Criminal Law Justice Del Castillo Digests

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
Lasallian Commission on Bar Operations 2018
CRIMINAL LAW
Justice Del Castillo Digests
Chel Sy Tet Valeza Iris Quintana
LCBO Chairperson Academic Affairs Criminal Law Chairperson
Chairperson
Nico Garcia Virgil Bombita
LCBO Vice Chair for Janine Tutanes Criminal Law Deputy
Internals Rod Zantua Chairperson
Academic Affairs Deputy
Steph Griar Chairpersons Aaron Santos
LCBO Vice Chair for Criminal Law I Subject Head
Externals
Mitzi Dumayas
Pat Costales Criminal Law II Subject Head
LCBO Executive Secretary
Ces Naga
LCBO Executive Treasurer
Criminal Law Justice Del Castillo Digests
REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK I
VILLARIN v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 175289 | 31 Aug 2011
General Principles in Criminal Law
DOCTRINE: The offenses under PD 705 are mala prohibita.
FACTS:
• The prosecution witness Granada testified that he noticed a utility jeep loaded with timber stop
near his house, and identified Latayada as the driver and Boyatac as one of his companions. He
further testified that these men unloaded the timber near Batinay Bridge. Upon further
investigation, it was learned that Villarin, a Brgy. Captain requisitioned the timber.
• According to the Petitioners, Villarin ordered the timber because he was pressured to repair the
Batinay Bridge which had become impassable.
• The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged. It further ruled that while the timber was
intended for the repair of the bridge, it is still a face that the products were obtained without the
necessary authority and legal documents required under the forest laws and regulations. This was
affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether the Petitioners are guilty of violating Sec. 68 of PD 705?
HELD: Yes, under Sec. 68 of PD 705, mere possession of forest products without the legal documents
required is considered a consummation of the offense. The prosecution was able to prove this through the
presentation of witnesses, documents, and photographs. Villarin even admitted to being the one who
commissioned the procurement of the timber. Further, that there was no intent for personal gain is
inconsequential as the offense is malum prohibitum.
PEOPLE v. ALBALATE
G.R. No. 174480 | 18 December 2009
Felonies
DOCTRINE: The qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship to the offender must be alleged in
the criminal complaint or information and proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself. There
must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused.
FACTS:
The accused was charged for 2 counts of rape committed upon his niece.
• The prosecutionThat the victim was just a twelve (12) years old barrio lass living in the house
of her paternal grandparents and in the said house where she was forcibly deflowered by
her uncle Reynaldo Albalate, Jr. on two separate incidents that transpired.
• Maria candidly testified that in the morning of the said day while she was alone in
the house of her grandparents, the accused Reynaldo Albalate, Jr. armed with an ice
pick forcibly removed her dress and placed himself on top of her. Afterwards,
Reynaldo Albalate, Jr. inserted his penis in her private part and at the same time
kissed and warned her that if she will tell anybody what he had done to her, he will
kill her. She added that on the evening of the same day the accused first boxed her,
3
then undressed her and once again put himself on top of her and proceeded to rape
her.
• Testimony and Witness presented by the accused:
• The accused interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He denied that he twice
raped the victim. He also claimed that the parents of the victim were mad at him
that is why they filed the instant cases against him.
• The other defense witness, Florentina Escleto, tried to bolster the alleged innocence
of the accused of the crimes. The said witness tried to establish the defense of alibi
in favor of the accused. She testified that when the subject incidents of rape
happened the accused was with her and her son making copra at Barangay Ilayang
Ilog-B, Lopez, Quezon. She added that accused arrived at Brgy. Ilayang Ilog-B on
only left said Barangay at the end of the month.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC erred in finding that the qualifying circumstance of minority to be absent?
HELD: No, qualifying circumstances or special qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal
certainty and clearness as the crime itself; otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified
form.
• As a qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape, the concurrence of the victims minority and her
relationship to the accused-appellant must be both alleged and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• The RTC did not err in finding the absence of the qualifying circumstance of minority. The court
held that the prosecutions evidence as to the age of the victim constituted merely of the victims
testimony. We find this bare testimony insufficient proof of her age.
• As we held in People v. Manalili, the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender
must be alleged in the criminal complaint or information and proved conclusively and indubitably
as the crime itself. As was held in People v. Lopit, in the prosecution of criminal cases, especially
those involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every
fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established.
PEOPLE v. NAPALIT
G.R. No. 181247 |19 March 2010
Felonies
DOCTRINE: Even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person, Treachery may still be
appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to
defend himself or to retaliate.
FACTS:
● Joseph Genete, together with Guanzon and three other companions, passed by the group of
Napalit. The latter shouted “ano, gusto nyo, away?” and then stabbed Genete with an ice pick at
the back. Guanzon attempted to help but he was also stabbed by a companion of the appellant.
Genete died because of the incident. An Information was filed charging Napalit with the crime of
murder.
● The defense argued that there was no treachery because the victim was forewarned of the attack
when the appellant shouted ano, gusto nyo, away?. It also claimed that the prosecution failed to
prove that appellant consciously adopted the mode of attack as to insure its commission without
risk to himself.
ISSUE: Whether treachery is present in the commission of the crime?
4
HELD: Yes, the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an
unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real chance to defend himself.
• It may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person since
what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend
himself or to retaliate.
• Here, there is no doubt that the victim was surprised by the attack coming from the appellant.
The shout of Napalit immediately before stabbing the victim could not be deemed as sufficient
warning to the latter of the impending attack on his person. After challenging him to a fight,
appellant immediately lunged at him and stabbed him at the back.
• Under the circumstances, the victim was indisputably caught off guard by the sudden and
deliberate attack coming from the appellant, leaving him with no opportunity to raise any
defense against the attack. The mode of the attack adopted by the appellant rendered the victim
unable and unprepared to defend himself.
PEOPLE v. BUSTAMANTE
G.R. No. 172357 | 19 March 2010
Felonies
DOCTRINE: For conspiracy to exist, it is not necessary that there be an agreement for an appreciable
period prior to the occurrence. It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused
had the same purpose and were united in its execution.
FACTS:
● Romeleo Quintos went to NAIA to fetch his brother. While waiting, he was arrested by Soriano for
expired license. He was shoved into a cell. He cursed and shouted asking to be released. Jose
ordered him to stop but he persisted. Thus, Jose, Salvador and Baluyot entered the cell and they
took turns in boxing him. Delos Trino stayed near the door. After a while, Baluyot handed a piece
of grayish plastic cord to Salvador which they used to strangle Romeleo. Information for Murder
was filed against them.
● RTC and CA found that they conspired in killing Romeleo and held them liable for murder.
● Appellants averred that there was no conspiracy considering they were in different areas of when
the crime took place.
ISSUE: Whether conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt?
HELD: Yes, the places were appellants claim to be at the of the incident are a short distance away from
the scene of the crime and one could travel to and from these points in a little over a few seconds or
minutes of leisure walking.
• Besides, it is not required for conspiracy to exist that there be an agreement for an appreciable
period prior to the occurrence. It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the
accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. Direct proof of such agreement is
not necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated,
or inferred from the acts of the accused which point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action
and community of interest.
● All accused conspired, confederated and helped one another in murdering the victim with abuse
of superior strength by strangling and hanging the victim Romeleo Quintos causing him to die of
asphyxia. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
5
QUIDET v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 170289 | 08 April 2010
Felonies
DOCTRINE: In determining whether conspiracy exists, it is not sufficient that the attack be joint and
simultaneous what is determinative is proof establishing that the accused were animated by one and the
same purpose.
FACTS:
● On their way to visit a friend, Jimmy and Andrew saw Taban, Quidet and Tubo, come out of the
house of one Tomas Osep . Taban suddenly stabbed Andrew on the chest. Andrew retaliated by
boxing Taban. Jimmy tried to pacify Andrew and Taban but the latter stabbed him in the abdomen.
Taban then immediately fled. Meanwhile, after Jimmy fell down, Tubo threw a drinking glass at
Andrews face while Quidet boxed Andrews jaw. Tubo stabbed Jimmy who was then lying face
down on the ground twice on the back with an ice pick after which he fled. Petitioner then boxed
Jimmy’s mouth.
● Quidet, Taban and Tubo were charged with homicide or the death of Jimmy Tagarda and with
frustrated homicide for stab wounds sustained by Andrew Tagarda. Quidet averred that
conspiracy was not established and thus, he could not be held liable for murder and frustrated
murder.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner acted in conspiracy with the other accused?
HELD: No, the existence of conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. In determining whether
conspiracy exists, it is not sufficient that the attack be joint and simultaneous, what is determinative is
proof establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose. Simultaneousness does
not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose.
● Here, the overt acts of petitioner before, during and after the incident shows that there is no unity
of purpose among them. The stabbing incident arose from a purely accidental encounter between
the two groups. Moreover, unlike Taban and Tubo, petitioner was unarmed during the incident,
thus, negating his intent to kill the victims. Petitioners participation was limited to boxing Andrew
and Jimmy after Taban and Tubo had stabbed the victims. His acts were neither necessary nor
indispensable to the commission of the crimes as they were done after the stabbing. Taken together,
the evidence of the prosecution does not meet the test of moral certainty in order to establish that
petitioner conspired with Taban and Tubo to commit the crimes of homicide and attempted
homicide. Thus, petitioner is criminally liable only for his individual acts.
PEOPLE v. BARON
G.R. No. 185209 | 28 June 2010
Felonies
DOCTRINE: In order for the exempting circumstance of fear of an equal or greater injury to be accepted,
a mere threat of future injury is insufficient. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no
opportunity for the accused to escape.
6
FACTS:
• Baron along with others was charged with the Special Complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
Baron and others rode the tricycle of the victim and midway to the journey declared a holdup.
They took the wallet and the tricycle of the victim while some of the accused dragged the driver
to the side of the road and stabbed him to death.
• Baron raised the defense of existence of the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable
fear/irresistible force of an equal or greater injury. He claims that he was just afraid of his co-
accused. And that the existence of the conspiracy was not duly proven.
ISSUE: Whether or not Baron is guilty.
HELD: Yes, there were numerous occasions that Baron could escape but he did not do so. While his co-
accused was stabbing the victim Baron was left alone inside the tricycle. He did not even attempt to
escape. Therefore the exempting circumstance could not be appreciated in this case.
There was no evidence adduced in this case that the appellant attempted to prevent the killing. Thus,
regardless of the acts individually performed by the appellant and his co-accused, and applying the basic
principle in conspiracy that the “act of one is the act of all,” the appellant is guilty as a co-conspirator
PEOPLE v. BEDUYA
G.R. No. 175315 | 9 August 2010
Felonies
DOCTRINE: The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that
the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of
the aggressors and the victim.
FACTS:
• Appelants Elizer and Ric were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.
• The information against them alleged that they conspired with intent to kill and with abuse and
taking advantage of their superior strength in attacking, boxing and stabbing one Dominador
Acope Sr. with a use of knife which caused his death.
• They were both arrested and during the arraignment, they pleaded not guilty.
• Trial and appellate courts commonly concluded that there was intent to kill on the part of the
appellants and that they employed abuse of superior strength to ensure the execution and success
of the crime.
• It ruled that as Ric punched the victim in the shoulder and appellant Elizer delivered the fatal stab
wound, this combined assault gave them the advantage over the victim who must have been taken
by surprise. Although the victim struck at accused with a piece of wood, he did so only after he
had been stabbed, causing the two accused to run away.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in considering the qualifying circumstance of abuse of
superior strength.
HELD: Yes, abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously
advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.
• The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the
crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength
of the aggressors and the victim.
7
• In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence of a relative disparity in age, size and
strength, or force, except for the showing that two assailants, one of them (Elizer) armed with a
knife, assaulted the victim. The presence of two assailants, one of them armed with a knife, does
not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength.
• Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this circumstance. Neither did
the prosecution present proof to show that the victim suffered from an inferior physical condition
from which the circumstance can be inferred.
• In fact, there is evidence that the victim was able to get hold of a piece of wood and deliver
retaliatory blows against the knife-wielder, Elizer. Furthermore, the events leading to the
stabbing further disprove any finding of deliberate intent on the part of the assailants to abuse
their superior strength over that of the victim.
BUG-ATAN v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 175195 | 15 September 2010
Felonies
DOCTRINE:
Conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the
crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community
of interest.
DOCTRINE: Treachery qualifies the crime to murder. There is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms which tend directly and
especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense that the offended
party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the
unsuspecting victim depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its
commission without risk to himself.
FACTS:
● For the death of Pastor Papauran (victim), Norman Maramara (Maramara) was indicted for
murder.
• After pleading not guilty but before his trial, Maramara moved and was allowed by the trial court
to enter into a plea bargaining with the prosecution and the victim's next of kin.
● Accordingly, Maramara, upon re-arraignment, pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of homicide, a
crime necessarily included in the charge of murder.
● It would appear, however, that before he was indicted or thereabout, Maramara executed an
extrajudicial confession wherein he admitted shooting the victim to death and implicated as his co-
conspirators herein petitioners Gregorio Manatad, Virgilio Bug-atan (Bug-atan) and Bernie
Labandero.
● Based on the account of Maramara, petitioners were accordingly charged with murder.
● Accused-appellants Manatad and Bug-atan arrived at La Paloma, Labangon, Cebu City to meet
with Maramara whom they instructed to go to Mandaue City and kill Pastor Papauran.
● Maramara met with accused- appellants Bug-atan and Labandero at Labangon, Cebu City.
Thereafter, Maramara and accused-appellant Labandero boarded a passenger jeepney and
proceeded to Mandaue City to carry out the task of killing Pastor Papauran.
● Accused-appellant Bug-atan, on the other hand, rode a motorcycle to Labogon, Mandaue City and
waited in the corner outside Pastor Papauran's house to act as back-up.
8
● Maramara and accused-appellant Labandero arrived at Labogon and proceeded to the house of
Pastor Papauran. Maramara shot Pastor Papauran once in the head and then he and accused-
appellant Labandero walked away and ran towards the highway.
● They boarded a passenger jeepney towards Consolacion. Three days later, accused-appellant Bug-
atan and Maramara went to Labogon on a motorcycle to confirm if Pastor Papauran was really
dead.
● When they saw that Pastor Papauran was already dead, accused-appellant Bug-atan told
Maramara to keep silent about the killing and that he would pay the latter
ISSUE: Whether conspiracy was proven
HELD: Yes, the records teem with circumstances correctly outlined by the trial court clearly indicating
the collective and individual acts of the petitioners which reveal their common purpose to assault and
liquidate the victim.
• In the case at bench, as categorically attested to by witness Maramara. accused-appellants asked
him to kill Pastor Papauran in exchange for money and dropping an earlier case filed against
him. They also accompanied him on the day of the shooting to see to it that the job was done.
The concerted acts of accused-appellants reveal a consciously adopted plan and clearly
demonstrate their joint design to exterminate Pastor Papauran. Conspiracy having been
established, the act of one is the act of all.
• In conspiracy, proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence. Conspiracy may be
deduced from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime which
indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of
interest. To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution nor take
part in every act and may not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the
execution of the conspiracy.
ISSUE: Whether treachery was present?
HELD: Yes, as the evidence stands, the crime committed by petitioners is murder in view of the attending
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.
• Treachery qualifies the crime to murder. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms which tend directly and especially to
ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense that the offended party
might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the
unsuspecting victim depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its
commission without risk to himself.
• Before evident premeditation may be appreciated, the following elements must be proved: a) the
time when the accused determined to commit the crime; b) an act manifestly indicating that the
accused has clung to his determination; and, c) sufficient lapse of time between the determination
and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
FRANCO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 171328 | 16 February 2011
Felonies
DOCTRINE: There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to
commit it. Conspiracy must be proven on the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the
agreement of the parties.
9
FACTS:
• Lourdes Antonio testified that Lyzah Franco, a friend of her niece, swindled her. Franco offered
to assist Antonio in purchasing a used car and introduced herself as an Assistance
Administrative Coordinator of Final Access Marketing, which was engaged in the sale and
financing of second-hand and repossessed vehicles.
• Antonio agreed to the offer since she and her husband were looking for a used cab for their
taxicab operation. They went to a showroom and chose a Blue Mazda 323 from the display.
• Franco went to Antonio’s house to collect the downpayment of P80,000. Franco promised the car
will b delivered in 3 days but such did not materialize and could not be reached or found
anymore.
• Franco denied involvement and was a mere employee of Final Access Marketing and knew of
her employers’ scheme when it was reported.
ISSUE: Whether or not conspiracy was proven in this case.
HELD: Yes, there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to
commit it. Conspiracy must be proven on the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the
agreement of the parties. Evidently, petitioners’-accused actions were in relation to the attainment of a
common objective. They had vital roles in the nefarious scheme to sell a vehicle that they knew would
never be delivered, but for which they obtained a substantial sum of money from Lourdes.
• The fact that they continued to offer for sale a second-hand car to Lourdes is indicative of deceit
and their complicity in the conspiracy to commit estafa. The manner in which petitioners
transacted business with Erlinda and Lourdes as well as their awareness of other similar
complaints with Hoy Gising were sufficient to establish the existence of a modus operandi.
• Several circumstances in this case conclusively show Franco’s role in defrauding Lourdes. She
was the one who personally approached Lourdes and actively made representations on behalf of
Final Access Marketing despite previous knowledge of the company’s failure to deliver the
vehicle sold to Erlinda. She offered to help Lourdes purchase a second-hand car by presenting
herself as an Assistant Administrative Coordinator of said company. She also assisted Lourdes in
selecting a car she wanted to buy. Six days later, Franco arrived with Besario and Rule in the house
of Lourdes after regular business hours. Franco made the necessary introductions and they
commenced with a presentation that persuaded Lourdes to part with her money. They showed
Lourdes a prepared Sales Proposal Agreement that Franco signed as a sales executive.
MARQUEZ, et. al. v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 181138 | 3 December 2012
Felonies
DOCTRINE: Yes, it must be stressed that what is important in conspiracy is that all conspirators
performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate an unmistakably common
purpose or design to commit the crime.
FACTS:
• Marlon Mallari suggested the Ricky Marquez, Roy Bernardo, and Jomer Magalong, with Ryan
Benzon rob the Rice-in-a-Box store located at the corner of U.E
• Marquez then got a lead pipe and handed it to Magalong, which he and Bernardo used to
destroy the padlock of the store.
• Mallari was designated as the look-out while petitioners and Benzon entered the store and
carried away all the items inside it which consisted of rice cookers, a blender and food items.
10
• On the same day, owner Sonia Valderosa was informed that her store was forcibly opened and
that her freezer along with other items in the store were missing.
• Marquez, et. al. denied that they robbed the stall and claimed that it was already open when
they passed by it.
ISSUE: Whether or not conspiracy is proven.
HELD: Yes, it must be stressed that what is important in conspiracy is that all conspirators performed
specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate an unmistakably common purpose or
design to commit the crime. The responsibility of the conspirators is therefore collective rendering all of
them equally liable regardless of the extent of their respective participations.
PEOPLE v. JALBONIAN
G.R. No. 180281 | 1 July 2013
Felonies
DOCTRINE: There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure
its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
FACTS:
• The Barangay Chairman (Valenciano) testified that there was a barangay assembly meeting and
after such meeting was adjourned, the participants left the school premises.
• From a distance of about 3-arm’s length, Valenciano saw appellant position himself behind
Fortunato Quintanilla, Jr., stab the latter on the back with a knife and immediately run away.
• Valenciano ordered the arrest of appellant.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is treachery.
HELD: Yes, treachery is evident from the fact that the victim could not have been aware of the imminent
peril to his life. He was unprepared for the sudden, unexpected and unprovoked attack on his person
when appellant stabbed his back with a knife then swiftly ran away.
HEIRS OF OCHOA VS. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION

G.R. No. 170071 | 9 March 2011
Criminal and Civil Liabilities
DOCTRINE: A ruling on the culpability of the offender will have no bearing on said independent civil
action based on an entirely different cause of action, i.e., culpa contractual.
FACTS:
• Jose Marcial K. Ochoa died through an accident because of high speed and negligence of the
driver while on board an Avis taxicab owned and operated by G & S Transport Corporation
• Ruby, wife of the deceased and the minor children, through counsel, sent G & S a letter
demanding indemnification for Jose’s death, loss of earning capacity and funeral expenses
amounting to P15M.
• Because G&S failed to heed the same, the heirs filed a complaint for damages on the ground
that it failed to observe extraordinary diligence.
11
• But G&S alleged that the proximate cause of the death was the fortuitous event and/or the
negligence of the driver of the delivery van that hit the taxicab. It claimed that it exercised the
diligence required of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of the
employees. Hence, it couldn’t be liable.
• Consequently, Padilla, driver of G&S, has already been acquitted in a separate criminal case
against him. Hence, G&S alleged that this is material to the present case and cannot be held
liable anymore.
ISSUE: Whether or not the acquittal of Padilla is material to the present case for breach of contract.
HELD: No, Article 31 of the Civil Code provides that when the civil action is based on an obligation not
arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently
of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
• In this case, the action filed by the heirs is primarily for the recovery of damages arising from
breach of contract of carriage allegedly committed by G & S. Clearly, it is an independent civil
action arising from contract which is separate and distinct from the criminal action for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide filed by the heirs against Padilla by reason of the same
incident.
• Hence, regardless of Padilla’s acquittal or conviction in said criminal case, same has no bearing
in the resolution of the present case. There was therefore no error on the part of the CA when it
resolved this case without regard to the fact that Padilla has already been acquitted by the RTC
in the criminal case. Moreover, while the CA quoted some portions of the MTC Decision in said
criminal case, we however find that those quoted portions were only meant to belie G & S’ claim
that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the driver of the delivery van
which allegedly hit the Avis taxicab. Even without those quoted portions, the appellate court’s
ultimate finding that it was Padilla’s negligence which was the proximate cause of the mishap
would still be the same. This is because the CA has, in fact, already made this declaration in the
earlier part of its assailed Decision. The fact that the MTC Decision from which the subject
quoted portions were lifted has already been reversed by the RTC is therefore immaterial.
PEOPLE v. CAMPOS
G.R. No. 177751 | 14 December 2011
Felonies
DOCTRINE: Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non in self-defense, the accused cannot validly
invoke the same.
DOCTRINE: To establish treachery, two elements must concur: (a) that at the time of the attack, the victim
was not in a position to defend himself; and, (b) that the offender consciously adopted the particular
means of attack employed.
FACTS:
● According to the testimony of the prosecution witness, the deceased Abad was buying cigarettes
at his shop when he saw the 2 accused running towards Abad. Without provocation, Acabo
stabbed Abad while Campos stood nearby. After stabbing Abad, the 2 left. Abad was brought to
the hospital but shortly thereafter died.
● Campos and Acabo were charged with the murder of Abad.
● According to the accused, they stabbed Abad out of self-defense. The accused narrated that while
they were walking, they were attacked by a group of 4 people, 2 of whom they were able to identify
by name.
12
● However, the accused never identified Abad as among those who attacked them.
● The RTC convicted both the accused for the murder of Abad, which was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether the stabbing was a case of self-defense?
HELD: No, the prosecution is burdened with the task to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. However, if the accused admits to the commission of the offense but raises a justifying
circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who invokes said circumstance.
● The requisites for self-defense are: 1) Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; 2) Reasonable
necessity of the means employed by the accused to prevent of repel the unlawful aggression; and
3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused defending himself.
● In this case, the claim of self-defense is belied by the testimony of the accused. While they claim to
have acted in their defense while being attacked by a group of men, they did not identify Abad as
among those attacking them. In fact, there was no mention of Abad at all in their testimony. As
such, there was no unlawful aggression that may be imputed on Abad. As unlawful aggression is
a condition sine qua non in self-defense, the accused cannot validly invoke the same.
ISSUE: Whether the killing is qualified by treachery.
HELD: Yes, the killing was qualified by treachery in this case.

