the jurisdiction and in the manner
provided by law against the person who may be liable for restitution of the thing and reparation or indemnity for
the damage suffered."
5|P a ge
that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution is given by the court the opportunity to correct the defect
by amendment. If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may order that another complaint or information be
filed except when the information is quashed on the ground of extinction of criminal liability or double jeopardy.
An examination of the information filed against respondent, however, shows the sufficiency of the allegations therein to
constitute the crime of bigamy as it contained all the elements of the crime as provided for in Article 349 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Thus, as held in Antone:
To conclude, the issue on the declaration of nullity of the marriage between petitioner and respondent only after the latter
contracted the subsequent marriage is, therefore, immaterial for the purpose of establishing that the facts alleged in the
information for Bigamy does not constitute an offense. Following the same rationale, neither may such defense be
interposed by the respondent in his motion to quash by way of exception to the established rule that facts contrary to the
allegations in the information are matters of defense which may be raised only during the presentation of evidence.
ISSUE/S:
WON RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion to Withdraw Information without stating its reason for the
denial.
HELD:
The RTC failed to make its independent evaluation of the merits of the case when it denied the Prosecutor's Motion to
Withdraw Information.
When a trial court is confronted to rule on "a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information", it is its "bounden
duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this assessment must be embodied in a written order disposing
of the motion."
qualification upon presenting Cabamongan during trial. In the case, the defense failed to provide the qualifications needed
for him to be of such.
9|P a ge
Anita Mangila v. Judge Pangilinan et.al. [G.R. 160739. July 17, 2013.]
FACTS:
On June 16, 2003, seven complaints of syndicated estafa were filed against petitioner and four others. These involved the
modus of the petitioner of recruiting persons for employment as overseas contract workers in Toronto, Canada without
acquiring from the POEA a permit to do so. The next day, Judge Pangilinan conducted a preliminary investigation. After
examining Miguel Aaron Palayon, one of the complainants, Judge Pangilinan issued a warrant for the arrest of Mangila and
her cohorts without bail. On the next day, the entire records of the cases, including the warrant of arrest, were transmitted to
the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa City. She was then apprehended on June 18, 2003. Petitioner contends that Judge
Pangilinan did not have the authority to conduct the preliminary investigation; that the preliminary investigation he
conducted was not yet completed when he issued the warrant of arrest.
ISSUE/S:
Did the CA err in ruling that habeas corpus was not the proper remedy to obtain the release of Mangila from detention?
HELD:
No. According to the Supreme Court, there is no question that when the criminal complaints were lodged against Mangila
and her cohorts on June 16, 2003, Judge Pangilinan, as the Presiding Judge of the MTCC, was empowered to conduct
preliminary investigations involving all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective territorial jurisdictions.
His authority was expressly provided in Section 2, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Section 2. Officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations. The following may conduct preliminary
investigations:
(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;
(b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
(d) Other officers as may be authorized by law.
Their authority to conduct preliminary investigations shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their
respective territorial jurisdictions. (2a)
It further explained by saying that under Section 6(b) of Rule 112of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
investigating judge could issue a warrant of arrest during the preliminary investigation even without awaiting its conclusion
should he find after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and the witnesses in the form of searching
questions and answers that a probable cause existed, and that there was a necessity of placing the respondent under
immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. In the context of this rule, Judge Pangilinan issued the
warrant of arrest against Mangila and her cohorts. Consequently, the CA properly denied Mangilas petition for habeas
corpus because she had been arrested and detained by virtue of the warrant issued for her arrest by Judge Pangilinan, a
judicial officer undeniably possessing the legal authority to do so.
10 | P a g e
Was there failure in the part of the prosecution to establish with certainty the chain of custody of evidence?
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court defines Chain of Custody as the duly recorded authorized movement and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court and finally for destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
To establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, the prosecution must establish the following links, namely: First,
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by 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.
In Mallillin v. People, it was explained that the chain of custody rule includes testimony about every link in the chain, from
the moment the item was picked up to the time it was offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
In view of these guiding principles, we rule that the prosecution failed to present a clear picture on how the police officers
seized and marked the illegal drug recovered by the apprehending officer and how the specimen was turned over by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Accused is acquitted.
The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals rendered a decision, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the accused-appellant may invoke self-defense.
2.
Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery exists.
HELD:
1. No. Self-defense was used as an alibi, an inherently weak defense for it is easy to fabricate. In order for self-defense to
be appreciated, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a) unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
It is a statutory and doctrinal requirement that, for the justifying circumstance of self-defense, unlawful aggression as a
condition sine qua non must be present. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim commits
an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to ones life,
limb or right is either actual or imminent. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon.
Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must
be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack
or assault must be unlawful.
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression.
Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that
positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is
impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary,
but must be offensive and positively strong. Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the
victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or
like aiming to throw a pot.
Unfortunately for the accused-appellant, his claim of self-defense shrinks into incredulity. It is worth noting that the
incident transpired in broad daylight, within the clear view of a number of guests. Thus, it is of no wonder that the
testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses are consistent in all material points. They all confirmed that before the crime
was consummated, the victim was only walking in the yard, unarmed. There was not the least provocation done by the
victim that could have triggered the accused-appellant to entertain the thought that there was a need to defend himself. The
victim did not exhibit any act or gesture that could show that he was out to inflict harm or injury. On the contrary, the
witnesses all point to the accused-appellant as the unlawful aggressor who mercilessly hacked the unwary victim until he
collapsed lifeless on the ground.
Moreover, the severity, location and the number of wounds suffered by the victim are indicative of a serious intent to inflict
harm not merely that he wanted to defend himself from an imminent peril to life. Also, in the incident report executed by
the police officers, only one bolo, specifically that which was used in the hacking, was reported to have been recovered
from the crime scene. This belies the accused-appellants claim that the victim was also armed at the time of the incident.
1.
Yes. There was treachery and accused-appellant contention that he should be convicted only of homicide, not
murder was dismissed.
13 | P a g e
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing means, methods or forms in
the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. It takes place when the following elements concur: (1) that at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular
means of attack employed.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressors on unsuspecting victims, depriving the
latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressors, and without
the slightest provocation on the part of the victims. But, in the case, the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to
retaliate. He was then unarmed and unsuspecting, was deprived of any real chance to mount a defense, thereby ensuring the
commission of the crime without risk to accused-appellant.
