Habitual Delinquency; Drug cases

For the purpose of Article 65, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent,
is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification,
he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.RTC erred in
withholding the benefit of parole. Appellant was previously convicted by final
judgment for drug-related cases on March 3, 1992 and June 19, 2000 and by the
RTC on May 23, 2006.
It is clear, therefore, that habitual delinquency is considered only with respect to the
crimes specified in the aforequoted Article. In the instant case, appellant was
charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, the same crime adjudged in his
two (2) prior convictions, and not of crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, as required by the RPC. Hence, the law
on habitual delinquency is simply inapplicable to appellant. Edwin Dalawis y
Hidalgo; People v. Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo; G.R. No. 197925; November 9,
2015

Dangerous Drugs; Illegal possession

For illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must
establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or
object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
All the elements were established in this case. Incident to his lawful arrest, when he
was frisked three (3) plastic packets containing traces of white crystalline
substance, later on found to be traces of a dangerous drug, was taken from his
possession.
In a number of cases, it has been declared that mere possession of a regulated drug
per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possendi sufficient
to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession -the
onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or
animus possidendi. Mere possession of the prohibited substance is a crime per se
and the burden of proof is upon accused-appellant to show that he has a license or
permit under the law to possess the prohibited drug. People of the Philippines v.
Ramonito B Asignar; G.R. No. 206593, November 10, 2015

Conspiracy
The agreement to commit the crime, the unity of purpose or the community of
design among the accused must be conveyed such as either by the use of the term

"conspire" or its derivatives and synonyms or by allegations of basic facts

constituting the conspiracy. Conspiracy must be alleged, not just inferred, in the
information on which basis an accused can aptly enter his plea, a matter that is not
to be confused with or likened to the adequacy of evidence that may be required to
prove it. In establishing conspiracy when properly alleged, the evidence to support
it need not necessarily be shown by direct proof but may be inferred from shown
acts and conduct of the accused.
In the instant case, conspiracy is alleged only as a mode of committing the crime.
The Court finds that the Information filed against the petitioner adequately complied
with the requirements as set forth in Lazarte. The Information charges that the
petitioner, with Clemente, took FEBTC's money through fraudulent transfers to and
withdrawal from the former' s Account Number 5115-12827-6. Although the words
"conspire" and "confederated' do not appear in the indictment, there is a clear
allegation that the petitioner and Clemente were united in their purpose of
fraudulently taking FEBTC's money. The Information, thus, enables the petitioner to
amply prepare for his defense. Francisco T. Inocencio v. People of the
Philippines; G.R. 205760, Nov ember 9, 2015

Rape; Elements
For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution has the burden to prove that (1)
the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished the act
through force, threat or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.
In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed
where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice. The moral and
physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his
beastly desires. The age of AAA and her relationship to the accused-appellant
qualify the rape committed against her. In this case, the qualifying circumstances of
minority and relationship were specifically alleged in the information against the
accused-appellant. People of the Philippines v. Bienvenido Remedios y
Saramosing; G.R. No. 211056 November 10, 2015

Rape; Elements
Accused-appellant contends that the element of intimidation is lacking in this case
to prove his guilt to the crime of rape. Accused-appellant asserts that based on
MMM's testimony, he did not employ intimidation as to have cowed her into
submission. His alleged acts of covering MMM's mouth and straddling her with his
legs were performed only after MMM woke up and were never used to compel MMM

into having sexual intercourse with him. Accused-appellant also assails the lack of
medical basis to prove that there was sexual contact between him and MMM. In this
case, the fact of forceful sexual intercourse is even bolstered and confirmed by the
physical examination on the private part of MM[M] which revealed that she
sustained abrasions on the left upper and middle quadrant of her labia minora.
Indeed, as jurisprudence tell [u]s, when a victim's testimony of her violation is
corroborated by physical finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation for
concluding that there was carnal knowledge.33 Having established the elements of
carnal knowledge accompanied by force, the crime of rape was successfully proven
by the prosecution. People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Simbulan Arceo;
G.R. No. 208842, November 10, 2015
Dangerous Drugs; Chain of Custody
As to accused-appellants' assertion that the chain of custody rule has not been
complied with when no inventory or acknowledgment receipt signed by Atty. Gaspe
was submitted in evidence and that no evidence was shown as to the condition of
the specimen upon its presentation to Atty. Gaspe, who was not presented in court
to explain the discrepancy, we are also not persuaded. This Court has time and
again adopted the chain of custody rule, a method of authenticating evidence which
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.
This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is 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. 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. It is essential for the
prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the
suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be
established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt. In this
case, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was duly established from the
time the heat-sealed plastic sachets were seized and marked by PO 1 Pagaragan to
its subsequent turnover to Atty. Gaspe of the PDEA Office in Quezon City. PO 1
Pagaragan was also the one who personally delivered and submitted the specimens
composed of 293 sachets of shabu to the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory
examination. The specimens were kept in custody until they were presented as
evidence before the trial court and positively identified by IOI Pagaragan as the very
same specimens he marked during the inventory. The fact that the
Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized was not signed by Atty. Gaspe does not
undermine the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized from
accused-appellants. The failure to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures in

the inventory of seized drugs does not render an arrest of the accused illegal or the
items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. 28 What is of utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as
the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. People v. Punzalan; G.R. No. 199087, November 11, 2015
Conspiracy
We agree that conspiracy between appellants was established in this case.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit the felony. Proof of the actual
agreement to commit the crime need not be direct because conspiracy may be
implied or inferred from their acts. It was convincingly shown that both appellants
had acted in concert to achieve a common purpose of assaulting and killing Joseph.
Appellants were together when they followed Joseph walking along the road;
appellant Romeo held Joseph by his shoulder and boxed him while appellant
Edgardo held Joseph's hands from behind. Appellant Romeo told Joseph's friends
who saw what was happening to go home and not to be ipvolved; appellants
continued mauling Joseph and when he fell to the ground unconscious, appellant
Edgardo smashed his face with a stone. Appellants walked away together from the
crime scene as soon as they had achieved their common purpose. People v.
Zabala and Albius; G.R. No. 203087 November 23, 2015