• 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 specifically to ensure
the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. To establish treachery, two elements must concur: (a) that at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and, (b) that the offender consciously
adopted the particular means of attack employed. This is shown by the suddenness of the attack
against Abad, who was defenseless and unable to retaliate.
ISSUE: Whether or not conspiracy is established.
HELD: Yes, conspiracy was established in from the facts and circumstances shown. While it was Acabo
who stabbed Abad, the presence of Campos served no other purpose than to lend moral support by
making sure none would be able to aid their victim. As such, he is liable to the same extent as the actual
perpetrator.
PEOPLE v. SALES
G.R. No. 177218 | 03 Oct 2011
Felonies
DOCTRINE: In order that a person may be criminally liable for a felony different from that which he
intended to commit, it is indispensible (a) that a felony was committed and (b) that the wrong done to the
aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed by the perpetrator.
DOCTRINE: The presentation by the accused of himself to the police officer on duty in a spontaneous
manner is a manifestation of his intent “to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred
for his search and capture” which is the essence of voluntary surrender.
DOCTRINE: The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that actually
perpetrated cannot be appreciated where the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to
produce and did actually produce the death of the victim
13
FACTS:
● Neomar and Junior left their home without permission and did not return that day. They were found
the following day in a nearby barangay. Upon returning home, Noel Sales, furious with his children, tied
them to a coconut tree and beat them with a thick piece of wood. Shortly thereafter, Neomar collapsed
and lost consciousness. Attempts to bring the boy to a hospital were futile as there as no vehicle passing
by. Neomar shortly passed away and was buried after a short wake.
● An Information was filed against Sales, charging him with parricide for the death of his 9-year-old son,
Neomar. Another Information was also filed charging him with slight physical injuries committed against
his second son, Junior.
● Sales contends that the beating caused Neomar’s death and it was due to difficulty of breathing for
having a weak heart and having epilepsy which caused his death. In addition, he claims to have only
been disciplining his children. "
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is criminally liable despite claiming that he did not intend to commit
so grave a wrong?
HELD: Yes, in order that a person may be criminally liable for a felony different from that which he
intended to commit, it is indispensible (a) that a felony was committed and (b) that the wrong done to the
aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed by the perpetrator.
ISSUE: Whether or no the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was present
HELD: Yes, the presentation by appellant of himself to the police officer on duty in a spontaneous
manner is a manifestation of his intent “to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be
incurred for his search and capture” which is the essence of voluntary surrender.
ISSUE: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong was
present?
HELD: No, the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that actually
perpetrated cannot be appreciated where the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to
produce and did actually produce the death of the victim.
PEOPLE v. CONCILLADO
G.R. No. 181204 | 28 November 2011
Felonies
DOCTRINE: The most important among all the elements is unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression
must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.
Once the accused admits the commission of the offense charged but raises a justifying circumstance as a
defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him.
FACTS:
• Diosdado Pido (Diosdado) was shot, stabbed and hacked in Barangay Guinciaman, San
Miguel, Leyte. Having sustained a total of 26 wounds, he instantly succumbed to death.
• An information was filed against Edgar Concillado (Edgar), Erlito Concillado (Erlito) and
Dolores Concillado for the murder of the victim.
• Version of the prosecution
14
• Lorenzo was offered as witness wherein he recalled that on August 23, 2002, he and
the victim, Diosdado, went to Barangay Malaguinabut to attend the fiesta. At around
12:30 a.m., they went home to Barangay Guinciaman aboard a motorcycle. Upon
reaching Barangay Guinciaman, they parted ways. Shortly thereafter and from a
distance of about 10 meters, Lorenzo saw Edgar shoot Diosdado using a "surit-surit"
(homemade gun). When Diosdado fell to the ground, Edgar and Dolores approached
the victim and simultaneously stabbed him using small bolos about 10 inches in
length.Thereafter, Erlito joined the fray and delivered hacking blows on the victim
using a long bolo.
• Version of the defence:
• Edgar, one of the accused testified and that he was the one who inflicted all the 26
wounds on the victim but he claims that he was only acting in self-defense.
• He narrated he and his wife Dolores arrived at their house in Barangay Guinciaman
after partaking in a drinking spree at the house of Imelda Obio which is located about
40 meters from their house.
• After a while, he urinated near their fence whereupon Diosdado suddenly appeared
and challenged him to a fight. Diosdado immediately delivered a hacking blow
using a bolo about 25 inches long hitting Edgar on his right chest Edgar ran towards
the door of their house, took his "surit" and fired at Diosdado who continued on
hacking him. Edgar was able to parry the blows coming from Diosdado as he was
able to grab a long bolo immediately after he fired his gun.53 Edgar and Diosdado
kept on exchanging blows until they were already outside the former’s gate. After
some time, Diosdado turned his back on Edgar. Thinking that Diosdado was already
fleeing, Edgar went back to their house and eventually surrendered himself at the
police station.
• The RTC found the three guilty of the crime of murder
• The CA subsequently dismissed the case against Erlito and Dolores but found Edgar guilty,
as it was not convinced of the theory of self-defense, but only for homicide in light of its
finding that the testimony of Lorenzo was dubious.
• In imposing the proper penalty, the CA appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years
and eight (8) months of prision mayor minimum, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and
eight (8) months of reclusion temporal minimum, as maximum.
ISSUE: Whether or not the justifying circumstance of self-defence was established?
HELD: No, the court held that the most important among all the elements is unlawful aggression. Unlawful
aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or
incomplete.
• There can be no self-defense unless there was unlawful aggression from the person injured or killed
by the accused; for otherwise, there is nothing to prevent or repel. Unlawful aggression is an actual
physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person.
• The court held that once the accused admits the commission of the offense charged but raises a
justifying circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. He cannot rely on the
weakness of the evidence for the prosecution for even if it is weak, it cannot be doubted especially
after he himself has admitted the killing. This is because a judicial confession constitutes evidence
of a high order.
• In this case, Edgar admits responsibility for the death of Diosdado but desires to avoid criminal
responsibility therefor by claiming that he was only acting in self-preservation and that it was in
fact Diosdado who was the unlawful aggressor. It is therefore incumbent upon Edgar to prove that
he deserves an acquittal.
15
ISSUE: Whether or not the homicide was qualified by Treachery and evident premeditation?
HELD: No, the court held that "For alevosia to qualify the crime to murder, it must be shown that: (1) the
malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety from the
defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and (2) the said means, method and manner of execution were
deliberately adopted. Moreover, for treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness
right at the inception of the attack.”
• Evident premeditation "requires proof showing: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit
the crime; (2) the overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; (3) a sufficient
lapse of time between the decision and the execution, allowing the accused to reflect upon the
consequences of his act. Such proof must be based on external acts that are not merely suspicious
but also notorious, manifest, evident and indicative of deliberate planning. The evidence must
show that the decision to kill prior to the moment of its execution was the result of meditation,
calculation, reflection or persistent attempts. Absent such evidence, mere presumptions and
inferences are insufficient. Evident premeditation may not be appreciated where there is no proof
as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time that elapsed before it was carried out.
The premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected.”
PEOPLE v. AGACER
G.R. No. 177751 | 14 December 2011
Felonies
DOCTRINE: In conspiracy, it is not necessary to adduce direct evidence of a previous agreement to

commit a crime. It “may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner
in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such lead
to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.”
FACTS:
• Respondent et al. was charged with conspiracy to commit murder of Cesario. While the victim was
tending to his farm respondents appeared and surrounded the victim, one of them threw stones
at Cesario, the other used a bow and arrow while the last one used a firearm and shot Cesario in
the chest, causing his death.
• Respondents set-up the self-defense as a defense and also question the existence of a conspiracy,
because they claim that only one of the fired the shot against Cesario.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was conspiracy
HELD: Yes, the acts of the assailants constitute proof of their unanimity in design, intent and execution.
They performed specific acts with closeness and coordination as to unmistakable indicate a common
purpose and design to ensure the death of Cesario.
• While there is no proof of any previous agreement among appellants to commit the crime and
while it was established during trial that Eddie alone shot Cesario, the acts of all appellants
before, during and after the incident establish the existence of conspiracy to kill Cesario beyond
reasonable doubt.
• Self-defense cannot be appreciated because respondents failed to present any evidence to
substantiate his claim that there was an actual or imminent peril to his life or limb. Aside from
16
his unreliable and self-Serving claim, there is no proof that Cesario assaulted and shot him with
a firearm during their struggle or, if at all, that there was indeed a struggle between them.
PEOPLE v. ACABRILLAS AND CABTALAN

G.R. No. 175980 | 15 February 2012
Felonies
DOCTRINE: Murder is the unlawful killing by the accused of a person, which is not parricide or
infanticide, committed with any of the attendant circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code, among which is treachery.
FACTS:
• The prosecution witnesses narrated that when he went to the store to buy salt. Both of the accused,
benny and Adriano, asked him to join in their drinking spree, to which Wilfredo obliged.
o Wilfredo, a witness, noticed that both of the accused had bolos tucked in their waists.
o He also testified that he heard both of the accused talking about their plan to assault
someone at night.
o Wilfredo went home, when he noticed both of the accused encircling Elena.
o Later on, both of the accused stood on the dark portion of the road
o Jesus, the father of Elena, went outside their house and walked towards Elena.
o Jesus stopped and turned towards the grassy area to urinate, when suddenly both of the
accused appeared from their hiding place and alternately stabbed Jesus.
• Jesus was rushed to the hospital, but was pronounced death due to multiple stab wounds.
• A case for murder was filed against Benny and Adriano.
• The defense posted an alibi. Benny claims that he was in his mother’s house until lunchtime. He
then proceeded to the store of Susan where he saw Adriano drinking. They stayed there until 6
pm. They already knew of Jesus’ death the following day.
• RTC found the accused guilty of mirder qualified by treachery. The court also found the existence
of an aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
• CA affirmed conviction but did not consider the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength for the qualifying circumstance of treachery absorbed it.
ISSUE: Whether or not treachery was present in the commission of the crime?
HELD: Yes, 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 insure its execution,
without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the victim might make. The essence of
treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner,
affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.
• In this case, there is no doubt that treachery was present. It was established that Benny and
Adriano were in the crime scene prior to the incident. They hid in a dark portion of the road and
assaulted Jesus with their bolos while he was urinating with his back to them. They even held
him by his shoulders to render him defenseless and unable to resist the attack on him by his
assailants.
• When the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is
absorbed in the latter. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this case, the
proper penalty therefore is reclusion perpetua, it being the lesser penalty between the two
indivisible penalties for the crime of murder which is reclusion perpetua to death.
17
PEOPLE v. BIGLETE
G.R. No. 182920 | 18 June 2012
Felonies
DOCTRINE: Treachery exists when the attack was “so swift and unexpected, affording the hapless,
unarmed and unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or defend himself.”
FACTS:
• Michael Biglete was charged with the crime of murder for shooting Arnel Alcos with an unlicensed
firearm.
• Biglete denies the charge and he claims that he was mauled by three persons while he was cruising
on his motorcycle. His motorcycle was stolen by those who mauled him.
• After three years, Biglete was apprehended and indicted for murder, after he had been pinned as
the driver and owner of a motorcycle involved in a drive by shooting.
ISSUE: Whether or not treachery qualified the killing
HELD: Yes, the attack was so swift and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting
victim no opportunity to resist or defend himself.” The victim had no inkling of any harm that would
befall him that fateful night of August 27, 2001. He was merely plying his regular route. He was
unarmed. The victim’s arms were on the steering wheel; his focus and attention on the traffic before
him. All these showed that the victim was not forewarned of any danger; he also had no opportunity
to offer any resistance or to defend himself from any attack.
PEOPLE v. VENTURINA
G.R. No. 183097| 12 September 2012
Felonies
DOCTRINE: To justify the imposition of death penalty, it is required that the special qualifying
circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the appellant be properly alleged in the
information and duly proved during the trial.
FACTS:
• Complainant AAA is the daughter of appellant, was inside a nipa hut with her younger brother
BBB and CCC while her other brothers DDD and EEE were sleeping at a nearby nipa hut.
• One night, appellant was drunk and had difficulty breathing and was crying. AAA massaged his
chest until he stopped crying. Unexpectedly, appellant embraced and kissed her then removed his
clothes and that of AAA who resisted.
• He laid on top of her and placed his private organ inside her. He further dragged the victim outside
when AAA’s younger brother woke up. Appellant continued his immoral acts by again inserting
his penis into her vagina.
• Appellant threatened AAA not to tell anybody. When he left, AAA reported the incident to her
sister FFF who reported the matter to the police.
ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty that should be imposed is death.
18
HELD: Yes, Art. 266-B of the RPC provides that the penalty of death shall be imposed upon the accused
if the victim in under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the common-law spouse of the parent
of the victim.
PEOPLE v. AGACER
G.R. No. 177751 | 7 January 2013
Felonies
DOCTRINE: When the offender is a minor over 15 and under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed on the accused but always in the proper period.
FACTS:
• Respondents were convicted for the crime of murder of one Cesario Agacer. They filed this MR
before the SC alleging that there is no evidence of conspiracy and that no treachery can be
imputed against them since a heated argument preceded the killing. And even if they are guilty,
the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority should have been appreciated in favor of
appellant Franklin Agacer (Franklin) who was only 16 years and 106 days old at the time of the
incident, having been born on December 21, 1981.
● OSG was required to comment on the issue of minority but did not oppose it the same being duly
supported by a copy of Franklin’s Certificate of Live Birth secured from the National Statistics
Office (NSO) Document Management Division.
ISSUE: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of Franklin’s minority should be appreciated.
HELD: Yes, the rationale of the law in extending such leniency and compassion is that because of his age,
the accused is presumed to have acted with discernment. This is regardless of the fact that his minority
was not proved during the trial and that his birth certificate was belatedly presented.
• Franklin’s Certificate of Live Birth shows that he was born on December 20, 1981, hence, was
merely 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime on April 2, 1998. He is therefore
entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority embodied in Article 68(2) of the
Revised Penal Code. It provides that when the offender is a minor over 15 and under 18 years,
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed on the accused but always
in the proper period.
PEOPLE v. JALBONIAN
G.R. No. 180281 | 1 July 2013
Felonies
DOCTRINE: The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance
to resist or escape.
FACTS:
● Joemarie Jalbonian was charged with the crime of murder for attacking and stabbing Fortunato
Quintanilla, Jr.
19
● Jalbonian allegedly stabbed Quintanilla on the back with a knife and immediately ran away.
● Jalbonian filed a Demurrer to Evidence to dismiss the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Jalbonian is guilty of murder
HELD: Yes, the act of stabbing a victim on the back is considered as treachery
● Murder is the unlawful killing by the accused of a person, which is not parricide or infanticide,
committed with any of the attendant circumstances enumerated in Article 248
● There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing means,
methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
PEOPLE v. RAMOS
G.R. No. 190340 | 24 July 2013
Felonies
DOCTRINE: To successfully invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense, the following requisites
must be present: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it; (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure
FACTS:
● Rogelio threw stones at the house of his brother-in-law, Ramon Ramos., where Tandoc and his
daughter, as well as Abacco were resting. Tandoc warned Rogelio to stop throwing stones as he
might hit his daughter. Tandoc suggested to Abacco that they leave the place to avert further
trouble. However, instead of leaving, Abacco, then unarmed, approached the appellant’s house
and asked Rogelio to come out so they could talk. Rogelio hacked Abacco twice with a samurai
sword. Appellants dragged him into the yard and banged his head on the wall. Marissa hacked
Abacco on his back with a bolo.
● Rogelio alleged that he only acted in lawful self-defense.
ISSUE: Whether or not Rogelio should be acquitted on the ground of self-defense.
HELD: No, unlawful aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense, for if no unlawful aggression
attributed to the victim is established, self-defense is unavailing as there is nothing to repel.
• Abacco cannot be considered as the aggressor, Abacco was unarmed when he went to appellant’s
house. Abacco’s act of going to their house so they may talk is not an unlawful aggression. The
court finds that the means employed by Rogelio is grossly disproportionate to Abacco’s alleged
unlawful aggression.
ISSUE: Whether or not the killing is attended by treachery.
HELD: Yes, as the victim lay on the ground, appellant Rogelio repeatedly hacked the victim. Indisputably,
the appellants attacked the victim with treachery because the latter, who had fallen to the ground and
20
begging the appellants to stop, was in no position to offer any defense to ward off the attack nor provide
a semblance of risk to life or limb of the attackers.
PEOPLE v. ALAWIG
G.R. No. 187731 | 18 September 2013
Felonies
DOCTRINE: Evident premeditation cannot be considered when it is not shown how and when the plan
to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.
FACTS:
• SP01 Alfredo Alawig with P03 Romeo Ventinilla were charged with the homicide for the killing
of P03 Miel de Ocampo Café. The information was amended to one of murder for the commission
was with evident premeditation, treachery and deliberate conspiracy.
• P03 de Ocampe Café was killed at the Police Kababayan Center I-Valenzuela wherein he suffered
physical abuse and multiple gunshot wounds which were the immediate cause of his death. At
the day of the the incident, Café was with his friend MacGregor Reyes who went to their house
and saw the other police officers fetch Café as he was allegedly being called to join a police team
in an operation on illegal drugs. After the group left, Reyes received a call from Café where he
stated, “Pare wala pala kaming tatrabahuhin, ako pala ang tatrabahuhuin, tulungan mo ako,
sumundo ka ng tao na tutulong sa akin”. In addition, Café confided with Percelita, his mother,
prior to the incident that he earned the ire of his superiors and fellow officers after he
apprehended a drug pusher. He claimed that thee were high-ranking officials who were
involved in a drug syndicate.
• Alawig denied the charges and claimed that they went to the victim’s house because they were
already in the vicinity due to police work. They all went back to the station together. In the
station, Alawig claimed there was an argument between Café and Ventinilla which lead to Café
to fire his armalite and in retaliation Ventinilla shot the victim several times.
• Alawig on appeal contends that the lower and appellate court erred in appreciating the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery, and the existence of
conspiracy.
ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was present in the
commission of the crime?
HELD: No, for evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following requisites must concur: (1) the time
when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to
his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such a determination and the actual execution
to allow the accused time to reflect upon the consequences of his act. In this case, the entries in the
Dispatch Logbook regarding the illegal drugs and the phone call made by (victim’s name) to his friend
before the incident do not constitute clear and positive evidence of outward acts showing a premeditation
to kill.
PEOPLE v. CIAL
GR No. 191362 |9 October, 2013
Felonies
DOCTRINE: Qualifying circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt just like the crime itself.
21
FACTS:
• The victim AAA is one of four children of BBB and CCC.
• When CCC died BBB cohabited with the accused Mariano Cial
• Testimony and evidence of the victim:
o That in December of 2002 the accused called her and told her to go to the bedroom inside
their house. Once inside, appellant took off her shorts and panty and spread her legs.
Appellant pulled his pants down to his thighs and inserted his penis into the little girl's
vagina. She felt intense pain but she did not try to struggle because appellant had a bolo
on his waist. After satiating his lust, appellant threatened to kill her and her family if she
reported the incident to anyone. At that time, her maternal grandmother was in the house
but was unaware that she was being ravished.
o The prosecution failed to formally offer the certificate of live birth of the victim
● Version of defense:
o The accused denied the charge. He alleged that he treated the victim as his own daughter.
• RTC: Found the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship to be present and found the
accused to be guilty of qualified rape
ISSUE: Whether or not the mere testimony of the accused is sufficient to prove the the qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship?
HELD: No, the court held that qualifying circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt just
like the crime itself.
• The Certificate of Live Birth was never presented or offered during the trial of the case. Records
show that the prosecution presented only “AAA” and Dr. Imperial as its witnesses. Dr. Imperial
never testified on “AAA’s” age.
• The prosecution likewise failed to establish “AAA’s” relationship with the appellant. Although
the Information alleged that appellant is the common-law husband of “AAA’s” mother, “AAA’”
referred to appellant as her step-father. Even the RTC interchangeably referred to appellant as
the common-law husband of “AAA’s” mother as well as the step-father of “AAA”. The RTC
failed to cite any basis for its reference to appellant as such. In fact, the RTC Decision is bereft of
any discussion as to how it reached its conclusion that appellant is the common-law husband of
“AAA’s” mother or that “AAA” is his step-daughter.
PEOPLE v. GADUYON
G.R. No. 181473 | 11 November 2013
Felonies
DOCTRINE: In crimes against chastity, such as Acts of Lasciviousness, relationship is always

aggravating.
FACTS: Respondent was charged with the crimes qualified rape, qualified object rape and sexual abuse
committed against his own daughter “AAA” a 12 year old child. Respondent, first while “AAA” was
watching television, fondled her breasts. Later on while “AAA” is sleeping respondent got on top of
“AAA” and inserted his penis inside her. Few months later, respondent inserted his finger inside
“AAA’s” vagina. Respondent set-up a defense of denial.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of qualified object rape and sexual abuse under RA 7610?
HELD: Yes, the examination of the testimony of ”AAA” reveals that there was carnal knowledge or sexual
intercourse through force, threat and intimidation. Appellant also committed rape by sexual assault when
22
he inserted his finger into the genitalia of “AAA”. He also subjected “AAA” a minor at 12 years of age, to
sexual abuse by means of lascivious conduct through intimidation or influence, when he mashed her
breasts and stroked her arms.
• In addition, the crime was committed by the father of “AAA” the alternative circumstance of
relationship should be appreciated. In crimes against chastity, such as Acts of Lasciviousness,
relationship is always aggravating.
PEOPLE v. ZULIETA
G.R. No. 192183 | 11 November 2013
Felonies
DOCTRINE: An unexpected and sudden attack which renders the victim unable and unprepared to put
up a defense is the essence of treachery.
FACTS:
• Bryan Pascua testified that he and deceased Armand Labando Jr. were outside their boarding
house, seated at the bench just outside the store of Jimmy Saura.
• While they were eating bananas, Bogarts, Rey and Tantan approached them.
• Bogarts, who had with him a pitcher, dropped it in front of them so they immediately stood up.
He then heard Tantan shout, “birahi na na” (hit him now), then saw Bogarts pull a batangas knife
and stab the deceased, hitting him on his chest. He ran towards their boarding house, afraid that
he will be attacked next.
• RTC find the appellant guilty of murder, qualified by the circumstance of treachery, and awarded
civil damages in the amount of P50,000 and moral damages of P50,000.
• CA affirmed with modification. CA added the amount of P25,000 as exemplary damages, in
addition to the civil damages and moral damages previously awarded by the trial court
ISSUE: Whether or not treachery is present.
HELD: Yes, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
• The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate,
and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape. Otherwise stated, an unexpected and sudden attack which renders the victim
unable and unprepared to put up a defense is the essence of treachery.
LUMAUIG v. PEOPLE
G. R. No. 166680 | 7 July 2014
Felonies
DOCTRINE: In malversation of public funds, the payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of the

funds misappropriated may be considered a mitigating circumstance being analogous to voluntary
surrender.
FACTS:
23
• A Commission on Audit(CoA) auditor examined the year-end reports involving the municipal
officials of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao.
• The auditor found in the course of her investigation a disbursement voucher prepared for the
petitioner, it was covered by a Landbank check dated August 29, 1994 where the payee is the
petitioner.
• Upon further investigation, the accounting records revealed that no payment intended for the
charge was made to Royal Cargo Agencies for the month of August 1994. The auditor had a hard
time informing the petitioner through two letters of the unliquidated cash advances despite
exerting efforts.
• On June 4, 2001, the petitioner paid the subject cash advance before the treasurer of the
municipality, by reason of which, the incumbent Mayor Prudenciano executed an Affidavit of
Desistance.
• An Information for violation of R.A. 3019 was filed against petitoner for having allegedly utilized
a cash advance for a purpose other than for which it was obtained. Another Information for
violation of Article 218 of the RPC was filed against him. The Sandiganbayan rendered a decision
acquitting the petitioner in the first case, and convicting him in the second.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent payment made by the petitioner should be taken into
consideration in modifying the penalty to be imposed.
HELD: Yes, the Sandiganbayan correctly considered the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,
as borne by the records, in favor of petitioner. However, it failed to consider the mitigating circumstance
of return or full restitution of the funds that were previously unliquidated.
• Although this case does not involve malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised
Penal Code but rather failure to render an account under Article 218 (i.e., the succeeding Article
found in the same Chapter), the same reasoning may be applied to the return or full restitution of
the funds that were previously unliquidated in considering the same as a mitigating circumstance
in favor of petitioner. The prescribed penalty for violation of Article 218 is prisión correccional in its
minimum period or six months and one day to two years and four months, or by a fine ranging
from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both. Considering that there are two mitigating circumstances and there
are no aggravating circumstances, under Article 64(5) of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable
penalty is the penalty next lower to the prescribed penalty which, in this case, is arresto mayor in
its maximum period or four months and one day to six months.
PEOPLE v. SUMILHIG
G.R. No. 178115 | July 28, 2014
Felonies
DOCTRINE: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
the execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make.
FACTS:
24
• Jerry, Eugenio and his son Mario were in the living room of Eugenio’s house when they heard gun
bursts and saw six people firing at the kitchen where members of the Santander family were
having dinner. Jerry and Mario recognized the appellant and co-accused.
• Three are charged with the offense, the appellant and the two co-accused. While appellant admits
having harbored ill-will against the Santanders, he presented a defense of alibi.
• He claims that during the incident, he was in the house of his parents in law and that it was
impossible for him to walk fast because he was injured. The first co-accused claims that he was a
four-hours walk away from the crime scene during the incident. The second co-accused claims
that he was with his wife at the time of the incident.
ISSUE: Whether or not conspiracy existed
HELD: Yes, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it.” It is not necessary to adduce evidence of a previous agreement to
commit a crime. Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and
manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when
such lead to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.
ISSUE: Whether or not treachery qualified the killing?
HELD: Yes, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure the execution,
without risk to himself arising from [any] defense which the offended party might make.” Treachery is
evident in this case as the suddenness and unexpectedness of the assault deprived the victims of an
opportunity to resist it or offer any defense of their persons.
PEOPLE v. TORRES
G.R. No. 189850| 22 September 2014
Felonies
DOCTRINE: When abuse of superior strength obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, it is to be regarded as a generic circumstance.
FACTS:
• Espino was driving his car along C.M. Recto Avenue when Ronnie Torres suddenly blocked his
path. Espino alighted from his vehicle and approached Ronnie, who tried to grab his belt-bag.
Espino resisted and struggled with Ronnie for the possession of his belt-bag but the latter’s
brothers, Jay Torres, Reynaldo Torres, appellant Bobby Torres, and an unidentified companion
suddenly appeared. With all of them brandishing bladed weapons, appellant and his brothers took
turns in stabbing Espino in different parts of his body while the unidentified companion held him
by the neck. When Espino was already sprawled on the ground, they took his belt-bag, wallet and
jewelries and immediately fled.
• An information was filed the charging siblings Reynaldo, Jay, Ronnie and appellant with the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide committed against Espino. Only appellant was
arrested as the others remain at-large to date.
• The RTC held that appellant can only be liable for murder. While the CA modified the ruling and
held that appellant is guilty of robbery with homicide.
ISSUE: Whether or not the presence of abuse of superior strength should qualify the offense to murder
25
HELD: No, the presence of abuse of superior strength should not result in qualifying the offense to
murder. When abuse of superior strength obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide,
it is to be regarded as a generic circumstance, robbery with homicide being a composite crime with its
own definition and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
is imposed for committing robbery with homicide. In view of RA 9346 which prohibits imposition of death
penalty, the penalty that must be imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
PEOPLE VS AMORA
G.R. No. 190322 | 26 November 2014
Felonies
DOCTRINE: Even a frontal attack can be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who
would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.
FACTS:
● Anselmo, Aurelio and the victim Romeo were walking on their way to the market where they saw
Amora in his store. Suddenly, appellant rushed towards them and stabbed Romeo twice — one on
the chest and another on the abdomen. Romeo fell to the ground while appellant quickly ran away
from the scene. Romeo died due to two fatal stab wounds.The first stab wound penetrated his chest
and pierced his heart while the wound on his abdomen pierced the pancreas and his small
intestines. Both stab wounds appeared to have been caused by a single-bladed weapon. Amora
was charged with murder under Art. 248 of the RPC of one Romeo Gibaga with the RTC of Bulcan.
ISSUE: Whether or not trial court gravely erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
HELD: No, treachery attended the crime.