This is also buttressed by the fact that the wounds sustained by the victim were all located at the back. At the time that the
crime was about to be committed, the victim does not have the slightest idea of the impending danger to his person. He was
not facing the accused-appellant and unarmed, hence, lacked the opportunity to avoid the attack, or at least put up a defense
to mitigate the impact. On the one hand, the accused-appellant was armed and commenced his attack while behind the
victim.
Lihaylihay and Vinluan v. People [G.R. No. 191219. July 31, 2013.]
FACTS:
Acting on the special audit reportsubmitted by the Commission on Audit, the Philippine National Police (PNP) conducted
an internal investigation on the purported "ghost" purchases of combat, clothing, and individual equipment (CCIE) worth
P133,000,000.00 which were allegedly purchased from the PNP Service Store System (SSS) and delivered to the PNP
General Services Command (GSC). As a result of the internal investigation, an Information was filed before the
Sandiganbayan, charging 10 PNP officers, including, among others, Vinluan and Lihaylihay, for the crime of violation of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019
Gen. Nazareno in his capacity as Chief, PNP and concurrently Board Chairman of the PNP Service Store System,
surreptitiously channeled PNP funds to the PNP SSS through "Funded RIVs" valued at P8 [M]illion and Director
Domondon released ASA No. 000-200-004-92 (SN-1353) without proper authority from the National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM) and Department of Budget and Management (DBM), and caused it to appear that there were purchases and
deliveries of combat clothing and individual equipment (CCIE) to the General Service Command (GSC), PNP, by
deliberately and maliciously using funds for personal services and divided the invoices of not more than P500,000.00 each
ISSUE/S:
WON evidence was admissible.
HELD:
Finally, on the matter of the admissibility of the prosecutions evidence, suffice it to state that, except as to the checks,the
parties had already stipulated on the subject documents existence and authenticity and accordingly, waived any objections
thereon. In this respect, petitioners must bear the consequences of their admission and cannot now be heard to complain
against the admissibility of the evidence against them by harking on the best evidence rule. In any event, what is sought to
be established is the mere general appearance of forgery which may be readily observed through the marked alterations and
14 | P a g e
superimpositions on the subject documents, even without conducting a comparison with any original document as in the
case of forged signatures where the signature on the document in question must always be compared to the signature on the
original document to ascertain if there was indeed a forgery.
delictual acts complained of. Such party must be one who has a legal right; a substantial interest in the subject matter of
the action as will entitle him to recourse under the substantive law, to recourse if the evidence is sufficient or that he has
the legal right to the demand and the accused will be protected by the satisfaction of his civil liabilities. Such interest must
not be a mere expectancy, subordinate or inconsequential. The interest of the party must be personal; and not one based on
a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party.
In this case, the statement of petitioner regarding his custody of TCT No. 232238 covering CHI's property and its loss
through inadvertence, if found to be perjured is, without doubt, injurious to respondent's personal credibility and reputation
insofar as her faithful performance of the duties and responsibilities of a Board Member and Treasurer of CHI.
It must, however, be observed that the judge's power to immediately dismiss a criminal case would only be warranted when
the lack of probable cause is clear. A clear-cut case of lack of probable cause exists when the records readily show
uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime charged.
it must be stressed that the judge's dismissal of a case must be done only in clear-cut cases when the evidence on
record plainly fails to establish probable cause that is when the records readily show uncontroverted, and thus,
established facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime charged. On the contrary, if
the evidence on record shows that, more likely than not, the crime charged has been committed and that respondent is
probably guilty of the same, the judge should not dismiss the case and thereon, order the parties to proceed to trial. In
doubtful cases, however, the appropriate course of action would be to order the presentation of additional evidence.
In other words, once the information is filed with the court and the judge proceeds with his primordial task of evaluating
the evidence on record, he may either: (a) issue a warrant of arrest, if he finds probable cause; (b) immediately dismiss the
case, if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause; and (c) order the prosecutor to submit
additional evidence, in case he doubts the existence of probable cause.
MTCs dismissal should be sustained.
The second element of the crime of Open Disobedience is that there is a judgment, decision, or order of a superior
authority made within the scope of its jurisdiction and issued with all legal formalities. In this case, it is undisputed that all
the proceedings in Civil Case No. 03-110 have been regarded as null and void due to Branch 203's lack of jurisdiction over
the said case. The third element of the crime, i.e., that the offender, without any legal justification, openly refuses to
execute the said judgment, decision, or order, which he is duty bound to obey, cannot equally exist. Indubitably, without
any jurisdiction, there would be no legal order for Atty. Fria to implement or, conversely, disobey. Besides, as the MTC
correctly observed, there lies ample legal justifications that prevented Atty. Fria from immediately issuing a writ of
execution.
HELD:
NO. Consolidation is a procedural device granted to the court as an aid in deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so
that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously while providing justice to the parties. Toward this end,
consolidation and a single trial of several cases in the court's docket or consolidation of issues within those cases are
permitted by the rules.
The term "consolidation" is used in three (3) different senses or concepts, thus: a
(1)Where all except one of several actions are stayed until one is tried, in which case the judgment [in one] trial is
conclusive as to the others. This is not actually consolidation but is referred to as such. (quasi consolidation)
(2)Where several actions are combined into one, lose their separate identity, and become a single action in which a single
judgment is rendered. This is illustrated by a situation where several actions are pending between the same parties stating
claims which might have been set out originally in one complaint. (actual consolidation)
(3)Where several actions are ordered to be tried together but each retains its separate character and requires the entry of a
separate judgment. This type of consolidation does not merge the suits into a single action, or cause the parties to one
action to be parties to the other. (consolidation for trial)
To be sure, consolidation, as taken in the above senses, is allowed, as Rule 31 of the Rules of Court is entitled
"Consolidation or Severance." And Sec. 1 of Rule 31 provides:
Section 1.Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may
order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all actions consolidated; and it
may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
The counterpart, but narrowed, rule for criminal cases is found in Sec. 22, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court stating:
Sec. 22.Consolidation of trials of related offenses. Charges for offenses founded on the same facts or forming part of a
series of offenses of similar character may be tried jointly at the discretion of the court. (Emphasis added.)
As complemented by Rule XII, Sec. 2 of the Sandiganbayan Revised Internal Rules which states:
Section 2.Consolidation of Cases. Cases arising from the same incident or series of incidents, or involving common
questions of fact and law, may be consolidated in the Division to which the case bearing the lowest docket number is
raffled.