Treachery
We also find that treachery attended the commission of the crime. There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially
to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the
offended party might make.47 Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist,
namely: (a) the employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of
execution was deliberately and consciously adopted.
Joseph was walking home unsuspecting of the imminent danger to his life.
Appellants came from behind and in a sudden and unexpected manner assaulted
Joseph who was not able to defend himself from such attack. In fact, he was
continuously mauled until he fell to the ground unconscious and then appellant
Edgardo smashed his head with a stone. Even if the attack is frontal but is sudden
and unexpected, giving no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself,
there would be treachery. People v. Zabala and Albius; G.R. No. 203087
November 23, 2015

Kidnapping; Elements
The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's
liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect the
same. 26 The crime of serious illegal detention consists not only of placing a person
in an enclosure, but also of detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his
liberty. When deprivation of liberty occurs under any of the circumstances listed
under Article 267, paragraph 4 is present, the crime of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention is consummated
The foregoing clearly showed that AAA was deprived of his liberty when he yielded
to the dictates of appellant and did not leave the house out of fear. Appellant
instilled such fear into AAA making him believe that he is a Sultan who has
bodyguards constantly watching AAA's every move. The minor AAA thus realized he
was already being detained ("nakakulong") being under the control of his captor,
appellant, who will prevent him from leaving should he attempt to do so. We have
held that the following elements must be established by the prosecution to obtain a
conviction for kidnapping, viz.: (a) the offender is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps
or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; ( c) the act of
detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and ( d) in the commission of the offense,
any of the following circumstances is present: (1) the kidnapping or detention lasts
for more than three days; (2) it is committed by simulating public authority; (3) any
serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained, or
threats to kill him are made; or ( 4) the person kidnapped or detained, is a minor, a
female, or a public officer. If the victim is a minor, or is kidnapped or detained for
the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of detention becomes immaterial.29
The essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled
with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation. The
fact that AAA voluntarily went with appellant to Antipolo, upon appellant's
pretension that he had to open the vault of his house, is immaterial. What is
controlling is the act of the accused in detaining the victim against his or her will
after the offender is able to take the victim in his custody. In short, the carrying
away of the victim in the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention can
either be made forcibly or, as in the instant case, fraudulently. People v. Franco
Darmo De Guzman; G.R. 214502, November 25, 2015
Treachery
As for the qualifying circumstance of treachery, paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the
Revised Penal Code defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods,
or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the

defense which the offended party might make.. The RTC and CA correctly ruled that
the eyewitnesses were able to establish treachery on the basis of Manuel and
Diego's testimony that accused-appellant shot the victim immediately after arriving
as the latter turned around after talking to the witnesses. The Court has ruled that
the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest
provocation on the part of the person attacked. In People v. Perez, it was explained
that a frontal attack, such as the shooting in this case, does not necessarily rule out
treachery. The qualifying circumstance may still be appreciated if the attack was so
sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare for his or her
defense. The sudden appearance of accused-appellant while Raymundo was
preoccupied talking to Manuel and Diego and the use of a firearm resulted in a
situation where the attack caught the victim by surprise depriving him of the
chance to put up any defense before the fatal shot was fired. While he was able to
parry a second shot, the first shot fired by appellant has already inflicted a fatal
wound in the victim's body. Thus, treachery was correctly appreciated in this case.
People v. Salibad; G.R. No. 210616 November 25, 2016
Unlicense Firearms
The Court has clarified that there is no need to present the firearm itself to prove
the existence of an unlicensed firearm. In People v. Lualhati, this Court merely
stated that the existence of the firearm must be established; it did not rule that the
firearm itself had to be presented as evidence. Thus, in People v. Orehuela, the
Court held that the existence of the firearm can be established by testimony, even
without the presentation of the said firearm.
The Court has used these guidelines not only for the crime of illegal possession of
an unlicensed firearm itself but also in the appreciation of the special aggravating
circumstance of using an unlicensed firearm in the commission of a crime. In this
case, we find the testimony of Manuel and Diego as to the existence of the firearm
and its use in the crime of murder coupled with the Certification from the Philippine
National Police Firearms and Explosives Division to the effect that accused-appellant
was not a licensed firearm holder of any kind and caliber sufficient to consider the
special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm. People v.
Salibad; G.R. No. 210616 November 25, 2016
Dangerous Drugs; Illegal Sale
In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of
marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long
as the sale of dangerous drug is adequately proven and the drug subject of the
transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the
presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation. What is material is the
proof that the transaction or sale took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of the corpus delicti as evidence. In the instant case, the prosecution was able to

establish the consummated transaction between the poseur-buyer and accusedappellants.

Moreover, we note that accused-appellants were charged with selling, trading,
delivering, giving away, dispatching in transit and transporting dangerous drugs
under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. 14 The charge was not limited to the
selling of dangerous drugs. The aforesaid provision of law punishes not only the sale
but also the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the
entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller. In the distribution of prohibited
drugs, the payment of any consideration is immaterial. The mere act of distributing
the prohibited drugs to others is in itself a punishable offense. People v. Kamad
Akmad; G.R. No. 195194, Nov 25, 2015