● In order for the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be appreciated, the following requisites
must be shown:
(1) The employment of means, method, or manner of execution would ensure the safety of the
malefactor from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, no opportunity being given to
the latter to defend himself or to retaliate, and
(2) The means, method, or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by
the offender.
● The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and
unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist
or escape.
● In this case, the appellant's sudden attack on Romeo amply demonstrates that treachery was
employed in the commission of the crime. The eyewitnesses were all consistent in declaring that
the appellant in such a swift motion stabbed Romeo such that the latter had no opportunity to
defend himself or to fight back. The deliberate swiftness of the attack significantly diminished the
risk to himself that may be caused by the retaliation of the victim.
PEOPLE v. GANDAWALI
G.R. No. 193385 | 1 December 2014
Felonies
26
DOCTRINE: Conspiracy need not be proven by direct proof and may be inferred from the acts of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the crime
FACTS:
• A buy-bust team was formed after a confidential informant informed the Baler Police Station that
a possible drug deal would take place at San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City. During the buy-
bust operation, P02 Soriano was the poseur buyer who posed to buy shabu from Dats Gandawali
and Nol Pagalad.
• During the sale, P02 Soriano gave the money to Gandawali, who in turn gave it to Pagalad.
Pagalaad then took the money and brought out a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from
pocket and gave it to Gandawali, who then handed the sachet to P02 Soriano. They were arrested
and brought to the police station.
• Gandawali and Pagalad denied the accusations against them and claimed that the police tried to
extort P15,000 in exchange for their release. However, they were unable to produce it, hence their
incarceration. They claimed that they did not conspire to sell the illegal drugs.
ISSUE: Whether or the conspiracy was duly established between the Gandawali and Pagalad
HELD: Yes, direct proof is not essential to establish the existence of conspiracy. Conspiracy may be
inferred from the acts of the accused before, during ad after the commission of the crime which
indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. In
this case, the overt acts of Gandawali and Pagalad show that they had a common interest in selling the
shabu. This is evident when Gandawali handed the money to Pagalad during the sale and their attempt
to escape.
PEOPLE v. ALVAREZ
G.R. No. 191060 | 2 February 2015
Felonies
DOCTRINE: For treachery to be properly appreciated, two (2) conditions must be present: (1) at the time
of the assault, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the offender consciously adopted
the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.
FACTS:
• Appellants Edgar Allen Alvarez (Alvarez) and Rodel Caballero (Caballero), together with the
accused who remain at-large, were charged with the crime of murder for the fatal shooting of
Nicanor Morfe Agon During arraignment, appellants entered separate pleas of not guilty.
• The prosecution alleged that appellants conspired to murder Agon. The testimony of Vitan(le
gunman)was offered, and he said that on February 21, 2004, he, the accused and other appellants
agreed to murder Agon.
• In accordance with their plan, they proceeded the next day, February 22, 2004, to the cockpit
arena, a place which they knew that Agon would be at on that particular day. Upon their arrival
thereat, the members of the group which included appellants positioned themselves according
to their plan and waited for Agon to leave. Later on, Caballero signaled Vitan and the other
alleged gunman, accused Theo (Theo), that the target had left the arena and that his vehicle was
already approaching their position.
• At the time the group commenced their aggression, Nick Agon was entirely unsuspecting, as he
was on board his Mitsubishi Pajero traversing a narrow street leading to the highway. He (Agon)
27
was surprised when Theo and George Vitan suddenly approached from the right side of his
vehicle and promptly fired at him successively. ->So when Agon’s vehicle came, Vitan and Theo
fired at him. Vitan, Caballero, Alvarez, who acted as one of the backups, and the rest of the group
then fled the scene of the crime.
• The RTC convicted the appellants, as affirmed by the CA upon appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating the surrounding circumstances affecting
criminal liability.
HELD: No, for treachery to be properly appreciated, two (2) conditions must be present: (1) at the time of
the assault, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the offender consciously adopted
the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.
These conditions were present in the killing of Agon. The assault upon Agon was deliberate, swift
and sudden, denying him the opportunity to protect or defend himself. He was unarmed and
unaware of the plot of appellants to kill him. Moreover, the means, method or manner of
execution of the attack was deliberately and consciously adopted by appellants, the same being
in accordance with their group’s plan to liquidate Agon.
ISSUE: Whether or not evident premeditation was present
HELD: Yes, the evidence presented is also sufficient to show that the crime was attended by the
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. It has the following elements: (1) the time when the
offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his
determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow himself
time to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
• Vitan, the gunman himself, testified that the plan to kill Agon was conceived a day before the
victim was fatally shot. Appellants and their cohorts therefore, had adequate time to reflect on
the consequences of their contemplated crime prior to its execution. The period of time when
appellants planned to kill Agon and the time when they implemented such plan afforded them
the opportunity for meditation and reflection on the consequences of the murder they committed.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was the aggravating circumstance of conspiracy
HELD: Yes, there is conspiracy “when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or
impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it.”
• Vitan testified that on February 21, 2004, he, the accused and appellants agreed to murder Agon.
In accordance with their plan, they proceeded the next day, February 22, 2004, to the cockpit
arena, a place which they knew that Agon would be at on that particular day.
• Upon their arrival thereat, the members of the group which included appellants positioned
themselves according to their plan and waited for Agon to leave. Later on, Caballero signaled
Vitan and the other alleged gunman, accused Theo (Theo), that the target had left the arena and
that his vehicle was already approaching their position. When Agon’s vehicle came, Vitan and
Theo fired at him. Vitan, Caballero, Alvarez, who acted as one of the backups, and the rest of the
group then fled the scene of the crime. Clearly, there was unity of action and purpose among the
members of “Black Shark,” which include appellants in killing Agon.
• With the fact of conspiracy having been established, it is already immaterial whether Caballero’s
role was merely to signal the gunmen and Alvarez’s role was merely a backup. Each of them are
now equally guilty of the criminal act, since in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
28
PEOPLE v. MATEO
G.R. No. 198012 | 22 April 2015
Felonies
DOCTRINE: Well-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment under the law may,
for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC).
FACTS: Mateo was charged with illegal recruitment and estafa. Certain persons claim to be promised by
Mateo of jobs in Japan but after collecting various fees, such persons were not deployed to japan. They
later on found out that Mateo was not a registered recruited under the POEA. Mateo questioned the
validity of the Estafa case on top of his Illegal recruitment case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mateo can be charged with estafa.
HELD: Yes, the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: (1) The person
charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) Accused did not
have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and (3) Accused
committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.
• All the elements are present in this case.

o First, the RTC found appellants to have undertaken a recruitment activity when they
promised private complainants employment in Japan for a fee.
o Second, the Certification issued by the POEA unmistakably reveals that appellants neither
have a license nor authority to recruit workers for overseas employment.
o Third, it was established that there were five complainants.
• Money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment considering that the definition of
“illegal recruitment” under the law includes the phrase “whether for profit or not”.
• In addition, the elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence
or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice
capable of pecuniary estimation. All these elements are likewise present in this case.
PEOPLE v. DE LA CRUZ
G.R. No. 207389 | 17 February 2016
Felonies
DOCTRINE: For the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation to be considered, it

must be shown that killing was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the decision to carry out
the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
FACTS:
29
● Corazon and her live-in partner Joan were having breakfast inside their room in a rented apartment
at Tondo, Manila, when De La Cruz suddenly barged into the room and pulled out a balisong (fan
knife). Without warning, he grabbed Corazon by the neck and stabbed her in the back, causing her
to fall down on the bed. He continued to stab Corazon on the left side of her body, and near her
heart. Appellant was charged with Murder for stabbing one Corazon Claudio, with the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.
ISSUE: Whether or not with the crime of murder was qualified by treachery
HELD: No, the essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate,
and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or
escape. Appellant's sudden attack on Corazon inside her apartment demonstrates that treachery was
employed in the commission of the crime. Corazon could not have been aware that her life was in
imminent danger inside the comforts of her own home. When appellant barged in, Corazon was having
coffee with Joan totally unaware that she would be attacked inside the confines of her own house. When
appellant grabbed her neck and stabbed her in the back, Corazon was afforded no chance to defend herself
and retaliate or repel the attack. Although she struggled, such was not enough to protect or extricate her
from the harm posed by appellant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the killing is attended by evident premeditation.
HELD: No, the offense was not attended by evident premeditation because there is no evidence at all that
the killing was preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the decision to carry out the criminal intent
during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. The prosecution adduced no evidence to
show that sufficient time had lapsed before appellant decided to commit the crime; nor that appellant, by
some convincing act or action, had indeed clung to his determination to kill the victim; let alone that
sufficient time had indeed lapsed or transpired between the decision to kill and its actual execution, to
allow appellant time or opportunity to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
PEOPLE v. BUENAMER
G.R. No. 206227 | 31 August 2016
Felonies
DOCTRINE: A person must be called to account for all the natural and logical consequences of his
felonious act; and hence must be deemed to have incurred criminal liability, although the felonious act he
committed might have been different from that which he intended.
FACTS:
● Stanley Buenamer and Jerome Lambada boarded a passenger FX taxi. Armed with firearms, they
declared a hold-up and demanded the valuables of the passengers. One of the passengers tried to
regain possession of his belongings, Buenamer boxed him. The passenger fell off and the passenger
jeepney ran over him. Buenamer and Lambada were arrested. An information for robbery with
homicide was filed against them. The RTC convicted Buenamer of robbery with homicide while
Lambada was convicted of simple robbery. Buenamer contended that the mitigating circumstance
of having no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that he committed as provided in Art. 13,
Sec. 3 of the RPC should be appreciated in his favor.
30
ISSUE: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of having no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed should be appreciated.
HELD: No, the mitigating circumstance cannot be appreciated in his favor.

● Buenamer boxed the passenger with such force that the latter lost his grip on the handlebar of the
vehicle, fell off and run over by the vehicle's rear tire. Article 3 of the RPC decrees that every person
shall be held responsible for all the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act.
Complementing this Article 4 provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
committing a felony, although the wrongful act is different from that which he intended. These
two articles of the RPC must apply against Buenamer. He must be called to account for all the
natural and logical consequences of his felonious act. Hence, he must be deemed to have incurred
criminal liability, although the felonious act he committed might have been different from that
which he intended.
PEOPLE v. CAMPOSANO and DE LOS REYES

G.R. No. 207659 |20 April 2016
Felonies
FACTS:
• Gabion, a prosecution witness, testified that he was at the Al-ber Billiard Hall in Zapote Plaza where
he witnessed Fundador Camposano and Herman De los Reyes take turns in stabbing Esmeraldo Ilao.
• Gabion claimed that he saw Ilao face down on the ground when Camposano went on top of him, held
him by the neck, and stabbed him in the chest and both sides of his abdomen.
• Gabion claimed that he also saw De los Reyes, who was then in front of Ilao, stab the latter's lower
back.
• Camposano and De Los Reyes denied the charges against them. Camposana claimed that he was in
the hospital as he suffered an injury from a brawl. On the other hand, De Los Reyes claimed that he was
in a drinking spree and was with his aunt watching DVD movies.
·
ISSUE: Whether or not appellants committed the crime of murder
HELD: Yes, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
• One who takes advantage the victim’s defenseless and helpless position to inflict a fatal stab wound
commits a crime which is attended by treachery.
PEOPLE v. SORIANO
G. R. NO. 216063 | 5 June 2017
Felonies
DOCTRINE: While a victim may have been warned of possible danger to his person, there is treachery
nonetheless when the attack was executed in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to
retaliate.
31
FACTS:
• An Information charging the appellant Soriano of murder for the death of Perfecto Narag was filed.
• Appellant arrived at victim’s house and asked for the whereabouts of the victim. Seeing that
appellant was carrying a bladed weapon, Ederlina(victim’s wife) shouted to Perfecto to close the
door to his room.
• While Perfecto was attempting to close the door to his room, appellant grabbed his neck and
immediately stabbed him at the right chest while uttering the words "I will kill you." Ederlina tried
to stop the appellant from stabbing her husband but he pushed her away and stabbed her instead
at the right wrist and forehead. She pleaded with appellant to stop stabbing his uncle, Perfecto but
appellant did not heed her plea. Perfecto also pleaded with him to stop his stabbing frenzy, but he
paid no attention to his pleas.
• Villamor, the tricycle driver in their employ, came in and forced appellant out of Perfecto's room.
However, appellant was able to return inside the room and stabbed Perfecto at the back again.
Appellant left the house after the act.
• Appellant admits the act, but he alleges that it was done in legitimate self-defense.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was treachery in the commission of the crime
HELD: Yes, the totality of the circumstances leads to the inevitable conclusion that the victim was caught
unaware and unable to defend himself and the accused deliberately chose a manner of attack that insured
the attainment of his violent intention with no risk to himself.
• The victim had no opportunity to defend himself precisely because it was simply unexpected to be
the subject of an attack right inside his own abode and he was unarmed, with no opportunity to
put up a defense. It must also be noted that the victim was already old and that his reflexes could
have been worn down by age so he could not have been in a position to swiftly and sufficiently
ward off the attack.
ISSUE: Whether there was the place where the crime was committed aggravates it
HELD: Yes, dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, if the latter has not given provocation or if the victim was killed inside his house.
• The victim was killed not merely in his house but in his own room, the aggravating circumstance
of dwelling should be appreciated against the accused.
• The accused also perpetrated the act against his ageing uncle knowing that by himself, said victim's
physical condition due to old age would not allow him to sufficiently defend himself anymore.
PEOPLE v. SIBBU
G.R. No. 214757 | 29 March 2017
Felonies
DOCTRINE: Treachery is present when the offender employs 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.
32
DOCTRINE: The use of a bonnet for the purpose of concealing one’s identity in the commission of the crime
sufficiently proves the aggravating circumstance of disguise
DOCTRINE: For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered it is not necessary that the accused should
have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was
attacked inside his own house
FACTS:
• Bryan Julian was with his parents and child when he saw from a distance a person with a long
firearm slung across his chest and a black bonnet over his head. He also saw two men in crouching
position. Fearing the worst, he shouted a warning to his family. The man then fired upon them
killing his parents and child.
• Bryan identified Tirso Sibbu as the person with a long firearm. He testified that when the armed
man inched closer to the house, Sibbu tried to fix his bonnet thereby providing him the opportunity
to see his face.
• Information for murder and attempted murder were filed against Sibbu and other John Does.
• Defense averred that Sibbu did not leave their house. They averred that the prosecution failed to
establish his guilt and they questioned the identification of the witness.
ISSUE: Whether treachery is properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
HELD: Yes, treachery is present when the offender employs 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. In this case, at the time of the shooting incident, the victims
were on the porch of their house totally unaware of the impending attack. In addition, they were all
unarmed thus unable to mount a defense in the event of an attack. On the other hand, appellant and his
cohorts were armed. They also surreptitiously approached the residence of the victims. Sibbu wore
camouflage uniform to avoid detection. In fine, appellant employed deliberate means to ensure the
accomplishment of his purpose of killing his victims with minimal risk to his safety.
ISSUE: Whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present.
Held: Yes, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be considered. Although the triggerman fired
the shot from outside the house, his victim was inside. For this circumstance to be considered it is not
necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense;
it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house
ISSUE: Whether the aggravating circumstance of disguise is properly appreciated.
Held: Yes, the appellant covered his face with a bonnet during the shooting incident There could be no
other possible purpose for wearing a bonnet over appellant's face but to conceal his identity.
PEOPLE v. YANSON
G.R. No. 179195 | 3 October 2011
Felonies
DOCTRINE: The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning leaving the victim with
no chance to resist or escape.
33
FACTS:
• Angelino Yanson was charged with the crime of murder for the death Carlito Magan which was
attended with treachery. The crime occurred after a drinking session wherein Magan with Elmo
Galfo was walking home when they noticed two persons following them. One of them
suddenly stabbed Magan at the back. Galfo positively identified the person who stabbed Magan
to be Yanson.
• Yanson denied the charge against him. He admitted to drinking but only with Salcedo. He
claimed that they went home and he only knew of Magan’s death when the police went to his
house.
ISSUE: Whether or not the qualified circumstance of treachery was proven in this case
HELD: Yes, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which
the offended party might make.
• The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate,
and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape.
• For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of
execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and
(2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
PEOPLE v. GUNDA
G.R. No. 195525 | 5 Feb 2014
Crimes against Persons
DOCTRINE: Treachery qualified the killing to murder.
FACTS:
• Eladio Globio, Sr. and his son were on the way home. While they were walking, Wilfredo Gunda and
certain John Does suddenly held the father’s hand and stabbed him several times.
• The father died. The son ran and was able to escape. During the incident, the Gunda’s brother-in-law
also witnessed the incident and positively identified him as one of the perpetrator.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gunda is guilty of murder.
HELD: Yes, treachery is is when the offender commits a crime against the person, employing means,
methods or forms in in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
PEOPLE v. SORIA
G.R. No. 179031| 24 February 2014
DOCTRINE: The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability
as well as his civil liability ex delicto.
FACTS:
34
• On November 14, 2012, the Supreme Court rendered its Decision in this case finding accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. The said Decision supposedly became final and
executory on December 20, 2012. However, the Court received a letter from the Bureau of
Corrections informing the death of accused on August 16, 2012.
• The Director of the Bureau of Corrections submitted on November 11, 2013 a certified true copy
of the death certificate of accused. Accused-appellant’s demise transpired before the
promulgation of this Court’s Decision on November 14, 2012 or before its finality on December
20, 2012. Therefore, when accused-appellant died, his appeal before this Court was still pending
resolution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the earlier Decision shall be set aside and dismiss the charges against the accused.
HELD: Yes, under Art. 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the
death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. 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.
PEOPLE v. DILLA
G.R. No. 200333 | 21 January 2015
Criminal Law – Revised Penal Code Book II – Crimes against Persons
DOCTRINE: The killing was attended by treachery when assailant suddenly appeared and shot the victim.
FACTS:
• Appellant Domingo Dilla was charged with the crime of murder for the death of his brother Pepito.
• One afternoon, Pepito was working on his farm when Dilla suddenly appeared and shot the victim
with a gun hitting him on his left thigh.
• The victim managed to run but was overtaken by Dilla who then stabbed him with a bolo.
• The son of the victim, Pepito, Jr., and Mary Jane Renegado, witnessed the incident.
• Domingo claimed that his brother was the aggressor and who was the one who challenged him to
a fight.
ISSUE: Whether or not Dilla is guilty of murder.
HELD: Yes, when the killing is attended by treachery the crime becomes one of murder.
• There is treachery when one suddenly attacks another who is unsuspecting of such attack.
PEOPLE v. VILLAR
G.R. No. 202708 | 13 April 2015
DOCTRINE: The indemnity for lost earnings must be limited to NET earning capacity meaning necessary
living expenses must be included in the computation. Loss of earning capacity is in the form of damages
and must be supported by competent proof.
FACTS:
35
• Wilson Suitos, Alvaro Suitos and appellant Victoriano Villar were charged for the murder of Jesus
Ylarde
• Both Alvaro and Suitos were charged and found guilty prior to appellant
o In their cases the court applied the formula for damages adopted in Davila v. CA which
is (2/3 x (80 - age at death)) x annual net income
o The widow of the deceased testified that the victim was 49yrs of age when he was
murdered and had earned P16,000 per annum
o This amounted to ((2/3 x (80-49)) x P16,000 = P320,000
o The widow of the deceased also subsequently gave a conflicting testimony regarding her
deceased husbands earning capacity that was put on record
• The appellant was thereafter charged and found guilty of Murder in the RTC wherein the court
did not give credence to his alibi and found him to be in conspiracy with Alvaro and Wilson.
• The appellant thereafter appealed to the CA wherein it affirmed in toto the RTC’s decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the computation of damages awarded by the RTC was correctly computed?
HELD: No, the court held that indemnity for lost earnings was erroneously computed. It is already settled
jurisprudence that "the formula that has gained acceptance over time has limited recovery to net earning
capacity; x x x [meaning], less the necessary expense for his own living." Here, the computation for lost
income of P16,000.00 did not take into consideration the deceased's necessary expenses.
• It is settled that the indemnity for loss of earning capacity is in the form of actual damages; as
such, it must be proved by competent proof, "not merely by the self-serving testimony of the
widow." By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded in two
instances: 1) the victim was self-employed and receiving less than the minimum wage under the
current laws and no documentary evidence available in the decedent's line of business; and, 2) the
deceased was employed as a daily wage worker and receiving less than the minimum wage. Aside
from giving inconsistent statements, the amounts mentioned were arbitrary and were not proved
to be below the prescribed minimum wage. Plainly, this case does not fall under any of the
exceptions exempting the submission of documentary proof.
HEIRS OF OCHOA VS. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION

G.R. No. 170071 | 9 March 2011
DOCTRINE: A ruling on the culpability of the offender will have no bearing on said independent civil
action based on an entirely different cause of action, i.e., culpa contractual.
FACTS:
• Jose Marcial K. Ochoa died through an accident because of high speed and negligence of the
driver while on board an Avis taxicab owned and operated by G & S Transport Corporation
• Ruby, wife of the deceased and the minor children, through counsel, sent G & S a letter
demanding indemnification for Jose’s death, loss of earning capacity and funeral expenses
amounting to P15M.
• Because G&S failed to heed the same, the heirs filed a complaint for damages on the ground
that it failed to observe extraordinary diligence.
• But G&S alleged that the proximate cause of the death was the fortuitous event and/or the
negligence of the driver of the delivery van that hit the taxicab. It claimed that it exercised the
36
diligence required of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of the
employees. Hence, it couldn’t be liable.
• Consequently, Padilla, driver of G&S, has already been acquitted in a separate criminal case
against him. Hence, G&S alleged that this is material to the present case and cannot be held
liable anymore.
ISSUE: Whether or not the acquittal of Padilla is material to the present case for breach of contract.
HELD: No, Article 31 of the Civil Code provides that when the civil action is based on an obligation not
arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently
of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
• In this case, the action filed by the heirs is primarily for the recovery of damages arising from
breach of contract of carriage allegedly committed by G & S. Clearly, it is an independent civil
action arising from contract which is separate and distinct from the criminal action for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide filed by the heirs against Padilla by reason of the same
incident.
• Hence, regardless of Padilla’s acquittal or conviction in said criminal case, same has no bearing
in the resolution of the present case. There was therefore no error on the part of the CA when it
resolved this case without regard to the fact that Padilla has already been acquitted by the RTC
in the criminal case. Moreover, while the CA quoted some portions of the MTC Decision in said
criminal case, we however find that those quoted portions were only meant to belie G & S’ claim
that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the driver of the delivery van
which allegedly hit the Avis taxicab. Even without those quoted portions, the appellate court’s
ultimate finding that it was Padilla’s negligence which was the proximate cause of the mishap
would still be the same. This is because the CA has, in fact, already made this declaration in the
earlier part of its assailed Decision. The fact that the MTC Decision from which the subject
quoted portions were lifted has already been reversed by the RTC is therefore immaterial.
PEOPLE v. ABAIGAR
G.R. No. 199442 | 07 April 2014
Felonies
DOCTRINE: Treachery is when the attack is sudden and the victim had no inkling of the impending
attack.
FACTS:
• Abaigar was charged with Murder for shooting Gabuya with the use of a homemade shotgun locally
known as “Bardog”.
• An eyewitness positively identified Abaigar as the one who shot Gabuya while the latter was standing
outside his house. Abaigar allegedly shot Gabuya as he was opening the front door of his house.
• Abaigar set-up a defense of denial and claimed that he was asleep at the time of the commission of the
crime.
ISSUE: Whether or not Abaigar is guilty of murder
37
HELD: Yes, the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery makes the killing one of murder.
• There is treachery when the victim had no inkling of the impending attack and it came from behind.
PEOPLE v. LALOG
G.R. No. 196753 | 21 April 2014
Penalties
DOCTRINE: Since appellant is guilty of murder and was imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, he
is not eligible for parole.
FACTS:
• Gain, Mercado, Rey, and Manzo were strolling at the park.
• They were blocked by 4 persons who were the accused in this case.
• Later, Gain and Mercado went down the stairs of the park locally known as the RAINBOW.
• Mercado was walking ahead of Gain by six (6) arms length.
• When he looked back, he saw Gain being ganged upon by the group of the accused- appellants
held both the hands of Gain, while Lalog stabbed Gain.
• RTC found appellants guilt of murder qualified by treachery. The court imposed the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether or not appellants are eligible for parole.
HELD: No, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals properly sentenced appellants to reclusion
perpetua there being no aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
• However, appellants are not eligible for parole. Under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 (AN
ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES), it
provides:
• Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be
reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act
No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
• In this case, appellants attacked Gain in a treacherous manner. They held Gain’s arms, rendered
him immobile and then thrust the knife into his body several times.
PEOPLE v. OPIANA
G.R. No. 200797 | 12 January 2015
Penalties
DOCTRINE: Under the law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and
purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million. However, with
the enactment of RA 9346, only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed.
FACTS:
• Opiana was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. Opiana was apprehended
by virtue of a buy-bust operation.
• Opiana question the computation of the CA of his penalty.
ISSUE: Whether or not CA is correct with regard to the penalty.
38
HELD: Yes, under the law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and
purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million. However, with
the enactment of RA 9346, only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed. Thus, the penalty imposed
by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, i.e., life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, is proper.
However, appellant is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
PEOPLE v. WAHIMAN
G.R. No. 200942 | 16 June 2015
Penalties
DOCTRINE: Since appellant is guilty of murder and was imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, he
is not eligible for parole.
FACTS:
• Buensuceso, the manager of Stanfilco-Dole, Phils., was on his way back to the company staff
house onboard his Isuzu pickup after attending a despedida for one of his employees.
• While he was about to enter the gate of the staff house, he was gunned down by persons riding
in tandem on a black motorcycle.
• The guard on duty, David Azucena (Azucena), who was then opening the gate, identified one
of the assailants as herein appellant.
ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is eligible for parole.
HELD: No, appellant was not able to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be present at
the crime scene at the time of its commission. In any event, it must be stressed that appellant’s
conviction was not based solely on his extrajudicial confession. The prosecution likewise presented the
eyewitness account of Azucena who testified that immediately after hearing gunshots, he saw appellant
about 5 meters away from the Isuzu pickup of the victim. Appellant was riding in tandem aboard a
black motorcycle and was holding a gun. The ballistic report also confirmed that the slugs found at the
crime scene were fired from the firearm earlier confiscated from the appellant. Moreover, appellant was
not able to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene at the time
of its commission.
PEOPLE v. ABELLANOSA
G.R. No. 214340 | 19 July 2017
Penalties
DOCTRINE: Considering that the offense involved is illegal recruitment in large scale, it being committed
against three or more persons, the penalty of life imprisonment and fine shall apply collectively to all seven
cases lumped together, and not individually.
FACTS:
• An Information for Illegal Recruitment in large scale was filed against Gilda Abellanosa.
o It was alleged that she falsely represented authority to recruit job applicants for
employment abroad without the required license from POEA and illegally collected
money amounting P5.5K for processing and placement fees against Pomar and seven
others.
• During the arraignment, she pleaded not guilty to all charges against her.
39
o In the trial, she was the sole witness and denied the accusations against her. She testified
that she did not know any of the complainants and she was in Iloilo only to assist one
Shirley in processing the latter’s business license. She also never received money from
them. Further, it is not her that they should go after but Shirley who was actually
engaged in such activities.
o Both trial and appellate courts convicted her of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. She
suffered the penalty of life imprisonment and P500K fine for each of the case imputed
against her.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that the penalty of life
imprisonment and fine should be applied collectively and not individually.
HELD: Yes, the prosecution was able to establish that appellant was engaged in illegal recruitment in
large scale. It was proved that appellant was a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to recruit workers
for deployment abroad; she offered or promised employment abroad to private complainants; she
received monies from private complainants purportedly as placement or processing fees; that private
complainants were not actually deployed to Brunei; that despite demands, appellant failed to reimburse
or refund to private complainants their monies; and that appellant committed these prohibited acts
against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK II