The prosecution anchored its motion for consolidation partly on the aforequoted Sec. 22 of Rule 119 which indubitably
speaks of a joint trial.|||
Joint trial is permissible "where the [actions] arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues,
and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be
consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of
the parties." More elaborately, joint trial is proper where the offenses charged are similar, related, or connected, or are of
the same or similar character or class, or involve or arose out of the same or related or connected acts, occurrences,
transactions, series of events, or chain of circumstances, or are based on acts or transactions constituting parts of a common
scheme or plan, or are of the same pattern and committed in the same manner, or where there is a common element of
substantial importance in their commission, or where the same, or much the same, evidence will be competent and
18 | P a g e
admissible or required in their prosecution, and if not joined for trial the repetition or reproduction of substantially the same
testimony will be required on each trial.
|||
Criminal prosecutions primarily revolve around proving beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the elements of the
crime charged. As such, they mainly involve questions of fact. There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference
arises from the truth or the falsity of the allegations of facts. Put a bit differently, it exists when the doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the inquiry invites calibration of the whole gamut of evidence
considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as
well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.|
A consolidation of the Neri case to that of Abalos would expose petitioner Neri to testimonies which have no relation
whatsoever in the case against him and the lengthening of the legal dispute thereby delaying the resolution of his case.
Consolidation here would force petitioner to await the conclusion of testimonies against Abalos, however irrelevant or
immaterial as to him (Neri) before the case against the latter may be resolved a needless, hence, oppressive delay in the
resolution of the criminal case against him.
1. YES. The decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against the accused depends on the sound discretion
of the prosecutor. Courts will not interfere with the conduct of preliminary investigations, or reinvestigations, or in the
determination of what constitutes sufficient probable cause for the filing of the corresponding information against an
offender. Courts are not empowered to substitute their own judgment for that of the executive branch. Differently stated, as
the matter of whether to prosecute or not is purely discretionary on his part, courts cannot compel a public prosecutor to
file the corresponding information, upon a complaint, where he finds the evidence before him insufficient to warrant the
filing of an action in court. In sum, the prosecutor's findings on the existence of probable cause are not subject to review by
the courts, unless these are patently shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion. We find such reason for
judicial review here present. We sustain the appellate court's reversal of the ruling of the Secretary of the DOJ
2. YES. Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a
reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the
crime for which he was prosecuted. It is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well-founded on
such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or
entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual or positive cause" nor does it
import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not
require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the
act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence
showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and
convincing evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence
establishing absolute certainty of guilt. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances
without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common
sense. What is determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require an inquiry as to
whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. In order to arrive at probable cause, the elements of the crime
charged should be present. All elements of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of
the Revised Penal Code were sufficiently averred in the complaint-affidavit in this case and were sufficient to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime may have been committed and petitioner may have committed it.
3. Only evidence to support a finding of probable cause, not a conviction, is needed for preliminary
investigation. All elements of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code were sufficiently averred in the complaint-affidavit in this case and were sufficient to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime may have been committed and petitioner may have committed it. Respondent, an office worker, claimed that
she and her friend were taken at gunpoint by two men and forcibly boarded into a vehicle. They were detained for more
than 24 hours. Whether or not the accusations would result in a conviction is another matter. It is enough, for purposes of
the preliminary investigation that the acts complained of constitute the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
The Investigating Prosecutor, however, ruled that the kidnapping and serious illegal detention charge is a mere fabrication.
The Supreme Court said that the Investigating Prosecutor has set the parameters of probable cause too high. Her findings
dealt mostly with what respondent had done or failed to do after the alleged crime was committed. She delved into
evidentiary matters that could only be passed upon in a full-blown trial where testimonies and documents could be fairly
evaluated in according with the rules of evidence. The issues upon which the charges are built pertain to factual matters
that cannot be threshed out conclusively during the preliminary stage of the case. Precisely, there is a trial for the
presentation of prosecutions evidence in support of the charge. The validity and merits of a partys defense or accusation,
as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary
investigation level.
20 | P a g e
Code, as amended. After trial, on March 23, 2006, the RTC promulgated its Decision3 finding Amistoso guilty, not of
statutory rape, but of qualified rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a), in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph (1), of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Court of Appeals affirmed Amistosos conviction for qualified rape but
modified the penalties imposed in accordance with Republic Act No. 93466 and the latest jurisprudence on awards of
damages. Insisting upon his innocence, Amistoso appealed to this Court. In its Decision dated January 9, 2013, the Court
affirmed with modification the judgment of conviction against Amistoso, expressly making him liable for interest on the
amounts of damages awarded.
However, in a letter dated February 7, 2013, Ramoncito D. Roque (Roque), Officer-in-Charge, Inmate Documents and
Processing Division of the Bureau of Corrections, informed the Court that Amistoso had died on December 11, 2012 at the
New Bilibid Prison (NBP), Muntinlupa City.
ISSUE/S:
Is the Civil and Criminal liability extinguished upon death of the accused?
HELD:
Extinguishment of criminal liability by the death of the accused prior to final judgment; effect of death of the accused
pending appeal of his conviction on his civil liability ex delicto. Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code states
that, Criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary
penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. Given the
foregoing, it is clear that the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as
well as his civil liability ex delicto. Since 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 case. Undeniably, Amistosos death on December 11, 2012 preceded the promulgation by
the Supreme Court (SC) of its Decision on January 9, 2013. When Amistoso died, his appeal before the SC was still
pending and unresolved. The SC ruled upon Amistosos appeal only because it was not immediately informed of his death.
Amistosos death on December 11, 2012 renders the SCs Decision dated January 9, 2013, even though affirming
Amistosos conviction, irrelevant and ineffectual. Moreover, said Decision has not yet become final, and the SC still has
the jurisdiction to set it aside.
order to prevent disclosure and recovery of assets illegally obtained, engaged in devices, schemes and
stratagems,particularly:
1) acted as dummies, nominees, and/or agents of the Marcos spouses and, with the active collaboration, knowledge and
willing participation of the other defendants, established several corporations engaged in a wide range of economic
activities, such as construction and cattle ranching;
2) secured favorable contracts with the Department of Public Works and Communications for the construction of
government projects through grossly undercapitalized corporations and without complying with such usual requirements as
public bidding, notice and publication of contractors;
3) unlawfully acquired heads of cattle from the government dispersalprogram and raised them on ranch lands encroaching
on forest zones;
4) unlawfully encroached upon a mangrove-forested section in Masbate, and converted it into a fishpond;
5) unlawfully amassed funds by obtaining huge credit lines from government financial institutions, and incorporating into
their contracts a cost-escalation adjustment provision to justify collection of grossly arbitrary and unconscionable amounts
unsupported by evidence of increase in prices;
6) unlawfully imported hundreds of brand-new units of heavy equipment without paying customs duties and other allied
taxes amounting to millions of pesos, by falsely representing said heavy equipment to be for official government use and
selling them at very low prices to avoid paying the required taxes.
ISSUE/S:
Are the properties and assets of the accused considered as ill-gotten wealth and the holding of the position in the Marcos
administration proved the guilt of the accused?
HELD:
The mere holding of a position in the Marcos administration did not necessarily make the holder a close associate of
Marcos. There are two concurring elements that must be present before assets or properties can be considered as ill-gotten
wealth, namely: (a) they must have originated from the government itself, and (b) they must have been taken by former
President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, and close associates by illegal means. As can be gleaned from the
above, evidentiary substantiation of the allegations of how the wealth was illegally acquired and by whom was necessary.
For that purpose, the mere holding of a position in the Marcos administration did not necessarily make the holder a close
associate within the context of E.O. No.1.
Indeed, a prima facie showing must be made to show that one unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of a close
association or relation with President Marcos and/or his wife. It would not suffice, then, that one served during the
administration of President Marcos as a government official or employee. In this case, the Republic particularly insists that
Luz Bakunawa served as the Social Secretary or the Assistant Social Secretary of First Lady Marcos, and mentions several
other circumstances that indicated her close relationship with the Marcoses. However, Luz Bakunawa maintains that she
was not First Lady Marcos Social Secretary, but a mere member of the staff of the Social Secretary; and that the assets of
the Bakunawas were honestly earned and acquired well within the legitimate income of their businesses. Thus, the
Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Sandiganbayan that the evidence of the Republic was able to establish, at best, that
Luz Bakunawa had been an employee in Malacaang Palace during the Marcos administration, and did not establish her
having a close relationship with the Marcoses, or her having abused her position or employment in order to amass the
23 | P a g e
assets subject of this case. Consequently, Luz Bakunawa could not be considered a close associate or subordinate of the
Marcoses within the context of E.O. No. 1 and E.O. No. 2.
The trial court noted that during AAAs cross-examination, her testimony bore the hallmarks of truth, as she remained
consistent on material points. The trial courts assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding if not
tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. Moreover, this Court has held
time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no
young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts,
and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice
for the wrong committed against her.
Although she failed to report the incident immediately, such reaction is deemed normal considering that she was only 10
years old at that time.
With regard to the results of the medical examination, this Court holds that the absence of laceration and semen does not
preclude the fact that rape has been committed. In the crime of rape, complete or full penetration of the complainants
private part is not at all necessary. Neither is the rupture of the hymen essential. What is fundamental is that the entry or at
the very least the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum is proved. The mere introduction of the
male organ into the labia majora of the complainants vagina, consummates the crime. 32 Likewise, the absence of semen in
AAAs vaginal area would not preclude a finding of rape. The presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial because
the presence of spermatozoa is not an element of rape. Moreover, it has been held that the absence of spermatozoa in the
vagina could be due to a number of factors, such as the vertical drainage of the semen from the vagina, the acidity of the
vagina or the washing of the vagina immediately after sexual intercourse.
The first element of statutory rape, (a) that the victim is a female under 12 years or is demented, was substantiated by the
presentation of the Birth Certificate of the victim, while the second element, (b) that the offender had carnal knowledge of
the victim, was evidenced by the testimony of the victim herself. Thus, the lower court was correct in sentencing accusedappellant to a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
several others filed several complaints against petitioners Rosalinda, Randall, Rainier, and several individuals before the
Office of the City Prosecutor.
On July 28, 1998, the Office of the City Prosecutor, in its Joint Resolution, dismissed the complaints filed against the
petitioners for lack of sufficient basis both in fact and in law.
On March 23, 2000, the DOJ modified the July 28, 1998 Joint Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor and ordered
the filing of separate informations for Slight Oral Defamation, Light Threats, Attempted Homicide, Malicious Mischief,
and Theft against Rosalinda, Rainier, Randall and the other respondents in the above cases.
Upon review, the DOJ reconsidered its findings and ruled that there was no probable cause. In its Resolution, dated June 6,
2000, the DOJ set aside its March 23, 2000 Resolution and directed the Office of the City Prosecutor to withdraw the
informations.||
On January 11, 2001, the complainants elevated the matter to the CA by way of certiorari ascribing grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the DOJ Secretary which ordered the withdrawal of the separate informations.
On September 29, 2003, the CA annulled and set aside Resolutions of the DOJ. According to CA that probable cause exists
in the subject complaints for malicious mischief and theft.
ISSUE/S:
WON the court committed grave abuse of discretion when the court interfere the DOJ in determining the existence of
probable cause?
HELD:
YES, the court committed grave abuse of discretion.
The conduct of preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is a function that
belongs to the public prosecutor.
Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:
Section 5.Who must prosecute criminal action. All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information
shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public
prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of
the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the court. Once so
authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to end of the trial
even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn.
The rule is that this Court will not interfere in the findings of the DOJ Secretary on the insufficiency of the evidence
presented to establish probable cause unless it is shown that the questioned acts were done in a capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment evidencing a clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
26 | P a g e
After factual examination, the SC held that the Informations filed against him and his companions were able to comply
with the prescribed forms and substance of an Information. Hence, his motion to quash could not be properly sustained.
Withal, the Informations filed against Disini and company complied with the required substance and form.
civilian clothing asked him if he knew anyone selling Shabu, this was done while a gun was poking at the accused. He
denied having knowledge and was afterwards arrested. The sari-sari girl corroborated with the testimony of the accused.
The RTC however found accused guilty.
ISSUE/S:
WON the ruling of the RTC was correct based on the current evidence
HELD:
No. The SC ruled that as a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to
be. In context, this would ideally include testimony about every link in the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up
to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from
whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was
received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. The following are the requirements in the
chain of custody of a buy bust operation. 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. In the case at bar the prosecutor failed to prove that the seizure of items made by Enriquez were
already marked or was marked by his representative. A failure to mark at the time of taking of initial custody imperils the
integrity of the chain of custody that the law requires.