GELIG v. PEOPLE
G. R. No. 173150 | 28 July 2010
Crimes against Public Order
DOCTRINE: Public school teachers are one of the officers referred to under the second mode of Direct
Assault
FACTS:
● An Information was filed against petitioner Lydia Gelig for Direct Assault with Unintentional
Abortion.
● The controversy arose when petitioner confronted complainant Gemma Micarsos, a public school
teacher, after learning from her son that Gemma called her son a sissy. She slapped Gemma in the
cheek and pushed her, thereby causing Gemma to fall and hit a wall divider. Medical records
show that Gemma suffered a contusion in the maxilliary area.
● She continued to suffer abdominal pains, which, upon consulting with a doctor, it was found that
to have suffered incomplete abortion. The RTC convicted petitioner of the complex crime of
direct assault with unintentional abortion. The CA vacated the trial court’s judgment, ruling that
Gemma descended from being a person in authority to a private individual when she engaged in
a fight with the petitioner. Instead the CA convicted the petitioner for slight physical injuries.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Gelig should have been convicted of direct assault.
HELD: Yes, under Article 152 of the RPC a person in authority includes teachers, professors, and persons
charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and university.
● Under the Revised Penal Code, direct assault may be committed in two ways: first, by any person
or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment
of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition; and second, by
any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall attack, employ force, or seriously
40
intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the
performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance.
MASANGKAY v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 164443 | 18 June 2010
Crimes against Public Interest
DOCTRINE: A conviction for perjury cannot be obtained by the prosecution by merely showing the
inconsistent or contradictory statements.
FACTS:
● The accused Eriberto, his common-law wife, Cesar and Elizabeth were the incorporators of MFI
● The accused instituted petition for involuntary dissolution with SEC against MFI, Cesar and
Elizabeth. The petition was executed under oath in the presence of a Notary Public wherein it
alleged certain acts of which constitute a violation of for PD 902-A.
● Elizabeth filed a criminal complaint for perjury against the Eriberto for allegedly lying under
oath when he alleged that there was no Board meeting held and that the Deed of Exchange was
fictitious.
● The prosecution in order to prove perjury presented the minutes of the meeting which contained
the signature of the Eriberto and such is proof that he intentionally committed false
representation of the material fact in the complainhht.
● Eriberto contended that his signature was on the minutes because it was brought to his house
and he was made to sign believing that said transaction would be beneficial to his son. In
addition, he presented evidence that the transaction was void as his son was not a stockholder of
MFI as evidenced by the lack of any record of transfer of stock to his name
ISSUE: Whether or not the Masangkay is guilty of perjury
HELD: No, a conviction for perjury cannot be obtained by the prosecution by merely showing the
inconsistent or contradictory statements of the accused, even if both statements are sworn. The deliberate
falsehood must be proven by evidence other than the contradictory statements.
● Proof of contradictory testimonies under oath will not be sufficient to establish the falsity of his
testimony charged as perjury as the two statements will simply neutralize each other. There must
be some corroboration of the contradictory testimony.
● Under Article 183 of the RPC, the elements of perjury are (1) there must be a sworn statement that
is required by law; (2) it must be made under oath before a competent officer; (3) the statement
contains a deliberate assertion of falsehood; and (4) the false declaration is with regard to a material
matter.
VILLAMOR v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 200396 | 22 March 2017
Crimes against Public Morals
DOCTRINE: In violations of RA 9287, it is not only the illegal paraphernalia which must be proven but the
specific overt acts which constitute the offense.
FACTS:
● The police received an information regarding an ongoing illegal number games in the house of
Victor Banaobra. According to the prosecution, the police officers saw Banaobra and Martin
Villamor in the act of counting bets. Villamor was charged with violation of Section 3(c) of RA 9287
41
for acting as a collector and solicitor of bets for an illegal numbers game and possessing illegal
numbers paraphernalia. While Banaobra was also charged with violation of the same law by acting
as a manager or operator.
● The defense averred that Villamor went to Bonaobra's house to pay a debt he owed. The latter
placed the payment on top of the table, then went outside the house to answer his phone. Suddenly,
a man kicked the fence of the house, grabbed Bonaobra's right arm, and said, "Caught in the act
ka!" Then, two more men entered the house and took the money from the table.
ISSUE: Whether the prosecution established that Banaobra and Villamor are collectors or an agent of
illegal gambling
HELD: No, the illegal gambling paraphernalia is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal gambling
but the specific overt acts that constitute the offense must be proven.
● Under Sec. 3(d) of RA 9287, a collector or agent is "any person who collects, solicits or produces bets
in behalf of his principal for any illegal numbers game who is usually in possession of gambling
paraphernalia." On the other hand, a coordinator, controller, or supervisor is defined as, ''any person
who exercises control and supervision over the collector or agent."
LUMAUIG v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 166680 | 7 JULY 2014
Crimes committed by Public Officers
DOCTRINE: A prior demand or notice for liquidation is not a condition sine qua non before an
accountable officer may be held liable under Article 218 of the RPC.o
FACTS:
• A Commission on Audit (CoA) auditor examined the year-end reports involving the municipal
officials of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao, wherein it was discovered that there was a disbursement
voucher prepared for the Aloysius Lumauig.
• Lumauig admitted having obtained the cash advance of P101,736.00 in 1994, during his
incumbency as municipal mayor of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao, for the payment of freight and
insurance coverage of 12 units of motorcycles to be donated to the municipality by the City of
Manila. However, instead of motorcycles, he was able to secure two buses and five patrol cars.
• He claimed that it never came to his mind to settle or liquidate the amount advanced since the
vehicles were already turned over to the municipality. He alleged that he was neither informed
nor did he receive any demand from COA to liquidate the cash advances.
• He paid the subject cash advance before the treasurer of the municipality in 2001, six years after
he received the cash advances.
• An Information for violation of Section 3 of R.A. 3019 was filed against Lumauig for having
allegedly utilized a cash advance for a purpose other than for which it was obtained. Another
Information for failure to render accounts under Article 218 of the RPC was filed against him.
• The Sandiganbayan rendered a decision acquitting the petitioner in the first case, and convicting
him in the second.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioner for violation of Article 218 of
the RPC
HELD: No, for the conviction of the crime of failure to render accounts it is sufficient that there be a law
or regulation requiring him to render an account.
42
● Under Article 218 of the RPC, the elements of the crime are: (1) that the offender is a public
officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom; (2) that he must be an accountable officer
for public funds or property; (3) that he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the
Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor; and (4) that he fails to do so for a period of two
months after such accounts should be rendered.
● There is no requirement of demand before an accountable officer can be held liable for a violation
of the crime. Under Section 5 of COA Circular No. 90-331, an accountable officer shall liquidate
his case advance for petty operating expenses and field operating expenses within twenty days
after the end of the year.
PEOPLE v. MADEO
G.R. No. 176070 | 02 October 2009
DOCTRINE: Physical resistance is immaterial in a rape case when the victim is sufficiently intimidated
by her assailant and she submits against her will because of fear of her personal safety.
FACTS:
● Anton Madeo was charged with the crime of Rape committed against AAA committed by means
of force and intimidation. AAA on her way to her grandmother’s house was allegedly invited by
Jovelyn Fortuna to the house of her uncle, Madeo. She was left alone with appellant when Madeo
forcibly puller her inside the room. He proceeded have carnal knowledge with her. Thereafter, he
warned AAA not to reveal the incident to anyone or he would kill her and her family.
● Madeo denied the charge and claimed to have been working in a mobile rice mill at the time the
alleged rape occurred. In addition, he raised the defense that AAA voluntarily accepted the
invitation and she did not show the kind of resistance expected of a woman defending her virtue.
She allegedly did not make an outcry or sought help from neighbors.
ISSUE: Whether or not force and intimidation was not proven due to lack of victim’s resistance
HELD: No, the behavior and reaction of every person cannot be predicted with accuracy.
● There is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or
startling or frightful experience. Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the
usual expectation of everyone. Some may shout; some may faint; and some may be shocked into
insensibility; while other openly welcome the intrusion.
● It is not uncommon for a woman to be easily intimidated into silence and conceal for sometime
the violation of her honor, even by the mildest threat to her life.
PEOPLE v. ALBALATE
G.R. No. 174480 | 18 December 2009
DOCTRINE: In criminal cases, age as an element of the crime to be considered must be proven with
independent evidence, other than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial
by the accused.
FACTS:
● Reynaldo Albalate, Jr. was charged with two counts of rape upon his 12-year-old niece, Maria.
43
● Albalate, Jr. armed with an ice pick was able to raped Maria when she was left alone in the house
of their grandparents. On the evening of the same day, Albalate, Jr. boxed Maria and once again
proceeded to rape her
● Albalate, Jr. denied that he raped Maria and claimed that her parents were mad at him and that is
why they filed the instant cases against him.
● The RTC grave credence to the version of the prosecution and found the Albalate, Jr guilty of the
crime of rape. However, it noted that the prosecution failed to prove the Maria’s minority due to
the failure to present a birth certificate to corroborate or substantiate her age.
ISSUE: Whether or not the minority of the victim was satisfactorily established
HELD: No, the age of the victim must be proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself.
● The guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying
circumstance, are:
(1) The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of
the certificate of live birth of such party;
(2) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal
certificate and school records show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age;
(3) If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or
otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or a member
of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Sec. 40, Rule
130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:
(a) If the victim alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that she is less than 7 years old;
(b) If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
(c) If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years and what is sought to be proved is that
she is less than 18 years old
(4) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document or the testimony of the victim’s
mother or relatives concerning the victims age, the complainant’s testimony will suffice
provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused;
(5) It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure
of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against
him
(6) The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.
PEOPLE v. ESCOTON
G.R. No. 183577 | 1 February 2010
DOCTRINE: Medical report is not indispensable to prove the commission of the rape.
FACTS:
● Hilario Escoton was charged of the crime of multiple rape of his 10-year-old niece, AAA.
● AAA and her brother were asleep in their house of their maternal grandmother where they were
residing when Escoton woke up AAA and asked her to follow him to his house which was 500
meters away. His brother, likewise, woke up and accompanied her.
● Upon arrival at home, Escoton proceeded to rape AAA five times while her brother lay silently
beside her.
44
● As a defense, Escoton denies raping AAA and claims that he was already drunk and had fallen
asleep in his house during the alleged commission of the crime.
ISSUE: Whether or not Escoton is guilty of rape.
HELD: Yes, an accused can still be convicted of rape on the sole basis of the testimony of the victim.
● In rape cases, the testimony of rape victim is given full weight and 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 subjected to a public
trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to seek justice for the wrong done to her.
● A medical examination or medical report is not indispensable to prove the commission of the
rape, for it is merely corroborative evidence.
PEOPLE v. VILLARINO
G.R. No. 185012 | 5 March 2010
DOCTRINE: The absence of spermatozoa does not necessarily result in the conclusion that rape was not
committed.
FACTS:
● Victor Villarino was indicted for rape with homicide of a 10-yr old girl, AAA.
● While at a fiesta, the girl, AAA, was instructed to go home and get a t-shirt for her brother; she
never returned. The girl’s body was found on the beach hours later. Pieces of jewelry and a sando
were found at the scene of the crime.
● The jewelry and sando were identified to belong to Villarino by people who had seen him
wearing them at the fiesta. He was arrested drunk and violent near the beach. While waiting for
the boat that would take them to the municipal hall, he allegedly confessed to the officer
guarding him and tried to bribe him to dispose of the evidence.
● Villarino contended that he did not rape AAA and claimed that he was suddenly arrested. In
addition, he claimed that does not own the pieces of jewelry as he cannot afford it being only a
cook in a fishing venture.
● RTC found Villarino guilty of the complex crime of rape with homicide. CA found him guilty
only of homicide because the lack of spermatozoa belied the AAA was raped.
ISSUE: Whether or not Villarino is guilty of rape with homicide
HELD: Yes, the presence of spermatozoa is not a necessary element in proving the crime of rape was
committed.
● In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1)
accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) achieved by means of force, threat or
intimidation; and (3) by reason of such carnal knowledge, the accused killed the woman.
● When the victim is a minor, it is sufficient that the evidence prove that the appellant had sexual
intercourse or sexual bodily connection with the victim.
DIEGA v. C.A.
G.R. No. 173510 | 15 Mar 2010
45
DOCTRINE: In the complex crime of rape with homicide, both rape and homicide must be established
beyond reasonable doubt.
FACTS:
● “AAA”, a thirteen-year-old girl, was raped and killed, by strangulation, on her way to home
from school.
● Erpascual Diega lived in and worked as a security guard in the farm where “AAA” was killed.
She passed the farm every day in going to school. Diega has on previous occasion displayed lewd
interest whenever he saw “AAA” by touching her arms and making lewd comments.
● The crime was committed while Diega was on duty. He reported for duty but was not on his post
and could not be located.
● A witness testified that he was threatened by the accused to touch the body of AAA and to tie a
vine around her neck.
● During the police investigation, the accused had several scratches on his arms, neck, and body.
They were determined to have been caused by fingernails.
● Diega was charged with the complex crime of rape with homicide.
ISSUE: Whether or not Diega was guilty of the crime of rape with homicide
HELD: Yes, both the rape and homicide was sufficiently proven by the prosecution through
circumstantial evidence.
● In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1)
accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) achieved by means of force, threat or
intimidation; and (3) by reason of such carnal knowledge, the accused killed the woman.
SEGURITAN v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 172896|19 April 2010
DOCTRINE: When death resulted, even if there was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just
physical injuries.
FACTS:
● During a drinking session, Roo Seguritan claimed that his uncle Lucrecio’s carabao entered his
farm and destroyed his crops. A heated discussion ensued between the two which led to Seguirtan
punching Lucrecio twice causing him to fall face-up to the ground and hit a hollow block. Lucerio
lost consciousness but was revived. Thereafter, Lucrecio rode a tricycle and proceeded to his house.
Late that night, Lucrecio’s noticed that he has darkened and there was foamy substance which
came out of his mouth. Attempts were made to revive Lucrecio but to no avail he died that same
night.
● Seguirtan was charged with the crime of homicide.
● He denied hitting Lucrecio and alleged that the Lucreio died of cardiac arrest. He claimed that he
suddenly stood up during their heated argument with the intent to punch Lucrecio. However,
since the latter was seated at the opposite end of the bench, Lucrecio lost his balance and fell before
he could hit him.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner is guilty of homicide
HELD: Yes, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds
the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.
● Despite the lack of intent to kill, when the act results to death the crime is homicide.
46
● Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
committing a felony although the wrongful act be different from that which he intended.
PEOPLE v. ASIS
G.R. No. 179935|19 April 2010
DOCTRINE: When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all
that is necessary to show that the rape was committed.
FACTS:
● Rogelio Asis ordered his daughter AAA to remove her clothes. AAA resisted but he threatened to
kill her if she refused. Asis then removed her clothes and had intercourse with her. In another
instance, Asis again had sexual intercourse with AAA against her will. Two Informations were
filed charging appellant with two counts of rape committed against his own daughter, AAA.
During the first rape, AAA was below 12 years old and during the second rape she was barely 14
years old. AAA testified that she was a minor which was affirmed by Asis’ admission of AAA’s
age.
● Asis denied the charges against him and claimed that at he was in Quezon City working as a
carpenter when the first incident occurred. As to the second incident, he claimed that he was then
at his house celebrating the birthday of his mother-in-law while, his daughter AAA was in the
house of her aunt.
ISSUE Whether or not AAA’s minority was sufficiently proven.
HELD: Yes, the age of the victim must be proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself.
● The guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying
circumstance, are:
(7) The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of
the certificate of live birth of such party;
(8) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal
certificate and school records show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age;
(9) If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or
otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or a member
of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Sec. 40, Rule
130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:
(d) If the victim alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
(e) If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
(f) If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years and what is sought to be proved is that
she is less than 18 years old
(10) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document or the testimony of the victim’s
mother or relatives concerning the victims age, the complainant’s testimony will suffice
provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused;
(11) It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure
of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against
him
(12) The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.
47
PEOPLE v. BARON
G.R. No. 185209 | 28 June 2010
DOCTRINE: Robbery must be the central purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely
incidental to the robbery.
FACTS:
● Baron along with others was charged with the Special Complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
Baron and others rode the tricycle of the victim and midway to the journey declared a holdup.
They took the wallet and the tricycle of the victim while some of the accused dragged the driver to
the side of the road and stabbed him to death.
● Baron raised the defense of existence of the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear or
irresistible force of an equal or greater injury. He claims that he was just afraid of his co-accused
and that the existence of the conspiracy was not duly proven.
ISSUE: Whether or not Baron is guilty of Robbery with Homicide.
HELD: Yes, the intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during
or after the robbery.
• To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following
elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with
the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in the generic sense, was committed.
PEOPLE v. ALFONSO
G.R. No. 182094 | 18 August 2010
Crimes Against Persons
DOCTRINE: Inserting a finger into the genital or orifice of another persons is considered as rape by sexual
assault.
FACTS:
● Efren Alfonso was charged with the crime of rape by sexual assault on his 3-year-old daughter
AAA and the crime of statutory rape on his 5-year-old daughter BBB. He allegedly raped them
when their mother was away. Alfonso inserted his finger into AAA’s vagina, while he succeeded
in having carnal knowledge with BBB.
● Alfonso denies that he raped his daughters and claimed that his step-son EEE was the one who did
it. In addition, he claims that the he could not be liable for rape by sexual assault as the act is
nothing different from the accidental or casual touching of AAAs vagina which he does every time
he gives AAA a bath.
ISSUE: Whether or not Alfonso is guilty of the crime of sexual assault
HELD: Yes, the act of inserting a finger into the vagina is considered as rape by sexual assault.
● Under Article 266-A(2), rape by sexual assault is committed by any person who, under the
circumstances mentioned, commits an act of sexual assault into another’s mouth or anal orifice, or
any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
48
PEOPLE v. VILLANUEVA
G.R. No. 181829|1 September 2010
DOCTRINE: Medical certificate is not an essential for the conviction of rape
DOCTRINE: Minor
FACTS:
● AAA narrated that his father sexually abused her on three instances. During the pre-trial the parties
agreed that AAA was a minor below 12 years of age. Three Informations were filed against
appellant for the crime of rape. V
● illanueva denied raping her daughter claiming that she filed the cases because he forbade her to
entertain suitors. He averred that it was unusual for "AAA" not to offer any resistance to the
advances allegedly made by him considering that he was unarmed. Moreover, appellant argued
that the prosecution failed to formally offer in evidence the medical certificate and to present the
doctor who conducted the medical examination to testify on his findings
ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of the crime of rape
HELD: Yes, a medical certificate need not be presented to convict one of the crime of rape as it is merely a
corroborative evidence.
● In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided the
testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things
PEOPLE v. LUCERO
G.R. No. 179044 | 6 December 2010
DOCTRINE: Even if the attack was frontal, treachery may still exist if the attack was sudden and
unexpected, giving no opportunity for the victim to repel the attack.
FACTS:
● Lucero is accused of having murdered Edgar Aydaon, the killing being qualified by treachery.
● According to the prosecution witnesses, Lucero approached Edgar, claiming that he was being
pursued and asked for Edgar’s help.
● Edgar acceded to Lucero’s request for help and invited Lucero to sleep at his house. However, after
walking some distance, Lucero hacked Edgar in the head and waist with a bolo, causing his death.
● In his defense, Lucero offered a denial and an alibi, claiming that he was at his farm when the
hacking took place. He also alleged that the testimonies of the witnesses were inconsistent. He
further alleged that he had no quarrel with the witnesses and the victim.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lucero is guilty of murder?
HELD: Yes, lulling a victim with reciprocated trust and hospitality before a sudden attack is considered
treachery.
● Even if it was a frontal attack, it was sudden, unprovoked, and unexpected, giving the victim no
opportunity to defend himself. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack, without slightest
49
provocation from an unarmed victim, made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to
retaliate.
PEOPLE v. POJO
G.R. No. 183709 | 6 December 2010
Criminal Law - Revised Penal Code Book II - Crimes against Persons
DOCTRINE: Delay in the reporting of the rape does not diminish the credibility of the witness.
FACTS:
● An Information was filed against Manuel Pojo, charging him with the crime of statutory rape of
10-year-old AAA, daughter of his common-law spouse.
● AAA testified that her mother sent her to the plantation where Pojo was to bring him food.
● While at the plantation, Pojo raped AAA, though he failed to completely penetrate AAA’s vagina.
● Upon reaching home, AAA relayed the incident to her sibling and mother, who in turn reported
the same to the authorities and subjected AAA to a medical examination.
● In his defense, Pojo claimed that it was not him as he was in Batangas and the rape occurred in
Camarines Sur. He also claimed that AAA made such accusations to force him into marrying
AAA’s mother. Further, he claims that AAA is not credible since there was a delay of 27 days
between the alleged commission of the rape and AAA’s signing of her affidavit.
ISSUE: Whether Pojo is guilty of the crime of statutory rape?
HELD: Yes, the lapse of twenty-seven days is reasonable to prepare and sign an affidavit.
● Delay in the reporting of the incident does not diminished the credibility of the witness. The Court
has considered reasonable delays in the reporting which consisted of years and months. Delay did
not touch the elements of the crime of rape.
● Alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, it will not be given weight. Neither can
an alibi be accepted if there is positive identification of the accused by a credible witness.
PEOPLE v. BARCELA
G.R. No. 179948 | 8 December 2010
DOCTRINE: The resistance of the victim is not an element of the crime of rape and the law does not
impose on the prosecution the burden to establishing the same.
FACTS:
● AAA, an 11-year-old, was raped by her father Eminiano Barcela. The rape was consummated in
the privacy of their family home.
● AAA was sleeping with her siblings and Barcela was tending to the youngest who was having an
asthma attack. In the middle of the night, AAA was woken up by excruciating pain in her vagina.
She noticed that she was naked with her hands tied above her head and her feet tied to the
bamboo poles of their house. Barcela was on top of her and was inserting her penis into her
vagina. AAA cried in pain and thereafter, Barcela untied her and threatened her with an ice pick
and ordered her to go back to sleep. The next day, Barcela ordered AAA to wash her
bloodstained panty, she obeyed but instead burned the panty to remove any memory of the
incident.
● Barcela denied raping his daughter and stated that he was taking care of his youngest child with
asthma and slept around two o’ clock in the morning. He claims that the commission of the rape
50
as narrated by AAA was incredible as their house was small for him to tie her hands and feet and
there were other people sleeping beside her. Further, AAA failed to resist the alleged sexual
aggression.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of qualified rape was proven
HELD: Yes, failure to resist does not negate the claim of rape.
● It has been an accepted rule that rape can be committed even inside a house where there are
other occupants or where other members of the family are also sleeping.
● In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be proven. The moral and
physical domination of the father is sufficient to intimidate the victim into submission to his
carnal desires. The rapist, by his overpowering and overbearing moral influence, can easily
consummate his bestial lust with impunity. Proof of force and violence is unnecessary, unlike
when the accused is not an ascendant or a blood relative of the victim.
PEOPLE v. NACHOR
G.R. No. 177779 | 14 December 2010
DOCTRINE: The resistance of the victim is not an element of the crime of rape, and the law does not
impose on the prosecution the burden of establishing the same.
FACTS:
● Felipe Nachor was charged with raping his 14-year-old daughter, AAA.
● AAA was left alone with her father, the appellant. While she was cooking at around 11:00 o’clock
in the morning, the appellant suddenly poked a bolo at her neck, pulled her wrist and dragged her
towards the room which she shared with her brother and sisters.
● Nachor succeeded in having carnal knowledge with AAA despite her struggle against his attempts.
After the appellant satisfied his lust, he again poked his bolo at AAA and threatened to kill her,
her mother and siblings if she would report the incident to anyone. She kept the incident to herself
out of fear. Subsequently, the rape was repeated.
● A few months later, the abdomen of "AAA" started to bulge, she finally revealed the sexual abuse
she experienced in the hands of her father.
● Nachor denies the rape and he claims that he was not at home at the time of the alleged rape. He
claims that it was his son who raped AAA and claims that the imputed rape was merely concocted.
Lastly, he claims that there was absence of resistance coupled with belated filing of her complaint.
ISSUE: Whether or not the absence of resistance of the victim is fatal?
HELD: No, the court held that the resistance of the victim is not an element of the crime of rape
● The law does not impose on the prosecution the burden of establishing the same. As long as the
force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.
● Delay in divulging the name of the perpetrator of the crime, if sufficiently explained, does not
impair the credibility of the witness and her testimony nor destroy their probative value.
51
PEOPLE v. OLESCO
G.R. No. 174861 | 11 April 2011
DOCTRINE: It is not necessary that the force employed to accomplish rape be so great or of such character
as could not be resisted.
DOCTRINE: The sweetheart defense must be proven by compelling evidence.
FACTS:
● Olesco was convicted of rape after having drugged and raped his victim AAA. AAA who was on
her way home was pulled by Olesco when she passed by the bakery he was working in and covered
her mouth with a hanky which cause her to be unconscious. She regained her consciousness after
Olesco has already succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her.
● He invoked the sweetheart defense, claiming that there was no evidence of force employed on the
victim.
ISSUE: Whether or not Olesco is guilty of the crime of rape
HELD: Yes, in the crime of rape, it is not necessary that the force employed accomplishing it be so great or
of such character as could not be resisted.
● It is only necessary that the force employed by the guilty party be sufficient to consummate the
purpose which he had in view.
ISSUE: Whether or not the sweetheart defense was proven
HELD: No, the testimonial evidence claiming the ‘sweetheart theory’ or ‘sweetheart defense’ is not
sufficient.
● Independent proof is required to prove such defense, such as tokens, mementors, and
photographs.
PEOPLE v. RELANES
G.R. No. 175831 | 12 Apr 2011
DOCTRINE: In rape cases, if the testimony of the victim passes the test of credibility, the accused may
be convicted solely on that basis for rape is generally unwitnessed and oftentimes, the victim is left to
testify for herself.
FACTS:
● AAA claims that she was only 8 years old when her father, Florante Relanes, started to rape her
on bolo-point. It happened frequently when her mother was out selling vegetable. Even when she
got pregnant, her father continued to rape her.
● When her father went to Manila, she had the courage to tell her mother. They immediately went
to the authorities. A physician examination revealed that “AAA” has had sexual intercourse and
was indeed pregnant.
● Relanes denied that he raped AAA and asserted that he had already left for Manila prior to the
alleged rape.
ISSUE: Whether or not Relanes is guilty of the crime of rape
52
HELD: Yes, at the core of almost all rape cases, the credibility of the victim’s testimony is crucial in view
of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only the participants therein can testify to its occurrence.
• When a rape victim’s account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical
findings of the examining physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction of rape.
PEOPLE v. ASETRE
G.R. No. 175834 | 08 June 2011
DOCTRINE: There are various ways to commit rape as defined by Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code
FACTS:
● Four Information were filed against the accused Asetre.
● It was alleged that on 4 separate occasions, Asetre raped AAA while visiting DDD, AAA’s aunt
and Astre’s common-law husband.
● Asetre presented his 2 neighbors as witness, both of whom testified that during the times that the
alleged rape occurred, AAA had not yet arrived to visit. They further testified that AAA had
arrived a day or two after the last incident of the alleged rape occurred.
ISSUE: Whether or not Asetre is guilty of all 4 charges of rape
HELD: Yes, the acts of Asetre falls under the means of committing rape as defined by the RPC.
● Under Article 266-A, rape is committed –
By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none
of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
PEOPLE v. DUMADAG
G.R. No. 176740 | 22 June 2011
DOCTRINE: For the Sweetheart Defense to be credible, the same must be substantiated by documentary
or other evidence.
FACTS:
• AAA was walking home from midnight mass, walking behind some of Dumadag’s relatives. All
of the sudden, the accused approached AAA from behind and poked a knife at her, threatening
to stab her if she shouts. Accused then pulled AAA to the house of a certain Boyet and once inside,
succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA.
• AAA did not disclose what transpired out of fear, but her uncle eventually found out. After
confirming the same with AAA, the matter was reported to the police. A medical examination
revealed lacerations on AAA’s hymen.
• A complaint was filed against Dumadag, charging him with the commission of the crime of rape
against AAA, 16 years old.
53
• Dumadag does not deny having sexual intercourse with AAA, but he claimed that there was no
force as AAA was his girlfriend. Dumadag presented Boyet and Nieves, both of whom
corroborated that AAA and Dumadag were sweethearts.
ISSUE: Whether Dumadag is guilty of the crime of rape
HELD: Yes, the defense of being sweetheart must be proven with independent evidence.
● The sweetheart defense can be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of
relationship, such as notes, gifts, pictures, mementos, and the like.
● The claim of being sweethearts does not negate rape. Love is not a license for lust.
PEOPLE v. SALES
G.R. No. 177218 | 03 Oct 2011
DOCTRINE: Decent and responsible parents would never subject a minor child to sadistic punishment in
the guise of discipline.
FACTS:
● Neomar and Junior left their home without permission and did not return that day. They were
found the following day in a nearby barangay. Upon returning home, Noel Sales, furious with his
children, tied them to a coconut tree and beat them with a thick piece of wood. Shortly thereafter,
Neomar collapsed and lost consciousness. Attempts to bring the boy to a hospital were futile as
there as no vehicle passing by. Neomar shortly passed away and was buried after a short wake.
● An Information was filed against Sales, charging him with parricide for the death of his 9-year-old
son, Neomar. Another Information was also filed charging him with slight physical injuries
committed against his second son, Junior.
● Sales contends that the beating caused Neomar’s death and it was due to difficulty of breathing for
having a weak heart and having epilepsy which caused his death. In addition, he claims to have
only been disciplining his children.
ISSUE: Whether Sales is guilty of parricide and of slight physical injuries
HELD: Yes, the imposition of parental discipline on children of tender years must always be with the view
of correcting their erroneous behavior
● It is incumbent upon parents to remain rational and refrain from being motivated by anger in
enforcing the intended punishment.
● Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and
(3) the deceased is the mother, father, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or other
legitimate descendant or ascendant, or legitimate spouse of the accused.
RONDINA v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 179059 | 13 June 2012
DOCTRINE: At the core of almost all rape cases, the credibility of the victim’s testimony is crucial in view
of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only the participants therein can testify to its occurrence.
FACTS:
54
● An Information charging Victor Rondina for the crime of rape was filed by the City Prosecution
Office of Ormoc City.
● Rondina suddenly entered the toilet where 16-year-old AAAwas located and removed the towel
from his waist, poked a knife and threatened to kill her family and eventually had carnal
knowledge without her consent.
● AAA did not immediately report the incident and only told her mother months after the rape.
● During the pendency of the proceedings and after about 9 months from the date of alleged incident,
“AAA” gave birth to a baby girl named “CCC.”
ISSUE: Whether or not Rondino is guilty of rape
HELD: Yes, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of
the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone.
● Minor inconsistencies and difficulty in understanding the questions will not negate the credibility
of the testimony or the occurrence of the rape.
● It is not unnatural to find minor discrepancies in the testimony of a rape victim as she cannot be
expected to remember every minute detail of her ordeal.
PEOPLE v. BANIG
G.R. No. 177137| 23 Aug 2012
DOCTRINE: The sweetheart defense deserves no attention if the accused does not present evidence such
as letters, pictures, gifts, and the like to show that he and the victim were sweethearts
DOCTRINE: There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion
DOCTRINE: Resistance is not a necessary element to prove the commission of the rape
FACTS:
● Pedro Banig and Tony Ginumtad were accused of having raped AAA. According to the testimony
of AAA, she went out to attend a pre-nuptial wedding dance in their barrio. When she left to
urinate, she was approached by two persons and threatened with a knife and warned not to
scream.
● The accused then had carnal knowledge of AAA. After the accused were done, they immediately
left. The incident was then reported to the authorities 2 weeks later. Upon medical examination,
some lacerations were found, though old. However, the medical examiner explained that these
lacerations were old as the examination took place a month after the incident.
● Banig, claimed that he and AAA were lovers, and that the criminal charges were filed by BBB,
AAA’s father, against him when he learned of their relationship as he did not accept him. In
addition, Banig claims that AAA failed to show resistance expected of a young woman defending
her honor and that it was impossible to commit the rape at the place where it allegedly occurred
for being in public.
ISSUE: Whether or not Banig is guilty of the crime of rape
HELD: Yes, the sweetheart defense must be proven with independent evidence supporting such claim.
● Failure to present documentary or other object evidence, such as letters, gifts, nor pictures, will
make the claim of the inherently weak defense of sweetheart theory a bare allegation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the commission of the rape was impossible due to proximity to an inhabited house
55
HELD: No, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.
● The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their odious act. Rape can
be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school
premises, inside a house where there are several occupants and even in the same room where other
members of the family are sleeping.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lack of physical resistance negates the commission of rape
HELD: No, it is not necessary on the part of the victim to put up a tenacious physical struggle.
● Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed
and the victim submits herself to the embrace of the rapist because of fear.
PEOPLE v. VENTURINA
G.R. No. 183097| 12 September 2012
DOCTRINE: Rape can be committed in any place and is not limited secluded area
DOCTRINE: The absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape
FACTS:
● AAA was inside a nipa hut with her younger brother BBB and CCC while her other brothers DDD
and EEE were sleeping at a nearby nipa hut.
● At around 8:00 in the evening, Antonino Venturino, her father, arrived. He was drunk. He had
difficulty breathing and was crying. AAA massaged his chest until he stopped crying.
Unexpectedly, appellant embraced and kissed her then removed their clothes. He laid on top of
her and placed his private organ inside her.
● He further dragged the victim outside when AAA’s younger brother woke up. Venturina
continued his immoral acts by again inserting his penis into her vagina. Venturina threatened AAA
not to tell anybody. When he left, AAA reported the incident to her sister FFF who reported the
matter to the police.
● Venturina denied the raped AAA and claimed that it was impossible to commit the crime in the
presence of her siblings. Further, he claimed that there was the absence of any form of physical
trauma on AAA.
ISSUE: Whether or not Venturina is guilty of the crime of rape
HELD: Yes, rape can be committed in a confined space.