Second, the chain of custody in the turnover of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer.
They failed to identify as to who they gave the illegal drug to. Therefore it is not shown what happened to the illegal drug
after it was handed over by the apprehending officer. Third, the chief of police was not presented to testify the court. The
testimony of Chief of Police Erese is indispensable because he could have provided the critical link between the testimony
of SPO2 David, and the tenor of the testimony of P/Insp. Dizon, which the parties have stipulated on. The unaccounted for
whereabouts of the seized items from the time they were brought to the police station to the time they were submitted to
P/Insp. Dizon for examination constitutes a clear break in the chain of custody. Moreover, no one testified as to how the
confiscated items were handled and cared for after the laboratory examination. The failure of the prosecution to establish
the evidence's chain of custody is fatal to the case as we can no longer consider or safely assume that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated dangerous drugs were safely preserved.
haste. As a result Atty. Salvador filed before the Sandiganbayan a complaint against petitioners and his co-accused for
violation of Sec3 paragraphs (e) and (g) of RA#3019.
On January 27, 2004, petitioner entered the plea of not guilty during arraignment. All other accused also entered into
arraignment except for Bautista who died prior to the scheduled arraignment. Several of the petitioners had died which
forced the Sandiganbayan to issue a resolution to dismiss the case. Afterwards the remaining criminal case initiated where
the prosecution presented all its witnesses and evidence. Later the petitioner filed a demurer to evidence.In response the
prosecution opposed the demurer to evidence of petition. The Sandiganbayan thereafter denied the demurer of evidence of
petitioner.
ISSUE/S:
WON the Sandiganbayan was correct in denying the demurer of evidence.
HELD:
Yes. The Sandiganbayan was correct. First a demurrer to the evidence is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to
the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is in sufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a
case or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The
court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is
competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. Second, sufficient evidence for
purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial
or official action demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove:
(a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused. The SC ruled therefore
that the Sandiganbayan found sufficient evidence to establish that there was violation of sec 3(g) of RA#3019. It was
shown that petitioner connived with his co-accused. The loan transactions entered into by ISI and PNB were discovered to
be disadvantageous to the government. Lastly the SC also ruled that a lower court's order of denial shall not be disturbed ,
that is, appellate courts will not review the prosecution's evidence and decide whether such evidence has established guilt
beyond reasonable doubt unless the accused has established that such judicial discretion has been gravely abused, thereby
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Mere allegation of such abuse will not suffice. Petitioner was unable to prove
abuse of discretion.
before the Executive Judge of the MeTC a motion entitled "Urgent Motion to Allow Private Complainant to Pay Filing Fee
on a Per Case Basis" (Urgent Motion).
ISSUE/S:
Was the motion filed by the petitioner entitled Urgent Motion to Allow Private Complainant to Pay Filing Fee on a Per
Case Basis the correct remedy?
HELD:
No. The correct remedy for the petitioner, in view of the unavailability of an appeal or any other remedy in the ordinary
course of law, is a certiorari petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. But then again, the petitioner should have filed
such a petition, not directly with this Court, but before the appropriate Regional Trial Court pursuant to the principle of
hierarchy of courts. In the weightier interest of substantial justice, however, this Court forgives such procedural lapses and
treats the instant appeal as a certiorari petition filed properly before this Court. To this Court, the grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the Executive Judge was patent on the undisputed facts of this case and is serious enough to warrant a
momentary deviation from the procedural norm. Thus, we come to the focal issue of whether the Executive Judge of the
MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion, in light of the facts and circumstances herein obtaining, in refusing petitioners
request of paying filing fees on a per case basis.
We answer in the affirmative. We grant the petition. In proposing to pay filing fees on a per case basis, petitioner was not
trying to evade or deny his obligation to pay for the filing fees for all forty (40) counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 filed
before the MeTC. He, in fact, acknowledges such obligation. He, in fact, admits that he is incapable of fulfilling such
obligation in its entirety. Rather, what petitioner is asking is that he at least be allowed to pursue some of the cases, the
filing fees of which he is capable of financing. Petitioner manifests that, given his current financial status, he simply cannot
afford the filing fees for all the forty (40) BP Blg. 22 cases. We see nothing wrong or illegal in granting petitioners
request.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Orders dated 26 June 2012 and 26
July 2012 of the Executive Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, in UDK Nos.12001457 to 96 are ANNULED
and SET ASIDE. The Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, is hereby directed to accept payments of tiling fees in UDK Nos.
12001457 to 96 on a per information basis.
31 | P a g e
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a motion to admit notice of appeal and to post bond with the CA, asking for the reversal of the
RTC Order. She subsequently filed her notice of appeal on November 17, 2010.
CA denied the omnibus motion. A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner did not also prosper, denying her
application for provisional liberty in view of the finality of the judgment of conviction against her. The CA denied the said
petition on the ground of failure to file the motion within the reglementary period.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in denying petitioners motion on the ground of to lapse of time
2. Whether or not petitioner can rely on the ground of substantial justice in failing to abide by the rules on reglementary
period of filing an appeal
HELD:
Petition is denied for lack of merit.
1. When appeal to be taken. Section 6, Rule 122 of the RRCP provides: xxx An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15)
days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. xxx"
In the case, the judgment convicting the petitioner of the crime of Estafa was promulgated on March 25, 2009. Instead of
filing a notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation or notice of judgment, the petitioner filed with the
RTC a motion to lift warrant of arrest and to reinstate bail bond three (3) months later. It was only in November 2010 or
more than a year later since the RTC denied her motion that the petitioner filed with the CA her motion to admit notice of
appeal. At that point, her judgment of conviction has already attained finality and cannot be modified or set aside anymore
in accordance with Section 7, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Thus, the CA did not commit any reversible error in denying the petitioner's motion inasmuch as by the time the petitioner
filed the same, the appellate court was already bereft of any jurisdiction to entertain the motion.
The right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege. The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due
process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in accordance with the law. The party who seeks to
avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.
2. Period of perfecting an appeal may be relaxed on the grounds of substantial justice or other special meritorious
circumstances and issues.
In the case, petitioner, however, failed to present any exceptional, special or meritorious circumstance that will excuse the
belated filing of her notice of appeal.
Her assertion that her counsel failed to communicate to her the status of her case is a "tenuous and implausible" excuse.