• Rape is not a respecter of place and time. It is not impossible even if committed in a small room
where other household members were also sleeping.
ISSUE: Whether or not the absence of any form of injury or hymenal lacerations negate the rape
HELD: No, Physical injuries or hymenal lacerations are not essential elements of rape
• The absence of physical injuries or hymenal laceration or presence of healed ones does not negate
the commission of rape. These are not essential for the conviction of the crime of rape and are
merely corroborative evidence.
56
PEOPLE v. ENDING
G.R. No. 183827 | 12 November 2012
DOCTRINE: Mere denials if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and
cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.
FACTS:
● After taking a bath, AAA went inside her room to dress up. Her father, Enerio Ending, entered the
room, embraced her and forcibly pulled the towel wrapped around her body. He then pushed her
to the floor and inserted his penis into her vagina. She did not shout because her mother was away
and because she was afraid of the appellant, who was carrying a bolo and who told her not to tell
her mother about the incident.
● There were two other instances where appellant had carnal knowledge with AAA. Appellant
ordered his own daughter AAA to help him pasture their cows at the land of her grandfather and
while there, accused forcibly brought her beneath a banana plantation then had carnal knowledge
with her.
● AAA told her classmate and her teacher about what happened and they then reported such to the
police.
● Appellant denied committing the rape and argued that he could not have raped AAA because she
was living with her grandparents.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ending is guilty of the crime of rape.
HELD: Yes, the conviction of the crime of rape cannot be negated by mere denial.
● For one’s alibi to prosper, it must be established that he was not at the locus delicti at the time the
offense was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime
at the time of its commission.
PEOPLE v. SORIA
G.R. No. 179031 | 14 November 2012
DOCTRINE: Rape can now be committed either through sexual intercourse or by sexual assault.
FACTS:
● AAA and her siblings ate the spaghetti that their father, Benjamin Soria brought home for merienda
● After eating, AAA went to the bedroom to rest. Soria also entered the room and positioned himself
on top of AAA, took off her clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina
● AAA felt intense pain and thus told her father that it was painful. Appellant then apologized to his
daughter, stood up and left the room. The whole incident was witnessed by AAA’s brother, BBB.
● The medico-legal results stated that AAA is in virgin state physically and there are no external
signs of application of any form of physical trauma.
ISSUE: Whether or not Soria is guilty of the crime of rape
HELD: Yes, inserting an instrument or object into a person’s genital or other orifice is considered rape.
● Rape can be committed either through sexual intercourse or by sexual assault.
57
● Under the first paragraph of Art. 266-A of the RPC is the rape through sexual intercourse. Carnal
knowledge is the central element and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
● On the other hand, rape under paragraph two of Art. 266-A of the RPC is commonly known as
rape by sexual assault. It is committed by inserting his penis into another’s mouth, or anal orifice
or any instrument or object.
PEOPLE v. CABUNGAN
G.R. No. 189355 | 23 January 2013
DOCTRINE: Long silence is not always construed as indication of a false accusation of rape. A rape charge
only becomes doubtful when delay or inaction is unreasonable and unexplained.
FACTS:
• Cabungan was convicted of raping his 15-yr old step-daughter AAA in their house. After the rape
he threatened AAA that he will kill her if she would report the incident to anyone.
• The rape was reported months after its commission, due to his constant threats.
• Cabungan denied raping AAA and questioned the belated filing of the complaint against him. In
addition, he claims that AAA failed to shout and offer resistance during the rape and there were
several inconsistencies in her testimony.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cabungan is guilty of the crime of rape
HELD: Yes, delay in reporting a rape case for two months or more, cannot be taken against the victim.
• Long silence is not always construed as indication of a false accusation of rape. A rape charge only
becomes doubtful when delay or inaction is unreasonable and unexplained.
• It is not uncommon that a rape victim to conceal for sometime the assault against her persons on
account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant.
PEOPLE v. LOMAQUE
G.R. No. 189297 | 5 June 2013
DOCTRINE: The filing of complaint of rape months, even years after their commission may or may not
dent the credibility of witness and of testimony, depending on the circumstances attendant thereto.
FACTS:
● Lomaque was charged under separate Informations for 13 counts of Rape by Sexual Intercourse
allegedly committed against his stepdaughter AAA.
● AAA’s harrowing experience with Lomaque continued and she eventually became pregnant.
Lomaque asked BBB to bring AAA to the doctor for medical check-up, they then discovered that
AAA was pregnant.
● BBB, mother of AAA, inquired who the father was, AAA told her that it was Lomaque, a matter
which appellant admitted but when BBB became hysterical.
● Lomaque retracted and concocted a story that somebody else caused the pregnancy of AAA.
● After giving birth, AAA returned to their house. There she saw appellant kissing her younger
sister, CCC. Afraid that CCC might suffer the same fate she had, she decided to file a complaint
against Lomaque with the help of Bantay-Bata.
58
ISSUE: Whether or not Lomaque is guilty of the crime of rape
HELD: Yes, the delay in the reporting of the incident does not diminish the credibility of the claim nor
negate the commission of the crime of rape.
● Momentary inaction will neither diminish nor affect her credibility when it can be attributed to the
the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm, especially by one who exercises moral
ascendency over the victim, enough to cow and intimidate her.
● Resuming a normal life after the rape cannot be taken against the victim. There is no standard form
of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement, particularly a child who
could not be expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult.
● Lastly, physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is brought to bear on the
victim and the latter submits herself out of fear.
PEOPLE v. SUANSING
G.R. No. 189822 | 2 September 2013
DOCTRINE: Carnal knowledge of a woman suffering from mental retardation is rape since she is
incapable of giving consent to a sexual act.
FACTS:
● AAA used to live with her grandparents because her mother died of tuberculosis. When AAA was
15 years old, she became a mother to a baby boy. To receive better guidance and supervision, AAA
was transferred to the residence of EEE who raised her as a daughter
● GGG requested FFF to get from Jojie Suansing’s boarding house an electric fan and a transformer.
FFF together with her brother and AAA went to the boarding house of Suansing After giving the
requested items, Suansing ordered FFF and her brother to leave AAA behind.
● GGG requested FFF to return to appellant’s boarding house to fetch AAA. FFF noticed that the
door was closed, she called out to AAA, she came out fixing her short pants. AAA narrated that
Suansing pulled her inside the room, removed her shoes and panty and told her to lie down on the
floor and inserted his penis into her vagina without her consent.
ISSUE: Whether or not Suansing is guilty of rape
HELD: Yes, a mental condition of retardation deprives a person of that natural instinct to resist assault on
her chastity and womanhood.
• Sexual intercourse with one who is intellectually weak to the extent that she is incapable of giving
consent to the carnal act already constitutes rape, without requiring proof that the accused used
force and intimidation in committing the act.
• Only the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim and the latter’s mental
retardation needs to be proved.
PEOPLE v. DE JESUS
G.R. No. 190622 | 7 October 2013
DOCTRINE: A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not
negate rape.
59
FACTS:
• The victim AAA, an 11-year old kid went to the Pasig public market to buy a pair of slippers.
AAA was not able to buy because Rodolfo De Jesus suddenly grabbed her left arm and pulled
her towards the nearby Mega Parking Plaza. Upon reaching the 4th floor of the parking plaza, de
Jesus pulled AAA’s shorts and panty down to her knees. De Jesus then succeeded in raping
AAA.
• Boca, the security guard assigned at the parking plaza, was conducting a roving patrol when he
heard the cry of AAA. He was surprised to see AAA seated on the lap of the De Jesus. Immediately
upon seeing the sexual molestations, Boca grabbed appellant’s arm and brought him to the
barangay hall.
• De Jesus denied raping AAA and he could not think of any motive why the complaint was filed
against him. In addition, he claims that the absence of fresh laceration on the hymen prove that he
did no rape AAA.
ISSUE: Whether or not De Jesus is guilty of rape
HELD: Yes, the presence of old and healed hymenal laceration do not negate the rape.
• Medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable
to the prosecution of a rape case.
• The credible disclosure of a minor that the assailant rapes her is the most important proof of sexual
abuse.
PEOPLE v. CIAL
G.R. No. 191362 |9 October, 2013
DOCTRINE: Rape can still be committed in places where people congregate and such fact will not negate
the commission of said act.
FACTS:
● The victim AAA is one of four children of BBB and CCC. When CCC died BBB cohabited with the
accused Mariano Cial
● Cial called AAA and told her to go to the bedroom inside their house. Once inside, Cial took off
her shorts and panty and spread her legs. He pulled his pants down to his thighs and inserted his
penis into the little girl's vagina. She felt intense pain but she did not try to struggle because
appellant had a bolo on his waist. After satiating his lust, appellant threatened to kill her and her
family if she reported the incident to anyone. At that time, her maternal grandmother was in the
house but was unaware that she was being ravished.
● Cial denied raping AAA as he treated her as his own daughter and claimed that the charge was
merely fabricated by AAA’s aunt. Further, he claims that if he indeed raped AAA then the
maternal grandmother who was in the house would have noticed the same.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cial is guilty of the crime of qualified rape
HELD: Yes, Lust is no respecter of time and place and the crime of rape can be committed anywhere
• The presence of another person where the rape was committed does not negate the commission of
the rape.
PEOPLE v. GUILLEN
60
G. R. No. 191756 | 25 November 2013

DOCTRINE: Rape may be committed even in places where people congregate
DOCTRINE: Hymenal laceration, whether fresh or healed, is not an element of the crime of rape
FACTS:
• An Information was filed against the appellant Guillen with the crime of rape. The prosecution
alleged that while AAA was inside her room when someone knocked at the door. AAA opened
the door, and Guillen, their neighbor, entered the room and poked a balisong on her neck.
Appellant then proceeded to have carnal knowledge of AAA. After the rape was consummated,
appellant left the room.
• AAA immediately told the incident to her sister-in-law, which the latter reported to the police.
Guillen was immediately arrested.
• A medico-legal examination was conducted on AAA and revealed an extragenital physical
injury, healed hymenal laceration, and a pending lab exam result.
• Guillen contends that he had a drinking spree at another place and surmised that AAA filed the
charge against him because of his prior altercation with AAA’s husband. In addition, he could
not have raped AAA as the room where it was allegedly committed was close to AAA’s sister-in-
law’s room.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Guillen is guilty of the crime of rape
HELD: Yes, the proximity of the place where the commission of the crime occurred to other people does
not negate the rape.
• Rape is not only committed in seclusion and may even be committed in places where people
congregate.
ISSUE: Whether healed laceration negate the crime of rape
HELD: No, hymenal laceration, whether fresh or healed, is not an element of the crime of rape.
• Even medical examination is not necessary to prove the crime of rape as it is merely
corroborative.
PEOPLE v. MANIGO
G.R. No. 194612 | 27 January 2014
DOCTRINE: Rape is a generally unwitnessed crime, where the victim is the sole testimonial witness;
hence an accused may be convicted on the victim’s sole testimony if it passes the test of credibility.
FACTS:
• Floro Manigo, a tricycle driver, was convicted of raping his passenger AAA, a 13-yr old schoolgirl.
• The victim was the only eyewitness to testify, corroborated by medical findings.
• Manigo denied raping AAA as he was not in the area and he is not a tricycle driver but one who
is engaged in the business of money lending.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manigo is guilty of the crime of rape
HELD: Yes, rape is generally unwitnessed, often leaving the victim to testify for herself.
61
• In resolving rape cases, the victim’s credibility is the primordial consideration. If the victim’s
testimony is straightforward, convincing and consistent with human nature and normal course of
things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and
the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.
PEOPLE v. CRISOSTOMO
G.R. No. 196435| 29 January 2014
DOCTRINE: In statutory rape, the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal
knowledge took place.
FACTS:
• AAA, then 6-years-old, testified that she wandered by the house of Joel Crisostomo which was
just below their house. While AAA was at the house of accused, she claimed that her genitals
and buttocks were burned with a lighted cigarette by Crisostomo. AAA testified further that her
clothes were taken off by the Crisostomo who also took his clothes off after which he allegedly
placed himself on top of her, inserted his penis and proceeded to have illicit carnal knowledge
with AAA.
• BBB, father of AAA, presented in court his daughter’s birth certificate which stated that she was
born on April 4, 1993. Moreover, the Medico-Legal Officer who examined AAA identified and
testified that the victim indeed had two third degree burns in the perianal region.
ISSUE: Whether or not Crisostomo is guilty of rape by sexual assault and statutory rape.
HELD: Yes, when the offended party is under 12 years of age, the crime committed is “statutory rape” as
it departs from the usual modes of committing rape.
• What the law punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age.
• The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her
tender years.
PEOPLE v. OBOGNE
G.R. No. 199740| 24 March 2014
DOCTRINE: Knowledge by the offender of the mental disability, emotional disorder, or physical
handicap of the victim at the time of the commission of the rape is a qualifying circumstance, thus must
be alleged in the information.
FACTS:
• Jerry Obogne was charged of raping AAA, a 12–year old mentally retarded person. However,
the information filed against Obogne did not allege that he knew of AAA’s mental disability.
• RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape only.
• The trial court did not consider AAA’s mental retardation as a qualifying circumstance
considering that the information failed to allege that appellant knew of the mental disability.
• The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of the crime of simple rape.
62
HELD: Yes, failure to allege a certain circumstance in the information such circumstance will not be taken
into consideration by the Court.
• In People v. Limio, it was held that under Article 266–B (10) of the Revised Penal Code, knowledge
by the offender of the mental disability, emotional disorder, or physical handicap at the time of
the commission of the rape is the qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the
death penalty.
• As such this circumstance must be formally alleged in the information and duly proved by the
prosecution. In the absence of a specific or particular allegation in the information that the
appellant knew of her mental disability or retardation, as well as lack of adequate proof that
appellant knew of this fact, Article 266–B (10), RPC, could not be properly applied.
PEOPLE v. SAN GASPAR