The rule is that the omission or negligence of counsel binds the client. Petitioner did not also show that she took steps to
show her diligence to be updated by the status of the case. Lastly, petitioner did not even inform the judge about the demise
of her father. At the very least, she should have filed a motion to reset the promulgation of judgment.
32 | P a g e
33 | P a g e
Jadewell Parking v. Judge Lidua Sr. [G.R. No. 169588. October 7, 2013.]
FACTS:
Petitioner Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation is a private parking operator duly authorized to operate and manage the
parking spaces in Baguio City pursuant to City Ordinance 003-2000. It is also authorized under Section 13 of the City
Ordinance to render any motor vehicle immobile by placing its wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally parked.
Respondents Edwin Ang, Benedicto Balajadia and John Doe dismantled, took and carried away the clamp attached to the
left front wheel of a Mitsubishi Adventure owned by Edwin Ang and on the wheel of a Nissan Cefiro car belonging to
Jeffrey Walan. Both cars were considered illegally parked. The value of the clamp belonging to Jadewell which was
allegedly forcibly removed with a piece of metal is 26,250.00 pesos.
In Lieu of this, Jadewell filed two criminal cases against herein respondents for violation of such ordinances.
Respondents filed a Motion to Quash on February 2, 2004. The Motion to Quash sought the quashal of the two
Informations on the ground that the criminal liability is already extinguished by prescription as stated in Act No. 3326, as
amended by Act No. 3763, which provides that violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribed after two
months.
The Information was filed on October 2, 2003, almost five (5) months after the alleged commission of the offense charged.
Hence, criminal liability of the accused in this case, if any, was already extinguished by prescription when the Information
was filed.
ISSUE/S:
WON the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23, 2003 tolled the prescription period of
the commission of the offense charged against respondents Balajadia, Ang, "John Does," and "Peter Does."
HELD:
The Petition is denied.
Act No. 3326, as amended, is the only statute that provides for any prescriptive period for the violation of special laws and
municipal ordinances. No other special law provides any other prescriptive period, and the law does not provide any other
distinction.
In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged, the following should be considered: (1) the period of
prescription for the offense charged; (2) the time the period of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time the prescriptive
period was interrupted.
With regard to the period of prescription, it is now without question that it is two months for the offense charged under
City Ordinance 003-2000. The offense was committed on May 7, 2003 and was discovered by the attendants of the
petitioner on the same day. These actions effectively commenced the running of the prescription period.
The procedural rules that govern this case are the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and as provided in the
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime
charged is involved in an ordinance.
35 | P a g e
Under Section 9 of the Rules on Summary Procedure, "the complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without
need of a prior preliminary examination or preliminary investigation." Both parties agree that this provision does not
prevent the prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to. However, the case shall be deemed
commenced only when it is filed in court, whether or not the prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary investigation.
This means that the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not
on any date before that.
Unfortunately, when the Office of the Prosecutor filed the Informations on October 5, 2003, the period had already
prescribed.
The failure of the prosecutor to seasonably file the Information is unfortunate as it resulted in the dismissal of the case
against the private respondents.
consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. The Court explained in People v.
Bautista that in drug-related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving these elements of the offense
under R.A. No. 9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti , the body of the crime. The dangerous drug is itself the very
corpus delicti of the violation of the law. The prosecution committed the fatal error of committing a breach in the chain of
custody. The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the
very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. Unfortunately for the part of the prosecution, there was significant
difference in the weight of the confiscated substance during the confiscation and during presentation.
Furthermore, the police officers who took part in the buy-bust operation failed to mark the seized item immediately after its
confiscation from Guzon. The Court explained in People v. Coreche the importance in the chain of custody of the
immediate marking of an item that is seized from an accused, to wit: Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of
the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the
starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding
handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference.
The Court has also determined that although a physical inventory of the items seized during the buy-bust operation forms
part of the case records, the buy-bust team failed to fully comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
for its preparation and execution. Under the law, the inventory must be made "in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom the items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof."
Besides these deficiencies in the preparation of the inventory, no photograph of the seized item, which is also required
under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, formed part of the case records.
In addition to the foregoing, the Court finds merit in Guzons argument that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer to the
witness stand was fatal to the prosecutions cause. We emphasize that in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
the prosecution must convincingly prove that the transaction or sale actually transpired. However, in the instant case, the
civilian who acted as poseur-buyer was never presented as witness.
Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and set aside. Accused-appellant is hereby acquitted.
in an unexpected manner, shot Judge Voltaire Rosales, hitting the latter on his head and neck thus causing fatal injuries
which resulted to the instantaneous death of said Judge Rosales. Said accused escaped through the use of a motorcycle then
driven by the accused ALDRIN GALICIA y MICOSA.
Two civilians were presented by the prosecution as witnesses for said crime. One was able to talk to the perpetrators and
one was able to witness directly the shooting.
The defense on the other hand countered that the victim was shot by men in black bonnets and no one could identify the
perpetrators.
On appeal at the instance of the accused, CA affirmed the decision of the RTC
ISSUE/S:
WON the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the decision of the RTC
HELD:
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit a reversible error in affirming the decision of the RTC.
Accused questions the credibility of the witnesses presented and further presented the discrepancies committed by the
witnesses in their affidavits and testimonies however the SC ruled that discrepancies and/or inconsistencies between a
witness affidavit and testimony do not necessarily impair his credibility as affidavits are taken ex parte and are often
incomplete or inaccurate for lack or absence of searching inquiries by the investigating officer. What is important is, in the
over-all analysis of the case, the trial courts findings and conclusions are duly supported by the evidence on record.
This Court observes restraint in interfering with the trial courts assessment of the witnesses credibility, absent any
indication or showing that the trial court overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion, more so, when the
CA sustained such assessment, as in this case, where it affirmed the trial courts findings of fact, the veracity of the
testimonies of the witnesses, the determination of physical evidence and conclusions.
Decision by the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed.
of "AAA" and then perform sexual movements. Immediately upon seeing the sexual molestations, Boca grabbed
appellant's arm, handcuffed him and brought him to the barangay hall.
The defense, on his part, at the time of the incident, he was 63 years of age and worked as a porter at the Pasig public
market. He claimed that even before the July 24, 2004 incident, he already knew "AAA" as the latter used to ask money
from him. He denied having raped "AAA." He narrated that on July 24, 2004, he saw "AAA" urinating near the stairs of
the second floor of the Mega Parking Plaza while he was just standing nearby. Suddenly, Boca, the security guard, arrived
and handcuffed him. He was thereafter brought to the authorities. He could not think of any reason or motive why "AAA"
would file a rape charge against him.|||
RTC convicted him of statutory the victim being 11 years old at the time of the commission of the crime and was
subsequently affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of rape despite failure on the
part of the prosecution to prove that there was indeed a sexual intercourse between the accused-appellant and the private
complainant.