G.R. No. 180496 | 2 April 2014
DOCTRINE: Parricide is committed when the persons killed by the accused who is the father, mother,
or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or descendant, or other
descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.
FACTS:
• Accused Roy San Gaspar was married to Imelda San Gaspar. In April 1999, Roy had an
argument with Imelda over the fact that she was sleeping beside their grown children and that
Roy did not ask permission that he was going away for a relative. This led to a heated altercation
wherein Roy kicked Imelda and proceeded to get his homemade shotgun upstairs. He then
loaded it and shot her in the head which was witnessed by their two children. Imelda died from
the gunshot wound which was found to be done at close-range
• Roy denied the incident and claims that when he got from the funeral and pushed the door to
enter their room, he suddenly heard a gunshot from a 0.12-gauge shotgun. He claims that the
gun was accidentally discharged and he even rushed to outside to look for a transportation to
bring Imelda to the hospital.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of parricide was proven
HELD: Yes, parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused;
(3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other
ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.
• Relationship may be proven with the presentation of a marriage certificate.
PEOPLE v. LUJECO
G.R. No. 198059 | 7 April 2014
DOCTRINE: The elements of statutory rape are (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman;
and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age or is demented.
FACTS:
• The Antonio Lujeco was charged and convicted for statutory rape by the RTC for having carnal
knowledge of 7-year-old AAA.
63
• AAA testified that she was playing with her friends near the old market at Don Carlos, Bukidnon,
which was about 20 meters away from her house. After her playmates left, Lujeco suddenly
grabbed AAA and dragged her to the house of his granddaughter which was located nearby.
• Inside the house, appellant forcibly undressed her poked a knife at her, and then had carnal
knowledge of her. After satiating his lust, Lujeco told her to go home.
• Lucejo denied raping AAA and claimed that he was at the public market of Don Carlos
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC erred in finding the accused guilty of statuary rape?
HELD: No, when the victim is below 12 years of age and such ia sufficiently proven the crime is one of
staturoy rape.
• The elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2)
that the woman is below 12 years of age or is demented.
PEOPLE v. ZAPATA
G.R. No. 197046 | 21 July 2014
DOCTRINE: In the crime of parricide, only the following elements need to be satisfactorily established:
(1) the death of the deceased; (2) that he or she was killed by the accused; and (3) that the deceased was a
legitimate ascendant or descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.
FACTS:
• An information for the crime of parricide was filed against appellant George Zapata. It was
alleged that he shot his wife Queeny with a .45 caliber pistol at close range (chest area), with
intent to kill thereby causing her death. It was also alleged that he fled from the scene of the
crime without seeking help for his wife which was left alone in the sala soaked in her very own
blood.
• Zapata argued that shooting his wife was accidental. He alleged that he wanted to show his gun
to his cousin but it fell when he tried to retrieve the gun from the cabinet. In his attempt to catch
the gun, he accidentally squeezed the trigger hitting his wife in the process.
ISSUE: Whether or not the shooting was intentional hence he is guilty of parricide.
HELD: Yes, the elements of parricide were duly proven in this case.
• The elements of parricide are: 1) the death of the deceased; (2) that he or she was killed by the
accused; and (3) that the deceased was a legitimate ascendant or descendant, or the legitimate
spouse of the accused.
• An assailant shooting his spouse, may it be intentional or accidental, does not negate the crime of
parricide.
PEOPLE v. BUNAGAN
G.R. No. 196786 | 23 July 2014
DOCTRINE: An accused invoking the sweetheart defense in a rape case must prove the existence of the
relationship.
FACTS:
64
• Bunagan was convicted of raping his 16-yr old niece, AAA, multiple times from 1998 to 2001 until
she got pregnant.
• He denied the allegation and alleged that they had been in a relationship since she was 14-yrs old.
He admits having sexual congress with AAA and such was consensual due to their relationship.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bunagan is guilty of rape
HELD: Yes, the sweetheart defense raised by Bunagan was not duly proven.
• The sweetheart defense when not proven and uncorroborated is self-serving.
• Evidence of gifts, letters, pictures, and other proof of the relationship must be shown to prove the
claim of the sweetheart defense.
PEOPLE v. SATO
G.R. No. 190863 | 19 November 2014
DOCTRINE: Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.
FACTS:
• 9-year old “AAA” and her 6-year old cousin “BBB” were invited by the Sato, to an abandoned
nipa hut where they were told to undress. Upon compliance, appellant started playing with the
private parts of “AAA.” He then inserted his penis to “AAA’s” vagina and made coital movements
that caused “AAA” pain. Upon satisfaction, appellant gave “AAA” P5.00 and dismissed the
children with a threat that he would kill “AAA” and her father if she were to tell anyone what
happened. Still, “AAA” reported the incident to her grandmother. Upon physical examination, it
was found that there was hyperemia or an increase in redness of “AAA’s” hymen.
• Sato denied raping AAA and claimed that he was out fishing and was back ashore in the
afternoon.
·
ISSUE: WON appellant is guilty of the crime of statutory rape on account of “AAA’s” testimony
HELD: Yes, testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl,
particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show
that rape has in fact been committed.
• Courts will give credit to the testimony of an offended party who is of tender age and immature,
considering her relative vulnerability and the shame she would be exposed to if the matter she
testified to were not true.
PEOPLE v. PRODENCIADO
G.R. No. 192232 | 10 December 2014
DOCTRINE: Time of commission is not an element of rape and it is not incumbent upon the victim to
prove the same.
FACTS:
• Jose Prodenciado was charged with 2 counts of statutory rape and 2 count of simple rape
committed against his own daughter.
• AAA had brought food for Prodenciado by the river and that thereafter the he pulled out a knife
and instructed her to go to a hut where he thereafter proceeded to remove their clothes and
65
inserted his penis into her vagina. He thereafter told her that he would kill her and her mother if
she divulged what had transpired that day. The incident was repeated when again in 1995 and on
2000.
• Prodenciado denied that he raped AAA as he was a construction worker at the time of the crime
and was in a different place. In addition, he claims that the delay in reporting the alleged rape
negates its commission.
ISSUE: Whether or not Prodenciado is guilty of the crime of rape
HELD: No, it is not incumbent upon the victim to establish the date when she was raped for purposes of
convicting the perpetrator.
• In rape cases, the date of commission is not an essential element of the offense; what is material is
its occurrence, which in this case, was sufficiently established
• Failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge and
does not detract from the fact that rape was committed.
PEOPLE v. COLENTAVA
G.R. No. 190348 | 9 February 2015
DOCTRINE: The conduct of the victim immediately following the sexual assault is important as to the
veracity of the rape charge, but not every victim may be expected to act conformably with the usual human
nature.
FACTS:
• Nila Colentava was charged and found guilty of the crime of qualified rape of his 16-yr old
daughter, AAA, on three separate occasions. Colentava threatened AAA not to report the rape or
he’ll kill her. He even used a gun to threaten her.
• Colentava denied the accusation of rape and claimed that he has been staying in Manila for work.
In addition, he questioned the failure of AAA to report immediately the crime and her conduct
after the incident was not one which is expected from one who was sexually molested.
ISSUE: Whether or not Colentava is guilty of qualified rape
HELD: Yes, the victim’s failure to report and her conduct and silence in returning home was due to her
well-founded fear that her father would kill her and her grandmother as he threatened.
• The elements therefore of qualified rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) by force
and without consent; (4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; (5) the offender
is a parent, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, of the victim.
• In incestuous rape, the father’s moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter substitutes for
violence and intimidation.
OLARTE v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 197731 | 6 July 2015
DOCTRINE: The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as
manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s
66
but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for
murder under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code exist.
FACTS:
• Hermie Olarte were charged with the crime of frustrated homicide. Victim Eugene M. Villostas
was fetched by his half-brother, Charlie Penilla, from a drinking session. On their way home,
Villostas decided to buy cigarettes from a nearby videoke bar wherein three men who belonged
to a group then singing and drinking suddenly stabbed him on different parts of his body.
• They only stopped when bystanders started throwing stones at them. Hermie Olarte, Ruben Ario
and their co-accused Pasquin were arrested. Meanwhile, Villostas was rushed to the Valenzuela
General Hospital where he was treated by Dr. Jolou A. Pascual. Dr. Pascual testified that the victim
would have died if not for timely medical intervention.
• Olarte, et, al. averred that they were surprised when they were suddenly apprehended. They
claimed that they were on their way to the police station, as they were planning to file a blotter
against those who threw at them earlier before they were arrested.
ISSUE: Whether or not the elements of the crime of frustrated homicide were duly proven
HELD: Yes, the elements of frustrated murder were proven and there was no qualifying circumstance
alleged to qualify the killing to murder.
• The elements of frustrated homicide are:(1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested
by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s
but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying
circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code exist.
PEOPLE v. GABUYA
G.R. No. 209038 | 8 June 2016
DOCTRINE: In rape cases, the prosecution is not required to prove physical resistance when intimidation
is exercised upon the victim, and the latter submits herself to the rapist's lust because of fear for life and
personal safety.
FACTS:
• On her way home, AAA noticed that two men were following her. She tried walking fast, however,
the two, Ronald Gabuya and Ryanneal Giron, eventually caught up with her. Giron pointed a knife
at her neck and threatened her not to shout. They dragged her to a vacant lot, took all her
belongings, and had sexual intercourse with her. The two escaped when another woman appeared.
The latter brought AAA to the hospital for medical examination and accompanied her to the police
station. Gabuya and Giron were arrested.
• An information for robbery with rape was filed against them. The two denied committing the
crime. They averred that the essential elements of the crime were not proven because the victim
failed to prove resistance as she did not shout nor resisted to the carnal knowledge.
ISSUE: Whether the prosecution proved all the elements of robbery with rape
HELD: Yes, all the elements of the robbery with rape are proven. Physical resistance need not be
established in rape cases when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself against
her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for life and personal safety.
67
• The elements of robbery with rape are 1) taking of personal property committed with violence or
intimidation against persons; 2) The property taken belongs to another; 3) the taking is done with
animo lucrandi, and 4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.
PEOPLE v. TIONLOC
G.R. No. 212193 | 15 February 2017
DOCTRINE: The mere presence of a knife lying near where the commission of the rape was committed
cannot be considered as force, threat or intimidation.
DOCTRINE: Resistance should be made before the rape is consummated
FACTS:
• Juan Tionloc was charged with rape by sexual assault of AAA.
• AAA said that she have a drinking session with Tionloc and a certain Meneses. During the drinking
session, she claimed to feel dizzy and took a nap. She woke up to Meneses having carnal
knowledge with her.
• After Meneses, she claimed that Tionloc asked her if he can also have sex with her, she did not
respond. She claimed to be afraid because there was a knife that was lying on the table that has
been used to cut hotdog.
• Tionloc denied raping AAA and claimed that he went out to buy food and when he returned, he
saw menses and AAA having sex and they asked him to leave which he did. In addition, he clais
that AAA did not manifest resistance to the rape.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tionloc is guilty of the crime of rape
HELD: No, there was no proof of actual use of force, threat or intimidation implemented to consummate
the rape.
• Force, as an element of rape, must be sufficient to consummate the purposes which the accused
had in mind. On the other hand, intimidation must produce fear that if the victim does not yield
to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment or even
thereafter as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. Intimidation includes
the moral kind as the feat caused by threatening the girl with a knife or pistol.
• A knife lying nearby which could be utilized to kill her if she resisted is not sufficient, the fear is
mere product of one’s imagination. The knife which was placed nearby must precisely be used to
threaten or intimidate her.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was resistance on the part of AAA
HELD: No, resistance must be manifest and tenacious and must manifest right from the start of the alleged
rape.
• A resistance in the middle of a sexual congress can hardly be considered as an unequivocal
manifestation of the victim’s refusal or rejection of the sexual advances.
68
• Mere attempt to resist is not the resistance required and expected of a woman defending her virtue,
honor and chastity.
• The unexplainable silence of the victim is considered a tacit consent which allowed him to have
sexual contact with her.
BARBOSA v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 207193 | 24 July 2017
DOCTRINE: Absence the qualifying circumstance of murder, parricide and infanticide and treachery the
killing is considered a crime of homicide.
FACTS:
• Ramdy and Roble Barbosa were convicted of having shot and killed Artemio Betita Jr.
• Betita, Jr.’s daughter testified that her father was challenged by a man to come out of his house. He
met with the man and then she heard three gunshots. Thereafter, he saw his father wounded
outside their house. Afterwards, she saw accused Ramdy Barbosa running away holding a gun
while accused Roble Barboasa was on his house’s terrace holding a long firearm.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Barbosas may be convicted despite the witness not having seen them actually
shoot her father
HELD: Yes, the elements of homicide were clearly present.

• The elements of homicide are : (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed that person without
justifying circumstance; (3) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) the
killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or that of parricide or
infanticide.
PEOPLE v. PANES
G.R. No. 215730 | 11 September 2017
DOCTRINE: In rape cases, the relationship of the victim to the accused and the minority of the victim are
special qualifying circumstances which must be alleged and proved by the prosecution.
DOCTRINE: In rape cases, it is not necessary that the place where the rape is committed be isolated.
FACTS:
• Three separate charges of rape were filed against Melchor Panes by his daughter. She alleged that
on three separate occasions, her father succeeded in forcing her to have sexual intercourse.
• Panes denied the rape and claimed that he could not have raped AAA as all of his children were
in the house.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant is guilty of rape.
HELD: Yes, the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship were sufficiently alleged in the
information.
• The element of intimidation exists when the assailant is the father of the victim. Victims of tender
age are easily intimidated and cowed into silence even by the mildest threat against their lives.
69
ISSUE: Whether the presence of the other sibling negates the commission of the rape
HELD: No, lust is no respecter of place and time and rape can be committed in places which are not isolated.
• Rapists are not deterred from committing their odious acts by the presence of people nearby.
Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of
being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape.
• Rape can be committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family
members sleeping side by side.
PEOPLE v. GABRIEL
G.R. No. 213390 | 15 March 2017
DOCTRINE: A woman’s testimony that she has been raped is sufficient to establish that the crime has been
committed, the only question left is whether the court would accept or not her testimony.
FACTS:
• AAA and BBB were boarders of Jessie Gabriel. The prosecution averred that Gabriel accused the
two of stealing items from his store located and directed the two to see him in his room to talk
about the matter. However, when AAA entered his room, he had sexual intercourse with her
despite her plea for him to stop.
• An information for rape was filed against Gabriel. He admitted confronting AAA and BBB about
the stolen items but denied having intercourse with AAA.
ISSUE: Whether the testimony of AAA is sufficient to establish the crime of rape.
HELD: Yes, the crime of rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually
the victim alone who can testify on the forced sexual intercourse.
• When a rape victim's account is straightforward, candid, and is corroborated by the medical
findings of the examining physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape.
• It is highly improbable that a young, decent woman would concoct a rape story against a man
who is accusing her of a petty crime which she denies. A woman who claims rape exposes herself
to the spectacle of a public trial where she would recount the sordid details of her ordeal.
• Thus, it has been repeatedly ruled that no young and decent woman in her right mind would
concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert
herself by being subjected to a public trial if she was not motivated solely by her desire to obtain
justice for the wrong committed against her.
PEOPLE v. SIBBU
G.R. No. 214757 | 29 March 2017
DOCTRINE: Missing the target who was intended to killed already consummates the crime of attempted
murder
FACTS:
70
• Bryan Julian was with his parents and child when he saw from a distance a person with a long
firearm slung across his chest and a black bonnet over his head. He also saw two men in crouching
position. Fearing the worst, he shouted a warning to his family. The man then fired upon them
killing his parents and child.
• Bryan identified Tirso Sibbu as the person with a long firearm. He testified that when the armed
man inched closer to the house, Sibbu tried to fix his bonnet thereby providing him the opportunity
to see his face.
• Information for murder and attempted murder were filed against Sibbu and other John Does.
• Defense averred that Sibbu did not leave their house. They averred that the prosecution failed to
establish his guilt and they questioned the identification of the witness.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sibbu is guilty of attempted murder
HELD: Yes, mere missing of one’s target does not extinguish the crime of attempted murder.
• In performing all the acts of execution which should produce murder, and by reason of some
cause other than his own spontaneous desistance the killing is not consummated, the crime of
attempted murder is already committed.
PEOPLE v. NAPOLES
G.R. No. 215200 | 26 July 2017
DOCTRINE: Physical resistance is not an element of rape.
FACTS:
• AAA averred that she was raped by her step-father, Nomerto Napoles. Six counts of rape were
filed against him.
• Napoles admitted having sexual intercourse with her but averred that the same was consensual
as they have a romantic relationship.
• In addition, Napoles argued that there was no showing that she defended her honor and dignity
with utmost courage and determination. Accordingly, such silence and lack of showing of any
outrage place her story in grievous doubt.
ISSUE: Whether or not Napoles is guilty of rape.
HELD: Yes, failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission
to the perpetrator's lust.
• The use of a knife and bolo and the threat of death constituted sufficient force and intimidation.
• Furthermore, as the victim’s stepfather, he exerted a strong moral influence over her which may
even substitute for actual physical violence and intimidation.
• Lastly, the alleged romantic relationship does not necessarily negate rape. A man cannot demand
sexual gratification and worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love because love is not
a license for lust.
VIDAR v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 177361 | 1 February 2010
Crimes against Property
71
DOCTRINE: The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before,
during, or after the robbery.
DOCTRINE: Delay in reporting to the police authorities the crime does not weaken the credibility of the
testimonies of the witnesses or negate the commission of the crime.
FACTS:
• Vidar, et. al. was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide for the death of Sgt. Julio
Dioneda.
• While the Dioneda was taking a bath outside the house, Vidar, et. al. entered the residence of the
victim ransacked the place and took the wallet, crash helmet and gun of the belonging to the
victim. Thereafter, the shot Dioneda.
• Vidar, et. al., denied that charge against them and claimed to have no knowledge of the killing of
Sgt. Dioneda. In addition, they questioned the delay in the report of the incident.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are guilty of Robbery with Homicide.
HELD: Yes, it was proven that the intent to rob was the main objective of the crime.
• The elements of robbery with homicide are: 1) the taking of personal property was committed
with violence or intimidation against persons; 2) the property taken belongs to another; 3) the
taking was done with animo lucrandi; and 4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof,
the crime of homicide which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed
ISSUE: Whether or not delay negates the commission of the crime
HELD: No, delay in reporting to the police is consistent with normal human behavior of wanting to avoid
provoking further reprisals from the perpetrators of the felonious act.
• Although there is a natural tendency to seek the ends of justice for the treacherous killing of a dearly
departed, personal safety takes priority as dictated by our culture.
• Delay in reporting the occurrence of a crime or other unusual events in rural areas is well known.
PEOPLE v. MARTINEZ
G.R. No. 158627| 5 March 2010
DOCTRINE: Criminal liability for estafa already committed is not affected by the fact that appellant
returned a portion of their money.
DOCTRINE: Lack of license or authority to deploy workers abroad is sufficient to convict under the crime
of illegal recruitment.
FACTS:
• Maritess Martinez was charged with seven counts of Estafa before RTC. On even date, she together
with her children Jenilyn and Julius, was also charged with the crime of Illegal Recruitment in
large scale.
• It was alleged that they represented themselves to have the capacity to recruit Filipino workers
abroad without having secured the necessary license from POEA and misappropriated the
recruitment fees unlawfully collected.
• Martinez averred that she could not be convicted for illegal recruitment because she merely
assisted complainants in their applications with the recruitment agency. In addition, she insists
72
that she turned over the amounts she received from the complainants to JH Imperial Organization
Placement Corp.
• Lastly, she alleged that there was no proof that she falsely represented to have the capacity to send
complainants as factory workers in South Korea.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Martinez is guilty of the crimes of estafa
HELD: Yes, criminal liability of estafa already committed is not affected by the fact that respondent
returned a portion of their money.
• Compromise or novation of contract pertains and affects only the civil aspect of the case.
• The elements of estafa are: (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means
of deceit; and (b) the offended party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.
• By reason of her misrepresentations, false assurances, and deceit, victims were induced to part
with their money.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Martinez is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment
HELD: Yes, the proof that one was not a licensee or holder of authority to deploy workers abroad is
sufficient to convict under the crime of illegal recruitment.
• The elements of the crime of illegal recruitment are: a) the offender has no valid license or authority
required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; b) the offender
undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) of the
Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6
of RA 8042); and c) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a
group
CRISOSTOMO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 171526 | 1 September 2010
DOCTRINE: The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before,
during or after the robbery.
FACTS:
● Rodelio works in a gasoline station. He was by the gasoline tank when three armed men on board
a motorcycle arrived.
● Two of the men went to the cashier, two or three-armed length from where Rodelio was, and shot
Janet, the cashier, and took the money from the cash register.
● After the incident, Rodelio gave a description of the driver of the motorcycle but not of the two
armed men who entered the cashier’s office because they had their backs turned on him. The NBI
prepared a cartographic sketch based on the information.
● Rodel Crisostomo was detained after being implicated for the crime. Rodelio and another gasoline
boy identified him as one of the three robbers. Crisostomo was charged with the complex crime of
robbery with homicide.
● Crisostomo denied committing the crime of robbery with homicide and claimed that he was not
the man identified in the cartographic sketch by the NBI.
ISSUE: Whether or not Crisostomo is guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide
HELD: Yes, when the killing is merely incidental and the overriding intention is to rob then the crime is
robbery with homicide.
73
• The elements of robbery with homicide are: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another;
(2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion
or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed.
SAN MIGUEL v. PUZON