HELD:
No. The trial court did not err in convicting accused-appellant. Rape of a minor under 12 years of age is statutory rape. 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. 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. In statutory rape, there are only two elements that need to be established, to
wit: 1) carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse; and 2) that the woman is below 12 years of age. In this case, the
prosecution satisfactorily established the fact of carnal knowledge. It is likewise beyond dispute that AAA was only 11
years of age at the time she was raped. Her Certificate of Live Birth showed that she was born on November 26, 1992. The
lower courts therefore correctly held appellant guilty of the crime of statutory rape and imposed upon him the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
The present petition denied.
People v. Hadji Socor Candidia [G.R. No. 191263. October 16, 2013.]
FACTS:
Hadji Candidia was bound for Butuan City on board the Cebu Pacific Airline. At around 6:30 in the morning, upon her
entry at the departure area, prosecution witness Marilyn Trayvilla, while performing her duty as a female frisker, frisked
the accused Candidia and noticed something unusual and thick in the area of the latters buttocks. Upon inquiry, Cadidia
answered that it was only her sanitary napkin which caused the unusual thickness. Not convinced with Cadidias
explanation, Trayvilla and her female co-employee Leilani M. Bagsican brought the accused to the comfort room inside the
domestic airport to check. When she and Bagsican asked Cadidia to remove her underwear, they discovered that inside
were two sachets of shabu. The two sachets of shabu were turned over to their supervisor SPO3 Musalli I. Appang.
The accused, on the other hand, has another story to tell. She alleged that Trayvilla and Bagsican held her arms and asked
her if she was a Muslim. When she replied in the affirmative, the two women said that she might be carrying gold or
jewelries. Despite her denial, Trayvilla and Bagsican brought her to the comfort room and told her she might be carrying
39 | P a g e
shabu. She again denied the allegation but the two women told her to undress. When she asked why, they answered that her
back was bulging. In reply, she told them that she was having her menstrual period. Trayvilla and Bagsican did not believe
her and proceeded to ask her to remove her underwear. They later frisked her body but failed to recover
anything. Thereafter, the two women asked for money as they allegedly recovered two plastic sachets containing shabu
from her. At this moment, Cadidia became afraid and called her relatives for money. Her relatives arrived at the airport at
around 1 oclock in the afternoon of the same day but she failed to talk to them because she has already been brought to
Camp Crame for drug examination. She called her relatives again to ask forP200,000.00 and to bring the amount at 7
oclock in the morning of the next day. Her relatives arrived on the agreed day and time but managed to bring
only P6,000.00 which the police officers found unacceptable. As a consequence, Cadidia was subjected to inquest
proceedings.
After the arrest, the following Information was filed in Criminal Case No. 02-1464 for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of
Republic Act No. 9165. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the trial court found accusedappellant guilty as charged.
On appeal, the accused-appellant, contended that the trial court gravely erred when it failed to consider the conflicting
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Trayvilla and Bagsican as to who among them instructed the accused-appellant to
bring out the contents of her underwear. Another contradiction pressed on by the defense was the recollection of Bagsican
that when she and Trayvilla found the illegal drugs, Bagsican placed it inside her blazer for safekeeping, in contrast with
statement of SPO3 Appang that when Bagsican and Trayvilla went out of the comfort room, they immediately handed him
the shabu allegedly taken from the accused-appellant.
The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that the inconsistencies of the prosecutions
witnesses did not touch on material points. Hence, they can be disregarded for they failed to affect the credibility of the
evidence as a whole. In its decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court. The appellate court ruled
that the alleged contradictory statements of the prosecutions witnesses did not diminish their credibility as they pertained
only to minor details and did not dwell on the principal elements of the crime. It emphasized that the more important matter
was the positive identification of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime of illegal transportation of dangerous
drug.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime charged despite the conflicting
testimonies given by the witnesses.
HELD:
The contention of the accused is untenable. The Supreme Court ruled that in cases involving violations of Dangerous
Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are
police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the
contrary. Further, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose
conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe said
witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. Applying the foregoing, the SC affirmed the
findings of the lower court in the appreciation of facts and credibility of the witnesses.
Upon review, the SC found no such inconsistency. Bagsican testified that after confiscation, she put the two plastic sachets
of shabu in her blazer for safekeeping. She further narrated that afterwards, she turned over the accused and the plastic
sachets to SPO3 Appang. SPO3 Appang, in turn, testified that when the two female friskers went out of the comfort room,
40 | P a g e
they handed to him what was taken from the accused. The statements can be harmonized as a continuous and unbroken
recollection of events. Minor inconsistencies do not negate the eyewitnesses positive identification of the appellant as the
perpetrator of the crime. As long as the testimonies as a whole presented a coherent and believable recollection, the
credibility would still be upheld. What is essential is that the witnesses testimonies corroborate one another on material
details surrounding the commission of the crime.
Indeed, travellers are often notified through airport public address systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that
they are subject to search and if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be subject to seizure. These
announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches and
seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures.
41 | P a g e
Century Chinese v. Ling Na Lau [G.R. No. 188526. November 11, 2013.]
FACTS:
Ling Na Lau, respondent, doing business under the name and style Worldwide Pharmacy, and, is the sole distributor and
registered trademark owner of TOP GEL & DEVICE OF A LEAF papaya whitening soap by the Intellectual Property
Office for a period of ten years. Ping Na Lau, her representative, wrote a letter to NBI requesting assistance for an
investigation on drugstores selling counterfeit whitening papaya soaps bearing the appearance of their products.
Petitioners were among of the listed drugstores which were selling fake whitening soaps. Agent Furing and Esmael
conducted an investigation and able to confirm Pings complaint that such counterfeit products are being sold to several
drugstores. Esmael added that the products seized were different from the genuine quality of the original whitening soap.
Agent Furing applied for search warrants before the RTC against the petitioners for violation of unfair competition and
trademark infringement. RTC granted and issued the Search Warrant for trademark infringement and unfair competition
against petitioners.