G.R. No. 167567|22 September 2010
Crimes Against Property
DOCTRINE: The personal property must belong to another to constitute the crime of theft
FACTS:
• Puzon purchased SMC products on credit. To ensure payment and as a business practice, SMC
required him to issue post-dated checks before the same were released to him. He issued two BPI
checks equivalent to the value of the product.
• Puzon, together with his accountant, visited the SMC Sales Office to reconcile his account with
SMC. During that visit Puzon allegedly requested to see BPI Check No. 17657. However, when he
got hold of BPI Check No. 27903 which was attached to a bond paper together with BPI Check No.
17657 he allegedly immediately left the office with his accountant, bringing the checks with them.
• SMC sent a letter to Puzon demanding the return of the said checks. Puzon ignored the demand
hence SMC filed a complaint against him for theft.
ISSUE: Whether Puzon is guilty of the crime of theft?
HELD: No, a check which is not given as a payment then the ownership of the said check did not transfer.
• The essential elements of the crime of theft are the following: (1) that there be a taking of personal
property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain;
(4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be
accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things.
• Negotiable Instruments Law provides that the person to whom an instrument is delivered acquires
the title thereto as of the date of delivery. However, that delivery means that the party delivering
did so for the purpose of giving effect thereto. Otherwise, it cannot be said that there has been
delivery of the negotiable instrument.
• When the check was not given as payment and is merely used to secure an obligation, the
ownership of the check was not transferred.
FRANCO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 171328 | 16 February 2011
DOCTRINE: An employee’s act of soliciting a client despite previous knowledge of several complaints
against his or her employer for failure to deliver is tantamount to misrepresentation.
FACTS:
• Lourdes Antonio testified that Lyzah Franco, a friend of her niece, swindled her. Franco offered
to assist Antonio in purchasing a used car and introduced herself as an Assistance Administrative
Coordinator of Final Access Marketing, which was engaged in the sale and financing of second-
hand and repossessed vehicles.
74
• Antonio agreed to the offer since she and her husband were looking for a used cab for their taxicab
operation. They went to a showroom and chose a Blue Mazda 323 from the display.
• Franco went to Antonio’s house to collect the downpayment of P80,000. Franco promised the car
will b delivered in 3 days but such did not materialize and could not be reached or found anymore.
• Franco denied involvement and was a mere employee of Final Access Marketing and knew of her
employers’ scheme when it was reported.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of estafa
HELD: Yes, the elements of estafa by means of deceit was proven by the false pretenses and fraudulent
acts committed though misrepresentation.
• Under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC, the elements of the crime of estafa by means of deceit are:
(1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means;
(2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
(3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means
and was thus induced to part with his money or property; and
(4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage
PEOPLE v. TANCHANCO
G. R. 177761 | 18 April 2012
DOCTRINE: Theft committed while holding a position which necessarily entails trust and confidence,
not only because of its nature and function but includes representation, is qualified by such high degree
of confidence.
FACTS:
• Atty. Rebecca Manuel hired Remedios Tanchanco to work in her office as legal secretary and
liaison officer, which includes the task tasks to process the transfer of title’s of Manuel’s clients.
• In the course of Tanchanco’s employment, Manuel noticed that the completion of the transfer of
titles was taking longer than usual but Tanchanco attributed the delay to the cumbersome
procedure and that the personnel processing the transfer cannot be bribed.
• However, Tanchanco suddenly abandoned her job. Manuel discovered that Tanchanco was
stealing sums of money entrusted to her as payment for capital gains tax, documentary stamp
tax, transfer tax and other expenses intended for the transfer of the titles of properties. This
included the use of money which was as payment in relation to processing requirements as a
liason officer.
• Tanchanco admitted that she worked for Manuel and merely denied the allegations of theft.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tanchanco is guilty of qualified theft
HELD: Yes, grave abuse of confidence must be the result of relation by reason of dependence,
guardianship, or vigilance, between the accused and the offended party that might create a high degree
of confidence between then which is abused by accused.
• Under Article 308 of the the RPC, the elements of the crime of theft are:
(1) there was taking of personal property;
(2) the property belongs to another;
(3) the taking was done with intent to gain;
(4) the taking was without the consent of the owner; and
75
(5) the taking was accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons
or force upon things.
• Under Article 310, theft is qualified when committed with grave abuse of confidence.
D’AIGLE v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 174181| 27 Jun 2012
DOCTRINE: The act of merely retaining properties for the purpose of preserving one’s right of lien over
them is immaterial and the failure to return upon demand of such properties is tantamount to
appropriating the same for own personal use.
FACTS:
● Andre L. D’Aigle was the managing director of Samfit Philippines. He was also a majority
stockholder of TAC Manufacturing, an entity engaged in the fabrication of wire bending machine
similar to that used by Samfit.
● Sometime thereafter, he was dismissed from his duties due to alleged conflict of business interest.
● After he was dismissed, an audit was conducted which revealed that during the tenure of the
D’Aigle, some of the company properties under his custody were missing and were left
unaccounted.
● A demand was sent to the petitioner to turn over to Samfit all its equipment under his custody. He
ignored the demand.
● D’Aigle claims that Samfit owed TAC money and he merely held the property entrusted to him to
preserve his lien over them.
ISSUE: Whether or not D’Aigle is guilty of the crime of estafa
HELD: Yes, the failure to account upon demand, for funds or property held in trust is circumstantial
evidence of misappropriation.
• Under Article 315, par.1(b) of the RPC, the lements of estafa are:
(1) That money, goods or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery
of or to return, the same;
(2) That there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on
his part of such receipt;
(3) That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
(4) That there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender
MARQUEZ, et. al. v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 181138 | 3 December 2012
DOCTRINE: If the store was not actually occupied at the time of the robbery and was not used as a
dwelling, since the owner lived in a separate house, the crime committed is robbery in an uninhabited
place.
FACTS:
• Marlon Mallari suggested the Ricky Marquez, Roy Bernardo, and Jomer Magalong, with Ryan
Benzon rob the Rice-in-a-Box store located at the corner of U.E
76
• Marquez then got a lead pipe and handed it to Magalong, which he and Bernardo used to
destroy the padlock of the store.
• Mallari was designated as the look-out while petitioners and Benzon entered the store and
carried away all the items inside it which consisted of rice cookers, a blender and food items.
• On the same day, owner Sonia Valderosa was informed that her store was forcibly opened and
that her freezer along with other items in the store were missing.
• Marquez, et. al. denied that they robbed the stall and claimed that it was already open when
they passed by it.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of robbery in an inhabited place.
HELD: No, robbery may be committed in two ways: (a) with violence against, or intimidation of persons
and (b) by the use of force upon things.
• Under Article 302 of the RPC, robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building may be
committed if any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window has been broken. On the other
hand, robbery of an inhabited place defines inhabited house means any shelter, ship, or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even though the inhabitants thereof shall
temporarily be absent therefrom when the robbery is committed.
• When the place robber is used as a store and not as a dwelling then the crime is one under
Article 302.
PEOPLE v. TORRES
G.R. No. 189850| 22 September 2014
DOCTRINE: To be convicted of robbery with homicide, the intent to rob must precede the taking of
human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.
FACTS:
• Espino was driving his car along C.M. Recto Avenue when Ronnie Torres suddenly blocked his
path. Espino alighted from his vehicle and approached Ronnie, who tried to grab his belt-bag.
Espino resisted and struggled with Ronnie for the possession of his belt-bag but the latter’s
brothers, Jay Torres, Reynaldo Torres, Bobby Torres, and an unidentified companion suddenly
appeared.
• With all of them brandishing bladed weapons, appellant and his brothers took turns in stabbing
Espino in different parts of his body while the unidentified companion held him by the neck. When
Espino was already sprawled on the ground, they took his belt-bag, wallet and jewelries and
immediately fled.
• An information was filed the charging siblings Reynaldo, Jay, Ronnie and appellant with the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide committed against Espino. Only Bobby Torres
was arrested as the others remain at-large to date.
ISSUE: Whether or not Torres is guilty of crime of robbery with homicide
HELD: Yes, the intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during
or after the robbery.
• To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following
elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with
the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed.
77
• A conviction requires that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and the
killing is merely incidental to the robbery.
PEOPLE v. NIELLES
G.R. No. 200308 | 23 February 2015
DOCTRINE: An employee who has the functions and responsibilities which include billings and
collections is one who enjoys confidence reposed in her by her employer.
FACTS:
• Flores was engaged in the business of guaranteeing purchase orders and gift checks of Shoemart
and Landmark and selling or transferring them for consideration. Nieles worked as Flores' house
help but was eventually hired to work at Flores' office performing clerical jobs. When Flores'
business grew, appellant was assigned to bill and collect from sub-guarantors, and to encash and
deposit checks.
• On July 15, 2004, Nielles collected P640,353.86 from the sub-guarantors. However, she did not
remit the amount to Flores or deposit it in Flores account. Instead, she issued 15 personal checks
totaling P640,353.86 and deposited them to Flores' account. All the checks were dishonored upon
presentment due to "account closed." Nieles absconded and was charged with the crime of
Qualified Theft.
• Nielles contends that since Flores she could not have personally known whether she indeed
collected the amounts. She posited that mere issuance of the 15 checks is not proof that she
received or collected payments from the sub-guarantors or that she failed to remit the monies
belonging to Flores.
ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of qualified theft
HELD: Yes, the taking of personal property committed in connection with a position wherein one enjoys
the confidence reposed upon him by another is committed with grave abuse of confidence and constituted
the crime of qualified theft.
• The elements of qualified theft are:
1) taking of personal property;
2) that said property belongs to another;
3) that the said taking was done with intent to gain;
4) that it was done without the owner's consent;
5) that it was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, or of force
upon things;
6) that it was done with grave abuse of confidence.
PASCUAL v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 204873| 27 July 2016
DOCTRINE: In proving the complex crime of estafa through falsification of publication document, both
the elements of estafa and falsification must be established for conviction.
FACTS:
78
• Spouses Wee purchased a real property in Las Pinas. They directed their secretary, Tiongco, to
process the transfer of title to the said property and to pay the capital gains tax thereon. Remegio
Montero, a business partner of Wee, referred the secretary to Esther Pascual, an employee of the
City Assessor’s office.
• Pascual offered to facilitate the payment through her connections at the BIR office. They went to
the BIR Office where the secretary gave the money to Pascual. Pascual gave a photocopy of the
BIR official receipt and promised that the Certificate of Title would be given to her within 3
months.
• However, the title was never delivered and it was discovered that the receipt given was fake. A
complaint for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document was filed
against Pascual and Montero.
• Pascual denied that she mislead Tiongco into believing that she was connected with the BIR and
that she did not take advantage of her official position at BIR as it was not her make or prepare BIR
receipts.
ISSUE: Whether Pascual may be held liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public
document.
HELD: Yes, estafa through falsification of public document is a complex crime where two different
offenses are tried as one because one offense was committed as a necessary means to commit the other, or
because a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies.
• The elements of estafa are:
(1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and
(2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third
person.
• The elements of the crime of Falsification of Public Document are:
(1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;
(2) that he takes advantage of his official position;
(3) that he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act
or proceeding; and
(4) that such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the proceeding.
PEOPLE v. BUENAMER
G.R. No. 206227 | 31 August 2016
DOCTRINE: The lack of intent to kill a person who is being robbed does not negate the liability for the
crime of homicide.
FACTS:
• Stanley Buenamer and Jerome Lambada boarded a passenger FX taxi. Armed with firearms, they
declared a hold-up and demanded the valuables of the passengers. One of the passengers tried to
regain possession of his belongings, Buenamer boxed him. The passenger fell off and the
passenger jeepney ran over him. Buenamer and Lambada were arrested.
• An information for robbery with homicide was filed against them.
• Buenamer insisted that the prosecution was not able to positively identified the perpetraators of
the crime and that there was no intent to kill the passenger.
ISSUE: Whether or not Buenamer is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery.
79
HELD: Yes, in the crime of robbery with homicide the main intent is rob and the killing is merely
incidental.
• The elements of robbery with homicide are:
(1) The taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons;
(2) The property taken belongs to another;
(3) The taking is with animo lucrandi; and
(4) By reason of the robbery, or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.
• A death which resulted from the acts committed to complete the crime of robbery makes the it a
complex crime of robbery with homicide, despite the absence of intent to kill.
PEOPLE v. GAMBA
G.R. No. 215332 | 24 July 2017
DOCTRINE: In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, robbery should be the main purpose
of the malefactor and the killing must be merely incidental.
FACTS:
● Mark Gamba boarded a jeepney together with three unidentified men. They pulled out their guns
and declared a hold-up. One of the passengers refused to give his cellphone. Hence, Gamba kicked
and shot him which resulted in his death.
● Days later, Gamba was arrested and was charged with the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
● Gamba denied committing the robbery and averred that at the time of the robbery, he has been
engaged in a drinking spree with his friends in another place.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gamba is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
HELD: Yes, the intent to rob preceded the taking of human life which was merely incidental, resulting by
reason of or on occasion of the robbery.
• For one to be held liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, there must be:
(1) taking of personal property belonging to another;
(2) with intent to gain,
(3) with the use of violence and intimidation, and
(4) on the occasion or by reason of robbery, the crime of homicide was committed.
PEOPLE v. LOMAQUE
G.R. No. 189297 | 5 June 2013
Crimes against Chastity
DOCTRINE: Lascivious conduct is defined as a crime committed through the intentional touching, either
directly or through the clothing of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks with the
intention to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
FACTS:
● Lomaque was charged with one count of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5 of RA No.
7610 against his 8-year-old stepdaughter.
● Lomaque allegedly caressed AAA’s breast, smelled her vagina and inserted his finger in it.
80
● AAA’s harrowing experience with Lomaque continued and she eventually became pregnant.
Lomaque asked BBB to bring AAA to the doctor for medical check-up, they then discovered that
AAA was pregnant.
● BBB, mother of AAA, inquired who the father was, AAA told her that it was Lomaque, a matter
which appellant admitted but when BBB became hysterical, Lomaque retracted and concocted a
story that somebody else caused the pregnancy of AAA.
● After giving birth, AAA returned to their house. There she saw appellant kissing her younger
sister, CCC. Afraid that CCC might suffer the same fate she had, she decided to file a complaint
against Lomaque with the help of Bantay-Bata.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lomaque is guilty of the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
HELD: Yes, the act of smelling the victim’s genital area and inserting a finger in the genital to gratify or
arouse one’s sexual desire is considered a lascivious act.
• The elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 are:
(1) That the offender commits any acts of lasciviousness or lewdness;
(2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a) By using force or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c) When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and
(3) That the offended party is another person of either sex.
• In addition, the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 are:
1) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;
2) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse; and
3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
LOPEZ v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 172203 | 14 February 2011
Crimes Against Honor
DOCTRINE: In the crime of libel, the fact that the language is offensive to a person does not make it
actionable by itself.
FACTS:
• Lopez was charged with Libel by Mayor Escalante of Cadiz City, because of the former’s posting
of a billboard stating “CADIZ FOREVER” “BADING AND SAG AY NEVER”, “Bading” as the
Mayor is famously called claims that Lopez’s act has him maligned and dishonored.
• Lopez admitted having placed all the billboards because he is aware of all the things happening
around Cadiz City. He mentioned “BADING” because he was not in conformity with the many
things the mayor had done in Cadiz City and the message was a wake-up call for Cadiz City
ISSUE: Whether or not Lopez is guilty of libel
HELD: No, there are no derogatory imputations of a crime, vice or defect or any act, omission, condition,
status or circumstance tending, directly or indirectly, to cause his dishonor.
• Neither does the phrase in its entirety, employ any unpleasant language or somewhat harsh and
uncalled for that would reflect on private respondent’s integrity.
• Pursuant to Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code, if the defamatory statement is made against a
public official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of the
81
allegations is shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove
that the imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends.
LAGAYA v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 176251| 25 July 2012
Crimes against Honor
DOCTRINE: When the statement in question is injurious on its face, it is presumed that the same was
made with malice
FACTS
• Martinez was the Plant Manager for an agency of the DOH. While she was attending a seminar,
Martinez had a misunderstanding with one of the resource speakers.
• As a result, Lagaya, the Director General, issued a Memorandum which addressed Martinez’s
behavior. However, the same contained some statements that Martinez believed was libelous.
• The statements were that Martinez should “be submitted for further psychological and/or
psychiatric treatment to prevent further deterioration of her mental and emotional stability”
• An Information was filed against Petitioner Lagaya charging him with the crime of libel as
defined under Art. 355, in relation to Arts. 353 and 354 of the RPC.
• Lagaya admits to having signed the Memorandum, but claims that it was done in good faith and
in the performance of official duties.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lagaya is guilty of libel
HELD: Yes, libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary,
or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt
of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
• For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: (a) it must be defamatory;
(b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; (d) the victim must be identifiable.
• Malice is the doing of an act conceived in the spirit of mischief or criminal indifference to the
rights of others or which must partake of a criminal or wanton nature, is presumed from any
defamatory imputation, particularly when it injures the reputation of the person defamed.
SPECIAL LAWS
PEOPLE v. MALLARI
G.R. No. 179041 | 1 April 2013
Anti-Carnapping Law
DOCTRINE: In the special complex crime of carnaping with homicide the killing is done in the course of
the commission of the robbery or on occasion thereof.
FACTS:
● An information was filed charging Arnel Mallari and co-accused with violation of R.A. No. 6539
(Anti-Carnapping Act).
● The prosecution’s lone witness was Mahilac, a self-confessed member of FX gang, a syndicate
notorious for carjacking Toyota FX vehicles. Ramos, Posadas and Mallari were members of the
gang. Mahilac testified that they met at a restaurant to have a meeting.
82
● As they were departing from the restaurant, a Toyota FX was flagged down by Mallari. They then
arrived at Cagayan de Oro and agreed to proceed to Iligan City. Mallari told Mahilac not to board
the Toyota FX because its back portion reeked of the dried blood of the FX driver Medel, who was
stabbed to death while resisting the group.
● Mallari denied knowledge of the carnapping incident and claimed that he was at home with his
family at the time of the commission of the crime. In addition, he stated that Mahilac was his
employer and did not know why he was implicatedto the crime.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mallari is guilty of the complex crime of carnapping with homicide.
HELD: Yes, to prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only
of the essential elements of carnapping but also the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing
was perpetrated in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on occasion thereof.
• Under Section 2 of RA No. 6539, carnapping is “the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle
belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons, or by using force upon things.
• The special complex crime of carnapping with homicide is punishable under Section 14 of RA
6539, as amended by Section 20 of RA 7659.
PINLAC v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 197458 | 11 November 2015
Anti-Child Abuse Act
DOCTRINE: A child is deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse" when he or she indulges in lascivious
conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult.
FACTS:
• Nicanor Pinlac was accused and convicted of sexual assault of AAA, a 14-yr old boy. The sexual
assault was allegedly committed during a fraternity initiation. Pinlac took aside AAA during the
fraternity initiation, persuading him to imbibe alcohol and smoke marijuana until the latter was
in a daze, and forcibly disrobing him before performing oral sex on him. Pinlac repeated this
process the next day as well.
• Pinlac denied the charges against him and he claimed that he was pre-occupied with the
campaigning as he was a candidate for barangay kagawad. Further, he claimed that the case was
instigated by BBB, AAA’s mother, one of his opponents for the position.
ISSUE: Whether or not Pinlac is guilty of Sexual Abuse under RA 7610 Anti-Child Abuse Law? (Special
Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act)
HELD: Yes, A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child
indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or
(b) under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group.
• The law covers not only a situation in which a child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in
any lascivious conduct.
• The elements of sexual abuse under RA 7610 are:
(1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;
(2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse;
and
(3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
83
BUSTILLO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 160718 | 12 May 2010
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
DOCTRINE: There is a disputable presumption that official duty been regularly performed and may be
overcomed by no less than clear and convincing evidence.
FACTS:
• Anuncio Bustillo as Municipal Mayor; Agustin Billedo, Jr. as Vice Mayor, and Agustin Sumilhig,
Jr. as member of Sangguniang Bayan, were all charged with the alleged violation of Section 3(e)
of R.A. No. 3019 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
• Bustillo, et. al. allegedly committed an offense in relation to their official duties and taking
advantage of their official position, conspired and confederated, by passing Sangguniang Bayan
Resolution No. 95-27 which authorized the transfer without cost to San Francisco Water District
(SFWD) of one Tamaraw FX vehicle and six units of KE Kawasaki motorcycles
• The properties transferred were purchased for the Municipality of Bunawan out of the
Countryside Development Fund (CDF) of Congressman Ceferino Paredes, Jr.
• The Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 95-27 was nullified by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Agusan del Sur, however, SFWD refused to surrender the motor vehicle and motorcycles to the
Municipality of Bunawan. Subsequently, SFWD executed a Deed of Donation for the properties
in favor of the Municipality of Bunawan as the projects funded by the CDF of Congressman
Paredes were already completed.
• The Sandiganbayan found Bustillo, et. al. guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bustillo, et. al. is guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act?
HELD: No, the act of transferring possession of the vehicles were made in good faith and does not give
rise to the elements of the crime.
• Absence any evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity, public officers’ acts are presumed
regular.
• The elements of violating Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 are:
(1) that the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them;
(2) that said public officer commit the prohibited act during the performance of their official
duties or in relation to their public positions;
(3) that they caused undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private party;
(4) that such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such
parties; and
(5) that such public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence.
CHUA v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 196853 | 13 July 2015
Bouncing Checks Law
DOCTRINE: When no proof as to when notice of non-payment was received by the drawer, then the
presumption or prima facie evidence provided in Section 2 of BP 22 cannot arise, since there would simply
be no way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period.
84
FACTS:
• Chua issued several postdated PSBank checks of varying amounts to See pursuant to their
rediscounting arrangement at a 3% rate. However, See claimed that when he deposited the checks,
they were dishonored either due to insufficient funds or closed account.
• Despite demands, Chua failed to make good the checks. Hence, See filed a Complaint for violations
of BP 22 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. Attached was the demand letter
at issue.
• In a Resolution, the prosecutor found probable cause and recommended the filing of charges
against Chua. Accordingly, 54 counts of violation of BP 22 were filed against him.
• Chua asserts that the presumption that the issuer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds only
arises after it is proved that the issuer actually received a notice of dishonor and within five days
from receipt thereof failed to pay the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment.
• Here, the date when Chua allegedly received the demand letter was not established by the
prosecution.
ISSUE: Whether or not Chua is guilty of violating BP 22
HELD: No, the absence of the date of actual receipt on the face of the demand letter prevented the legal
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds from arising.
• The elements of violation of BP 22 are:
(1) The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
(2) The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of the issue he does not have
sufficient funds in credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment; and
(3) The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit
or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment.
• Section 2 of BP 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds, which, however,
arises only after it is proved that the issuer haf received a written notice of dishonor and that within
five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangement for
its payment.
PEOPLE v. ALBERTO
G. R. No. 179717 | 5 February 2010
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
DOCTRINE: Non-compliance with the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence
confiscated will not result to appellants acquittal oft he crime charged.
FACTS:
• The Drug Enforcement Unit of the Makati Police Station received a tip from an informant that
the appellant was selling shabu. An entrapment team was immediately formed by the Makati
Police Station. The informant contacted Nieva Alberto through a cellular phone and they agreed
to meet at J.P. Rizal Extension, Comembo, Makati City, to consummate the transaction.
Whereupon, the informant and the police team proceeded to the designated area.
• Upon their arrival thereat, the informant approached the Alberto and introduced the poseur-
buyer, PO1 Inopia. Alberto asked PO1 Inopia how much shabu he needed and the latter handed
over the P500.00 buy-bust money and the crystalline substance. Thereafter, PO1 Inopia lighted
85
his cigarette, which was the pre-arranged signal for the consummation of the illegal sale. PO1
Santos responded and together with PO1 Inopia arrested the appellant and retrieved from her
the buy-bust money.
• The sachet containing the white crystalline substance was marked with the initials “NDA”and
sent to the crime laboratory for examination. The examination showed that the contents of the
plastic sachet weighed 0.25 gram and are positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu, a dangerous drug.
• An Information charging appellant for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 was then filed.
• Alberto denies selling the illegal drug and claimed that there was a frame-up and the police even
demanded money from him for the charges to be dropped.
ISSUE: Whether or not Alberto is guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
HELD: Yes, What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as
evidence.
• In a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur:
(1) he identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.
PEOPLE v. MORALES
G.R. No. 172873 |19 March 2010
DOCTRINE: Failure to establish the identity of the corpus delicti warrants the dismissal of a charge for
violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act
FACTS:
● Police officers from Station 9 conducted a buy-bust operation on Roldan Morales. After the
exchange of the drugs and the marked money, they arrested Morales. They recovered the marked
money from the appellant and proceeded to frisk the latter. Upon conducting the body search, they
found another sachet of shabu and two aluminum foils. Morales was brought to the Police Station
for detention, while the items seized from him were brought to the Crime Laboratory for
examination. Morales was charged with possession and sale of shabu.
● Morales denied the charges against him. He averred that two male persons in civilian clothes
suddenly approached and handcuffed him. He claimed that nothing was found on him and yet the
policemen still brought him to the police station.
ISSUE: Whether or not Morales is guilt of illegal possession of and sale of dangerous drugs
HELD: No, failure to comply with the procedural requirements results to an acquittal.
● Section 21(1) of RA 9165 requires that: “The apprehending team having initial custody and control
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photography the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
86
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”.
● The seized drugs as not marked immediately after the arrested. Likewise, there was neither an
inventory and take a photograph of the confiscated items.
● Procedural lapses in the handling and identification of the seized items raise doubts as to whether
the items presented in court were the exact same items that were confiscated from appellant when
he was apprehended.
PEOPLE v. BERDADERO
G.R. No. 179710 | 29 June 2010
DOCTRINE: What is material in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or illicit
drug in evidence.
FACTS:
• The Investigation Section of Batangas City Police Station received a report from an informant that
the appellant Berdadero was selling shabu.
• In response, PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas organized a buy-bust operation and designated
informant as the poseur-buyer. The 2 police officers and the informant went to the target area and
parked the van that they were using in front of appellant Berdadero’s house.
• Thereafter, informant alighted from the van and talked to appellant Berdadero. A few minutes
later, Aldrin Berdadero went inside his house. When he returned, he handed to the informant 2
plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance in exchange for the marked money.
• Afterwards, informant gave the pre-arranged signal that the sale was consummated.
• Berdadero claimed that he was a victim of a frame-up.
• An Information was filed against appellant Berdadero for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA
9165, where the accused willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, dispense or deliver shabu.
ISSUE: Whether or not appellant Berdadero is guilty?
HELD: Yes, the chain of custody requirement was observed and the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items or the corpus delicti was preserved.
(1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and
• In prosecution of drug cases, the existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for
conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very
corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.
PEOPLE v. GONZAGA
G.R. No. 184952|11 October 2010
DOCTRINE: The chain of custody in handling the shabu allows flexibility
87
DOCTRINE: The failure to present the informant is not fatal as it is not indispensable.
DOCTRINE: Failure to present the market money is not fatal to the conviction of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs
FACTS:
● A confidential informant arrived to report that Marianto Gonzaga, alias Jun, was selling illegal
drugs. The police immediately organized conducted a buy-bust operation. The confidential
informant introduced one of the police officers to Gonzaga. The latter gave clutch bag that
contained two small plastic sachets of white crystalline substance. In exchange, they handed over
the envelope with the buy-bust money.
● After such, the officers immediately arrested Gonzaga. He was charged with violation of Section
15, Article III of Republic Act (RA) No. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972.
● Gonzaga denied the allegations against him and claimed that he was only collecting payment from
a debtor when he was suddenly arrested. In addition, he claims that the police officers did not
follow the procedure required in handling the seized items, the informant and the marked money
was not presented.
ISSUE: Whether or not the failure to observe the required procedure results to acquittal
HELD: No, as long as the integrity of the seized items were preserved.
• What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.
(1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and
ISSUE: Whether or not the non-presentation of the informant is fatal to the conviction
HELD: No, presentation of the informant is not necessary to a successful prosecution for drug-pushing,
as such testimony is merely corroborative of or cumulative with that of the poseur-buyer
ISSUE: Whether or not the non-presentation of the marked money is detrimental to the conviction
HELD: No, the presentation of marked money is not required by law nor jurisprudence.
• It does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of the dangerous
drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.
AURELIO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 174980 | 31 August 2011
Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act
DOCTRINE: Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness is not fatal when it does not refer to the
elements of the crime.
FACTS:
• An informant reported a illegal trade of shabu. The authorities set up a buy-bust team went to the
house of Radito Aurelio. After transacting with Aurelio and buying the shabu, Aurelio was
88
arrested and the marked money and a plastic sachet which later was confirmed to contain shabu
was recovered from the accused.
• Two Informations were filed charging the accused Aurelio with violating RA 9165. It was alleged
that Aurelio was found to be in the possession of 0.05 grams of shabu.
• Aurelio denied that charges. He claimed that he went out to buy cigarettes when, 2 men grabbed
him and told him to proceed to his house. Thereafter, they brought him to the City Hall of
Mandaluyong where he was questioned about the alleged shabu incident. He then claimed that
the police demanded Php 30,000.00 for his liberty. When he was unable to do so, he was charged
with selling and possessing shabu. This was corroborated by Aurelio’s sister and by his
neighbour as well.
ISSUE: Whether or not Aurelio is guilty of selling and possessing shabu
HELD: Yes, inconsistencies that refer to trivial and insignificant details do not destroy or diminish other
evidence presented.
• In prosecuting the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt:
1) Identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and
2) The delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
• On the other hand, when prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, there must
be proof that:
1) The accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited or regulated drug;
2) Such possession was not authorized by law; and
3) The accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.
PEOPLE v. FUNDALES, JR.

G.R. No. 184606 | 5 September 2012
DOCTRINE: The testimony of the laboratory analyst is not essential to establish the corpus delicti for
violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act.
FACTS:
● The Anti-Illegal Drug Special Task Force received an information from a confidential informant
about the illegal drug trade operations conducted by the Fundales brothers.
● They formed a buy-bust team and proceeded to the house. They posed themselves as buyers and
upon handing the mark money, they apprehended Calexto Fundales.
● He was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia.
● Fundales denied the charges and claimed that he was just at home when suddenly 8 persons
entered their house without permission and arrested them. In addition, he claims that there was a
failure to present the forensic chemist who conducted the examination of the alleged illegal drug.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Fundales is guilty of violation of R.A. No. 9165?
HELD: Yes, the non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for
acquittal.
89
• The conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs if the following
elements are present:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereto.
• The corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst, what is
important is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are properly preserved.
PEOPLE v. ANESLAG
G.R. No. 185386 | 21 November 2012
DOCTRINE: In buy-bust operation, the use of fluorescent powder to a buy-bust money to prove the
commission of the offense is not required by law or jurisprudence.
FACTS:
• A buy-bust operation was conducted by the police of Illigan City. In the said buy-bust operation
appellants Bernabe Aneslag and Jocelyn Concepcion, with Menda Aneslag and Mae Elarmo were
arrested for the illegal sale of shabu.
• Bernabe and Concepcion denied that they committed the charged crime. They contended that the
police failed to comply with the chain of custody rule. They alleged that there was a 30-gram
discrepancy on the volume of the drugs seized as the Information indicated the sale of 240 grams
of shabu but the trial court found that only 210 grams were sold. Further, they claimed that the
drugs were not immediately marked when it was seized, no certificate of inventory was prepared
and no photographs taken.
• In addition, Aneslag claimed that he was not subjected to ultra-violet powder examination or
finger printing casting doubt as to whether he was the one who allegedly received and counted
the boodle money, as claimed by the prosecution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the use of fluorescent power on buy-bust money is required
HELD: No, neither law nor jurisprudence requires the police to apply fluorescent powder to the buy-
bust money to prove the commission of the offense.
• The same holds true for the conduct of finger print examination on the money used in the buy-
bust operation. The essential requirement is the delivery of the prohibited drugs to the poseur-
buyer and the presentation of the confiscated drugs before the court.
• The essential requirement is the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
preserved, which was proven by the prosecution in this case.
PEOPLE v. EYAM
G.R. No. 184056 | 26 November 2012
DOCTRINE: Mere possession of illegal drugs is prima facie evidence of knowledge.
DOCTRINE: Non-presentation of
FACTS:
90
• A security guard S/G was doing routinary inspection of people entering the Guadalupe
Commercial Complex. When George Eyam was inspected, something bulky was in his back
Thinking that he was carrying a bomb, S/G ordered him to empty his pocket.
• Eyam brought out a plastic sachet and when asked what it contained, he replied “shabu”. He was
apprehended and brought to the security office of the complex. S/G marked the plastic sachet
with appellant’s initials. Then, together with the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the security office, he
brought appellant and the plastic sachet to the Police Community Precinct 2 for recording
purposes and subsequently, to the Drug Enforcement Unit for investigation.
• Police investigator received the plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu. Thereafter, he
prepared a request for laboratory examination and submitted the specimen to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory.
• Eyam denied the charges and claimed that a man in front of him was frisked and the S/G
recovered something wrapped in a newspaper. However, the man suddenly ran away so S/G
pursued him. Unable to catch the man, S/G returned and pointed at Eyam as the one who carried
the package.
ISSUE: Whether or not Eyam is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drug
HELD: Yes, the failure to show that there is authority to carry or possess the illegal drug is sufficient to
hold one liable for 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the non-presentation of the forensic chemist is fatal
HELD: No, the presentation of the forensic chemist is not an essential element in the conviction for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs.
• In the conviction, what is essential is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized item as it would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
PEOPLE v. ROBELO
G.R. No. 184181 | 26 November 2012
DOCTRINE: The absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust
operation as there is no textbook method of conducting the same.
FACTS:
• An informant informed the police that a certain “kalbo” (petitioner) was selling shabu. The police
officers organized a buy-bust operation to apprehend Joseph Robelo. The buy-bust operation was
executed and Robelo was apprehended.
• Robelo was charged for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
• Robelo interposed the defense that the alleged buy-bust operation is tainted with infirmity due to
the absence of a prior surveillance or investigation.
91
ISSUE: Whether or not prior surveillance or investigation is necessary for a buy-bust operation to be valid?
HELD: No, as long as the constitutional rights of the suspected drug dealer are not violated, the
regularity of the operation will always be upheld.
• Buy-bust operations has been proven to be an effective mode of apprehending drug pusher.
There is no prescribed method on how the operation is to be conducted.
• In this regard, police authorities are given wide latitude in employing their own ways of trapping
or apprehending drug dealers in flagrante delicto.
PEOPLE v. SERASPE
G.R. No. 180919 | 9 January 2013
DOCTRINE: The two essential elements of illegal selling of drugs which are: (1) the identity of the buyer
and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for
it.
FACTS:
• Police chief inspector Dandan received a call from a confidential informant who told him about
the drug trafficking activities of the appellants in Cainta, Las Pinas, Muntinlupa, Taguig, and
Paranaque. A police team was then formed to conduct an operation as a response to the tip they
got.
• While undercover, they met with the civilian informant and proceeded to the house of one of the
accused, Espiritu. After the negotiations to buy 2 kilos of shabu worth P750,000, the undercover
policemen left. Espiritu promised to call them once the shabu becomes available.
• Weeks later, the police got a call from Espiritu and the parties arranged a meeting in SM Bacoor.
The meeting was only to acquire a sample from the accused. The sample acquire was tested
positive for shabu. The two parties then agreed to meet in a food court in Las Pinas City for the
delivery of the drugs.
• Five days later, on the days of the meeting, the buy-bust team secured the venue and prepared the
marked bills. Espiritu arrived with one of the other accused, Simpresueta M. Seraspe. After
making sure that the undercover police brought the money, Espiritu ordered Seraspe to get the
drugs. Thirty minutes later, Seraspe came back with her mother who was carrying a bag filled
with shabu. After examining the contents, the team arrested Espiritu, Seraspe and her mother.
They also recovered the marked bills.
• The accused however, contended that they were induced by the authorities to sell the dangerous
drugs.
ISSUE: Whether or not Seraspe is guilty of violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act?
HELD: Yes, the elements of illegal drugs were sufficiently proven.