Petitioners filed for Motion to Quash the Search Warrants contending that it violated the rule against forum shopping, that
Benjamin Yu is the sole owner and distributor of TOP-GEL and not Ling Na Lau, and there was the existence of a
prejudicial question which was a pending case against Ling Na Lau.
Respondent filed her opposition arguing the non-existence of forum shopping; that the pending case is immaterial and
irrelevant in this case; and that Yu cannot be considered as the sole owner and distributor of TOP-GEL.
RTC issued its Order sustaining the Motion to Quash the Search Warrants finding that the issuance of the questioned
search warrants were not supported by probable cause, hence, the grant of the Motion to Quash.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied. Respondent then appealed with the CA. CA
rendered its decision by granting the appeal and setting aside the order issued by the RTC.
CA found that the search warrants were applied for and issued for violations of Sections 155 and 168, in relation to Section
170, of the Intellectual Property Code and that the applications for the search warrants were in anticipation of criminal
actions which are to be instituted against petitioners; thus, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure was applicable. It
also ruled that the basis for the applications for issuance of the search warrants on grounds of trademarks infringement and
unfair competition was the trademark TOP GEL T.G. & DEVICE OF A LEAF; that respondent was the registered owner
of the said trademark, which gave her the right to enforce and protect her intellectual property rights over it by seeking
assistance from the NBI.
Petitioners filed its motion for reconsideration but CA denied it. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE/S:
WON the CA erred in reversing the RTC's quashal of the assailed search warrants.
HELD:
We find no merit in the petition.
SDEITC
The applications for the issuance of the assailed search warrants were for violations of Sections 155 and 168, both in
relation to Section 170 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the
42 | P a g e
Philippines. Section 155, in relation to Section 170, punishes trademark infringement; while Section 168, in relation to
Section 170, penalizes unfair competition.
Thus, we agree with the CA that the Rules on the Issuance of the Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement of
Intellectual Property Rights is not applicable in this case as the search warrants were not applied based thereon, but in
anticipation of criminal actions for violation of intellectual property rights under RA 8293. It was established that
respondent had asked the NBI for assistance to conduct investigation and search warrant implementation for possible
apprehension of several drugstore owners selling imitation or counterfeit TOP GEL T.G. & DEVICE OF A LEAF papaya
whitening soap. Also, in his affidavit to support his application for the issuance of the search warrants, NBI Agent Furing
stated that "the items to be seized will be used as relevant evidence in the criminal actions that are likely to be instituted."
Hence, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure applies.
A core requisite before a warrant shall validly issue is the existence of a probable cause, meaning "the existence of such
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched." And when the law
speaks of facts, the reference is to facts, data or information personally known to the applicant and the witnesses he may
present. Absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance
of a search warrant may be justified, the warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and is a nullity, its issuance being,
in legal contemplation, arbitrary.
The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of
conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with
probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a
full-blown trial.
The petition for review is DENIED.
of the seized evidence, and the lack of participation of the representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official in the operation.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was not properly established
HELD:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof.
First, it is important to note that Castillo did not raise the issue of the alleged non-compliance with Section 21 when the
case was still being heard in the trial court. This assertion must be argued before the trial court and not on appeal for the
first time. Nevertheless, the Court passed upon this question considering the gravity of its consequences on the liberty of
Castillo. We take this opportunity to reiterate jurisprudence which states that non-compliance with Section 21 does not
necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible because 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.
Second, despite the seemingly mandatory language used in the procedural rule at issue, a perusal of Section 21, Article II
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 reveals the existence of a clause which may render
non-compliance with said procedural rule non-prejudicial to the prosecution of drug offenses, to wit:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and
be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where
the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied.)
Third, Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 ensures that the chain of custody of the seized drugs to be used in evidence
must be complete and unbroken. We have defined "chain of custody" as the duly recorded authorized movements and
44 | P a g e
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
We reiterated the importance of the chain of custody as a means of validating evidence in the recent case of People v. Del
Rosario, where we held:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in
such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was
and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which
it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there
had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the
same.
Lastly, while testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an
unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not
readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its
uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination
and even substation and exchange. In other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering
without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not dictates the level of strictness in the application of the
chain of custody rule.
With regard to the first link in the chain of custody, the testimony of PO2 Santos confirms the fact that three heat-sealed
plastic sachets each containing 0.04 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu were seized from Castillo during
a buy-bust operation conducted by PO2 Santos, PO1 Chavez and an unnamed confidential informant. The seized drugs
were immediately marked at the place where Castillo was apprehended.
The illegal drugs seized from Castillo were then turned over to Police Senior Inspector Hoover SM Pascual (PSI Pascual),
the team leader and investigator of the buy-bust operation, who prepared and signed a Memorandum16requesting the
laboratory examination of the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance previously marked by PO2
Santos as "MCA-1," "MCA-2" and "MCA-3," respectively. This document together with the marked specimens was then
transmitted to the Eastern Police District (EPD) Crime Laboratory Office to determine if they contained dangerous drugs.
As per Physical Sciences Report No. D-486-06E,17 signed by Police Senior Inspector Isidro L. Carino (PSI Carino), the
qualitative examination of the contents of the three plastic sachets yielded a positive result for the presence of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The same marked specimens were later identified by PO2 Santos in open
court as the same items that he seized from Castillo when confronted with them by Prosecutor Conrado Tolentino
(Tolentino). After PO2 Santos positively identified them, Prosecutor Tolentino then requested the trial court that the three
plastic sachets containing shabu be marked as Exhibits "G," "G-1," and "G-2," respectively.18 From the foregoing narrative,
it is readily apparent that the other links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs have been sufficiently
established.
In the case at bar, we concur with Castillos assertion that the arresting officers involved were not able to strictly comply
with the procedural guidelines stated in Section 21(1), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. However, our affinity with
Castillos argument does not sway us towards granting her absolution because, notwithstanding the procedural error, the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the illegal drugs used in this case were duly preserved and the chain of custody of
said evidence was shown to be unbroken.
45 | P a g e
crystalline substance. The RTC and the CA were not convinced. Hence this petition stating among others the Police
officers' non-compliance with the requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous drugs under RA 9165.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the accused was validly searched after his arrest in flagrante delicto
HELD:
Yes. The two plastic sachets containing shabu subject of the case for the illegal possession of drugs were found in
appellant's pocket after a search on his person was made following his arrest in flagrante delicto for the illegal sale of shabu
. It must be remembered that according to Sec. 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, a person lawfully arrested may be
searched for anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a warrant.
47 | P a g e