• The two essential elements of illegal selling of drugs which are:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
PEOPLE v. FERNANDEZ
G.R. No. 188841 | 6 March 2013
92
DOCTRINE: When a case involves violation of the 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 be evidence to the
contrary.
FACTS:
● At about 10 p.m. of 21 July 2001, the police and intelligence forces of Camarines Sur implemented
a search warrant at the residence of Jaime Fernandez. The police found inside Fernandez’ house
four transparent plastic sachets of shabu, one tin can of marijuana leaves and cash amounting to
P3,840.
● After seizing the items, an inventory was conducted in the presence of the Barangay Chairman and
Kagawad. pictures of the items were also taken and marked. The items were brought to the Crime
Laboratory where they were received. After chemical examination, they yielded positive results
for the presence of marijuana and shabu.
● On the basis thereof, a criminal case against the Fernandez and his son was file for illegal
possession.
● Fernandez and his son denied the charge of illegal possession and alleged that they were framed-
up
ISSUE: Whether or not prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
HELD: Yes, The integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith,
ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.
• The integrity of the evidence is established when the chain of custody is proven from the time the
items were confiscated, eventually marked and until the time it is presented during the trial.
PEOPLE v. SALVADOR
G.R. No. 190621 | 10 February 2014
DOCTRINE: The failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized will not
render the evidence inadmissible.
FACTS:
• PO2 Soriano received an information from a confidential informant that a certain alias Bumski
was engaged in the illicit sale of dangerous drugs. They conducted a surveillance operation on
alias Bumski, who turned out to be Glenn Salvador. A police team was then formed to conduct a
buy-bust operation.
• A poseur buyer was introduced to Bumski as a drug dependent who wanted to purchase shabu.
Accused Parcon later arrived and asked Salvador for shabu. Salvador gave her a small heat-sealed
plastic sachet that she placed. The poseur buyer then handed to appellant the buy-bust money and
the latter gave him a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Soriano
then immediately arrested appellant and recovered from his right hand pocket the buy bust
money. PO1 Pineda arrested Parcon and recovered from her a plastic sachet also containing white
crystalline substance.
• Salvador and Parcon were then taken to the Baler Police Station. The items recovered during the
buy-bust operation were marked and turned over to the designated investigator.
93
• Salvador denied the charge and claimed that he was only framed by the police and they even
attempted to extort money from him. In addition, he claims that the police officers failed to make
a physical inventory and take photographs of the items seized.
ISSUE: Whether or not Salvador is guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
HELD: Yes, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved, such is sufficient to
uphold a conviction.
● The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical
inventory and photographed the objects confiscated does not ipso facto result in the unlawful arrest
of the accused or render inadmissible in evidence the items seized.
● In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs the following elements must be
established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
● There are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, namely:
first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for examination; and, fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drug from the forensic chemist to the court.
PEOPLE v. BIS
G.R. No. 191360 | 10 March 2014
DOCTRINE: The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad
faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.
FACTS:
● A civilian informant tipped the San Fernando City Police Station about the alleged drug pushing
activity of Sherwin Bis at his residence. A team composed of Police Officers Espejo, Arce, and
Casem went to the area to conduct a surveillance and confirmed that drug activities were indeed
happening. Their superior who ordered them to conduct a buy-bust operation.
● The team proceeded to the target area, Espejo approached appellant who was standing in front of
his house. He told him, "Pards pakikuha ng isang bulto.". Bis looked at Espejo and asked "where is your
money?". After Espejo handed the ₱1,000.00 marked money, the latter went inside the house. He
later gave Espejo three plastic sachets placed in another plastic container. Espejo made the pre-
arranged signal. At once, Espejo introduced himself together with Arce and Casem who already
rushed to assist him, as members of the police. Forthwith, Bis was placed under arrest and apprised
of his constitutional rights.
● Bis was brought to the police station wherein a further search on him yielded aluminum foils and
the marked money. Espejo marked the three plastic sachets he bought from appellant. The results
of the laboratory examination yielded positive for the presence shabu.
● Bis denied the charges and claimed that he was suddenly grabbed by Espejo and was taken to the
police station. Further, he claims that the police did not observe the chain of custody.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bis is guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
94
HELD: Yes, the failure to comply with Section 21(a) of the IRR of RA 9165 is not fatal and will not render
an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.
• What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity of the items seized/confiscated.
PEOPLE v. APLAT
G.R. No. 191727| 31 March 2014
DOCTRINE: The inventory and marking of the seized items need not be made onsite.
FACTS:
● SPO4 Sison received information from a civilian informant that his acquaintance named "Manuel"
was looking for a prospective buyer of dried marijuana leaves. SPO4 Sison instructed the informant
to get in touch with Manuel and accept the latter’s offer. The informant shortly returned to tell
SPO4 Sison that Manuel accepted the offer to buy.
● A buy-bust team and the sale was completed. There was brucks of marijuana seized from Aplat
and Danglay. After Aplat and Danglay were apprised of their violation and constitutional rights,
the team brought them to the police station.
● At the police station, the suspected marijuana bricks were marked. They likewise placed their
signatures on the sando plastic bag. Aplat and Danglay were also identified at the police station
and the suspected dried marijuana leaves inventoried and photographed in their presence as well
as of the representatives from the DOJ, the media and an elected barangay official. The bricks were
brought to the Crime Laboratory and found the bricks positive for marijuana.
● Aplat and Danglay denied the charges and claimed that there was no buy-bust operation, no
money recovered and no bricks of marijuana seized from them.
ISSUE: Whether or not Aplat is guilt for the illegal sale of marijuana
HELD: Yes, inventory and marking of the seized items can be conducted at the nearest police station or
office of the apprehending authorities.
• The failure to mark the items seized is not fatal to the conviction of illegal sale of marijuana.
• Under Section 21(a) of the IRR of RA 9165, in cases of warrantless seizures, as in this case,
inventory and marking of the seized item can be conducted at the nearest police station or office
of the apprehending authorities, whichever is practicable, and not necessarily at the place of
seizure.
PEOPLE v. MARCELO
G.R. No. 181541| 18 August 2014
DOCTRINE: The presentation of the poseur-buyer is not an indispensable requirement.
FACTS:
● A certain Tarog informed P/Insp. Rabulan that appellant would arrive at his unit in Visitor’s Inn
to deliver and sell an unspecified quantity of shabu. Prior thereto, there were already reports that
Marissa Marcelo and her husband are engaged in selling shabu. P/Insp. Rabulan thus ordered a
surveillance of the area and formed a buy-bust team.
95
● Tarog was instructed to act as poseur-buyer and was given two 500-peso bills and five 100-peso
bills as marked money. Inside the unit, they saw through a slightly open door that Marcelo is sitting
on a couch with her back turned to the door as she was giving shabu to Tarog who was in turn
handing to her the marked money. The police officers thus immediately entered the unit and took
the shabu from Tarog and handed it to P/Insp. Rabulan, while the latter took the buy-bust money.
● About an hour later, a certain Arbitria entered the room and saw Marcelo sitting on a couch with
a sachet containing white crystalline substance beside her. PO2 Jimenez conducted a body search
on Marcelo in the presence of Arbitria, but no prohibited drug was recovered. Subsequently, the
team photographed appellant with the shabu and money and thereafter brought her to the police
station. The specimen confiscated tested positive for shabu.
● Marcelo claimed that there was no buy-bust operation conducted against her and she is a victim of
a frame-up.
ISSUE: Whether or not Marcelo is guilty of illegal sale of marijuana
HELD: Yes, the testimony of the poseur-buyer is merely cumulative or corroborative when the information
is directly known by the police officers as well.
• When the information is equally known to the police officers who gave the evidence for the
prosecution the failure to present the poseur-buyer will not be fatal to the prosecution.
• When all took part in the planning and implementation of the buy-bust operation, and all were
direct witnesses to the actual sale of the illegal drug, the arrest, and the recovery of the marked
money, then the testimony of the poseur-buyer is no longer indispensable.
PEOPLE v. BATURI
G.R. No. 189812 | 1 September 2014
DOCTRINE: Failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule is not fatal.
FACTS:
• A confidential informant reported to the PDEA the illegal drug activities of Reynaldo Baturi. An
order for a surveillance to verify the information was conducted. Upon reaching the area, the
confidential informant introduced PO3 Velasquez to appellant as a buyer of shabu. The two closed
a deal regarding the sale of 10 "bultos" of shabu that would transpire the next day in Baturi’s
house.
• A team was immediately formed to conduct an entrapment operation. The sale was perfected and
the items were seized. PO3 Velasquez examined the contents of the carton and upon seeing that it
contained plastic sachets with white crystalline granules, he made the signal. SPO1 Ferrer
immediately showed up and recovered the buy-bust money from appellant, while PO3 Velasquez
seized the carton containing the sachets of white crystalline granules. After informing appellant
of his rights, the police officers arrested and took him to the PDEA office.
• A Certificate of Inventory was then prepared which was signed by two barangay officials and a
media representative. Baturi was requested to sign the certificate of inventory which he refused.
This whole process was photographed. Later, the white crystalline substance was found positive
for shabu.
• Baturi denied selling shabu and claimed that he is a victim of a frame-up. Further, he claims that
the shabu presented in trial is not the same as the one allegedly seized from him.
ISSUE: Whether or not Baturi is guilty of the illegal sale of marijuana
96
HELD: Yes, certificate of inventory and the formal request for examination of the confiscated substance is
not formally offered, the same may still be admitted against the adverse party.
• For it to be admitted it must, first, it has been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and,
second, it has itself been incorporated in the records of the case.
• In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor.
• What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and probative value of the seized
items.
PEOPLE v. ARAZA
G.R. No. 190623 | 17 November 2014
DOCTRINE: The failure to submit a pre-coordination report and physical inventory of the seized
dangerous drugs is not fatal to the prosecution of illegal possession.
DOCTRINE: It is not necessary to present all persons who came into contact with the seized drug to testify
in court.
FACTS:
• PO1 Talacca accompanied the Barangay Chairman, Barangay Tanods and several members of the
barangay council in confiscating a video karera machine inside the house of a certain Sacdo.
• While confiscating said machine, PO1 Talacca saw nine persons, including Araza, sniffing shabu
or engaging in a pot session inside the house of Sacdo. He arrested and frisked them. Recovered
from the pocket of Araza was a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance which PO1 Talacca suspected to be shabu.
• PO1 Talacca immediately seized said sachet and brought Araza and his companions to the police
station. He turned over the said sachet to the chief investigator who marked the same in his
presence. An information for violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 or illegal possession of
dangerous drugs was filed against Araza.
• Araza denied the charges and claimed that he was merely sleeping when he was suddenly frisked
and his wallet was confiscated.
ISSUE: Whether or not the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs has been established.
HELD: Yes, failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution under
the law.
• What is essential is the preservation of the of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items.
• The elements of illegal possession are:
(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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the failure to present some of the officers who came into contact with the seized
drug is fatal
HELD: No, the non-presentation as witness of the evidence custodian and the officer on duty is not a
crucial point against the prosecution.
97
• As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken
and the prosecution did not fail to identify the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and
every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand.
PEOPLE v. GANDAWALI
G.R. No. 193385 | 1 December 2014
DOCTRINE: Strict compliance with the requisites under R.A. No. 9165 is not necessary as long as the
evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug is properly preserved.
FACTS:
• A buy-bust team was formed after a confidential informant informed the Baler Police Station that
a possible drug deal would take place at San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City.
• During the sale, P02 Soriano gave the money to Gandawali, who in turn gave it to Pagalad.
Pagalad then took the money and brought out a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from
pocket and gave it to Gandawali, who then handed the sachet to P02 Soriano. They were arrested
and brought to the police station.
• The sachets were marked by P02 Soriano together with the 500 peso bill used which was turned
over to the desk officer for proper disposition. Thereafter, a request for laboratory examination
was made and it was submitted for examination. The test result indicated that the specimen
tested positive for shabu.
• It was admitted by a police officer that no physical inventory of the seized item was made and no
photograph was taken as mandated by law.
• Gandawali and Pagalad denied the accusations against them and claimed that the police tried to
extort P15,000 in exchange for their release. However, they were unable to produce it, hence their
incarceration. They claimed that the elements of the offense were not proven and the police failed
to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.
ISSUE: Whether or not the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs seized was duly
proven
HELD: Yes, prosecution proved crucial links in the chain of custody that showed that the evidentiary
value and integrity of the illegal drugs were properly preserved. Under the implementing rules, the most
important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as they will
be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
• Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165 outlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and
disposition of seized drugs.
• As long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved, strict
compliance of the requisites under Section 21 may be disregarded.
PEOPLE v. BUTIAL
G.R. No. 192785 | 4 February 2015
DOCTRINE: The initial link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the plastic sachets from
appellant and their marking by the apprehending officer.
FACTS:
98
• The Information filed against appellant Jomer Butial alleged that he willfully and criminally sold,
delivered and gave away to a poseur buyer shabu contained into 2 transparent plastic sachets
weighing 0.1gm without necessary government authority.
• Butial argued for the first time in this appeal the illegality of his warrantless arrest. He also
contends that the prosecution was unable to prove all the elements of the offense of illegal sale of
drugs. Further, he points to the failure of the police officers to properly observe the procedure
outlined in Section 21, RA 9165 and argues that the same constitutes a break in the chain of custody.
ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution failed to show that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti
have been preserved
HELD: Yes, the records reveal that the confiscated sachets subject of the illegal sale of shabu were not
marked. In a successful prosecution for the illegal sale of drugs, the “shabu”, which constitutes the very
corpus delicti of the offense, must definitely be shown to have been preserved.
• It is through the chain of custody that ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence
are removed. The initial link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the plastic sachets
from appellant and their marking by the apprehending officer.
• Failure to make the initial marking is fatal to the prosecution of a case under RA 9165
PEOPLE v. NEPOMUCENO
G.R. No. 194999 | 9 February 2015
DOCTRINE: The lack of the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs as mandated by
law is not fatal and does not affect the integrity of the evidence seized
FACTS:
• The prosecution claims that they formed a buy-bust team to entrap the appellant after receiving
a report from a confidential informant that the appellant was selling shabu. Their operation was
a success they were able entrap the appellant.
• In her defense, Gloria Nepomuceno denied selling shabu. She claims that while she was
standing in front of her house, a group of men in civilian clothes arrested her. She claims that
asked her to empty her pockets and asked of the whereabouts of a certain Johnny who allegedly
supplied illegal drugs in the area.
ISSUE: Whether she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
HELD: Yes, 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.
• Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the
appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings
of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant’s self-serving and
uncorroborated denial.
• In addition, the crucial factor in drugs cases is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items. There was no irregularity shown to have attended the chain of custody
of the shabu seized.
PEOPLE v. BASILIO
99
G.R. No. 195774| 23 February 2015

DOCTRINE: Marking of the seized item in the police station is not fatal to the prosecution of the case
FACTS:
• Pursuant to an information received, PSI Olonan organized a team to conduct a “buy-bust”
operation against a certain "Kagi" who was said to be active in the illegal sale of drugs.
• The buy-bust operation resulted to the arrest of “Kagi, who was later identified as Larry Basilio.
The qualitative examination of the specimen seized from appellant, which weighed 0.083 gram,
tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
• Basilio denied the accusation against him and averred that he was on his way home when 5
policemen suddenly accosted him; he surmised that the arrest was due to his failure to give
information about alias "Peter” whom the policemen were looking for.
ISSUE: Whether or not Basilio is guilty of the offense of illegal sale of shabu
HELD: Yes, while R.A. No. 9165 provides for the immediate marking of the seized item, it does not specify
a time frame when and where said marking should be done.
• Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or
office of the apprehending team.
ISSUE: Whether the failure to conduct an inventory of the seized item and to photograph is fatal
HELD: No, non-compliance with Section 21, Article of RA 9165 did not affect the seized item’s evidentiary
weight and admissibility in evidence.
● What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
item.
PEOPLE v. PERONDO
G.R. No. 193855 |18 February 2015
DOCTRINE: The presentation of the poseur-buyer is not indispensable for the successful prosecution of
the crime of illegal sale of shabu
FACTS:
• Virgilio Perondo was arrested by virtue of a buy-bust operation. The qualitative examination
conducted on the contents of the plastic sachet handed by appellant revealed to be positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Thus, an information for violation of Sec 5, Art II of Republic Act No. 9165 was filed.
•
ISSUE: Whether or not Perondo is guilty of violating Section 5 of R.A. 9165
HELD: Yes, the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is not fatal to the prosecution of the crime of illegal
sale of shabu.
• The relevant information the poseur-buyer may have may also equally known to the police officers
who testified for the prosecution. This is considering that all participated in the planning and
100
implementation of the buy-bust operation and where all directly witnessed the actual sale of the
shabu.
PEOPLE v. REYES
G.R. No. 194606 | 18 February 2015
DOCTRINE: The crime of illegal delivery of a dangerous drug can be committed even without
consideration or payment.
FACTS:
● Upon a tip of a confidential informant that Alfredo Reyes was selling and delivering of shabu.
● Sr. Insp. Lizardo formed a buy-bust team with SPO1 Acosta as poseur-buyer which led to the arrest
of the Alfredo Reyes. P/Insp. Laya conducted a qualitative examination on the contents of the
plastic sachets and confirmed the same to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu.
● An Information charging appellant with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 was filed
against Reyes.
● Reyes denied the charges and claimed that he was just framed. Further, he claims that the police
did not observe the chain of custody.
ISSUE: Whether or not Reyes is guilty of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs
HELD: Yes, the non-presentation of marked money is immaterial

• The crime of illegal delivery of a dangerous drug, there must be evidence that:
(1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise,
and by any means;
(2) Such delivery is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration.
PEOPLE v. DIAZ
G.R. No. 197818 | 25 February 2015
DOCTRINE: An accused may still be found guilty of violation of RA 9165, despite the prosecution’s failure
to abide with the procedure set in Sec. 21 of the same law, if it is shown that the chain of custody remains
unbroken.
FACTS:
• Following a report of a confidential informant Allan Diaz' illegal drug trade activities in Kahilum
I, Pandacan, Manila, a briefing was held where a buy-bust team was organized.
• After the consummation of the sale, Diaz was subsequently arrested. He was charged with illegal
sale of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
• Diaz claimed that he was walking home when he was suddenly arrested. In addition, he claims
that the the police officers failed to make proper marking, inventory, and taking of photograph of
the seized specimen.
ISSUE: Whether or not Diaz is guilty of illegal sale of shabu?
101
HELD: Yes. It is settled that an accused may still be found guilty, despite the failure to faithfully observe
the requirements provided under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as long as the chain of custody remains
unbroken.
• In addition, objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
TIONCO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 192284 | 11 March 2015
DOCTRINE: The failure of the arresting officers to strictly comply with RA 9165 is not fatal and will not
render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible when the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are sufficiently established.
FACTS:
● PO1 Sta. Maria and PO1 Reyes were conducting an anti-criminality patrol when they saw Alex
Tionco holding and examining a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance believed to be
shabu. They approached him and after ascertaining the contents of the plastic sachet, confiscated
the same.
● Tionco was arrested and an information for violation of RA 9165 was filed against him.
● Tionco denied the charges against him and claimed he was suddenly arrested by the policemen.
Further, he questions the non-compliance on the procedural requirements as provided under RA
9165.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tionco is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
HELD: Yes, the lack of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items are not fatal in establishing
the chain of custody.
• 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. CUNANAN
G.R. No. 198024 | 16 March 2015
DOCTRINE: Strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is not required if there is a clear showing
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item has been preserved
DOCTRINE: It is not impossible to sell illegal and dangerous drugs in public
FACTS:
• Rafael Cunanan alias “Paeng Putol” was charged with the illegal sale of shabu. He was arrested
after a confidential informant informed the EPD-District Intelligence Investigation Division of
Pasig that a certain “Paeng Putol” was engaged in selling illegal drugs.
• A buy-bust team was formed to entrap Cunanan and P01 Gunda was the poseur-buyer who was
introduced by the informant to Cunana as a drug addict looking to buy shabu. P01 bought shabu
worth P200. He was then arrested and the two 100-peso bills used as buy-bust money was
recovered from him.
102
• P01 Gunda stapled the marked money on a bond paper and labels it and marked the sachet. The
seized items were brought to EPD Headquarters for further investigation. Later, it was
inventoried and photographed. The specimens were submitted for laboratory examination
which tested positive for shabu.
• Accused Cunanan denied the charge and interposed the defense of frame-up and extortion. He
alleged that he was just watching a bingo game when he was suddenly approached by three
men who allegedly has a warrant for his arrest. The police allegedly asked for P50,000 as a
settlement but he failed to gave the said amount.
• Cunanan claims that the police officers failed to comply with the chain of custody rule for failure
to present in court the inventory and photographs taken. In addition, he claims that it was
inconceivable that he would openly sell an illegal drug in a place where there are many people.
ISSUE: Whether or not the corpus delicti was not proven due to the police officer’s non-compliance
HELD: No, non-compliance with the requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and the Implementing Rules and
Regulations will not necessarily render the item seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation
inadmissible.
• The primordial concern is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
ISSUE: Whether or not it is inconceivable for one to sell dangerous drugs in public
HELD: No, the Court has recognized that drug pushers now sell their prohibited drugs to any
prospective customer.
• Drug pushers sell to a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, and even in daytime.
PEOPLE v. HAVANA
G.R. No. 198450 | 11 January 2016
DOCTRINE: The failure to present the other links of the chain of custody, is fatal to the prosecution of the
crime
DOCTRINE: Coordination with PDEA is not an indispensable requirement in carrying out a buy-bust
operation
DOCTRINE: The presentation of the informant is not an indispensable requirement in the prosecution of
the crime
FACTS:
• A civil informant went to the police to report that the Fernando Havana was actively engaged in
selling drugs. The informant was designated as a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation.
• They went to the house of the Havana where the informant allegedly bought drugs. When the
appellant received the money, he was taken into custody.
• Havana denied the incident claiming that during the incident he was merely eating bread when
the police took him in. He claims that it was his neighbor who was selling drugs.
• His testimony was corroborated by his daughter. He also argued that the belated submission of
the pre-operation report to the PDEA after the buy-bust operation violates RA 9165.
ISSUE: Whether or not the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt?
103
HELD: No, there was a failure to present the police officers who received the drugs in court.
• The Chain of Custody rule requires that for every exhibit to be admitted, the prosecution must
present evidence that would support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be.
• Statutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and related
items are designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence to be presented against
the accused.
• Their observance is the key to the successful prosecution of illegal possession or illegal sale of
dangerous drugs.
ISSUE: Whether or not the belated submission of the pre-operation report to the PDEA after the buy-bust
operation violates RA 9165?
HELD: No, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may
carry out a buy-bust operation.
• The absence of coordination with the PDEA will not invalidate a buy-bust operation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the presentation of an informant is necessary to successfully prosecute drug cases?
HELD: No, the presentation of the informant is not indispensable to the success in prosecuting drug-
related cases.
• Informers are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their
invaluable service to the police. Unless their testimony is absolutely essential to the conviction of
the accused, their testimony may be dispensed with since their narrations would be merely
corroborative to the testimonies of the buy-bust team.
PEOPLE v. ISMAEL
G.R. No. 208093 | 20 February 2017
DOCTRINE: The failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts
doubt on the prosecution evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt.
FACTS:
• A confidential informant reported to SPO4 Araneta, that a certain Salim Ismael was engaged in
selling shabu. A buy-bust team was formed where SPO1 Santiago was the poseur-buyer.
• Upon arrival at the scene of alleged illegal sale, he informant pointed to a man as appellant Ismael
Salim, the target of the operation. SPO1 Santiago then walked towards appellant and told the latter
that he wantedto buy shabu; to this appellant replied “how much?” SPO1 Santiago answered that
he wanted to buy P100.00 worth of the shabu, and gave appellant the P100.00 marked money;
• Ismael took from his left pocket one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance which
he handed handed over to SPO1 Santiago. The police officers rushed in and arrested appellant
upon seeing the exchange. Ismael was brought to the police station, and handed over the seized
items
• Ismael denied selling shabu and questioned the non-complaince with the procedure of marking
the seized drugs
ISSUE: Whether or not Ismael is guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs?
HELD: No, failure to mark the seized drugs is fatal as it is break to the chain of custody.
104
• In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti is the
dangerous drug seized. It is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized
drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved.
• The prosecution must establish the following elements:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
• What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of
the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs
seized from the accused.
• In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established:
(1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs;
(2) such possession was not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.
• The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that necessary doubts concerning
the identity of the evidence are removed.
PEOPLE VS. GAYOSO

G.R. No. 206590 | 27 March 2017
DOCTRINE: To establish the offense of illegal possession or sale of dangerous drugs, the elements of the
crime must be established coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. The chain
of custody and the integrity of the seized item must be preserved.
FACTS:
● PNP Guiuan Police Station conducted a surveillance on Myrna Gayoso after receiving reports she
was peddling prohibited drugs. After confirming that she is selling drugs, the police officers
conducted a “confirmatory test-buy.” The sale was consummated and Gayoso took the marked
money.
● Thereafter, the other officers served the search warrant to Gayoso. They found sachets of shabu
and several drug paraphernalia. Information for the illegal sale of a dangerous drug and for illegal
possession of a dangerous drug was filed against her.
● Gayoso denied the charges against her. She averred that the search warrant was presented to her
only after the search and that the police officers fabricated the charges against her.
ISSUE: Whether the guilt of the accused is established or not?
HELD: No, the failure to mark the items seized and to establish the other links of the chain fails to establish
the corpus delicti of the crime.
• In the prosecution for illegal sale and possession of prohibited drugs, there must be proof that
these offenses were committed, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus
delicti.
• The chain of custody must be duly established, and the integrity of the seized drugs must be
preserved.
PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G. R. No. 174504 | 21 March 2011
P.D. No. 1445 or The Government Auditing Code
105
DOCTRINE: The mere failure to timely liquidate the cash advances is punishable under P.D. 1445, actual
damage to the Government is not necessary
FACTS:
• Manuel Barcenas, then vice mayor of Toledo, was charged with a violation of Section 89 of P.D.
1445 for failure to liquidate the cash advances made to him by the City Government of Toledo.
• The prosecution presented its lone witness, an auditor from CoA, and filed its formal offer of
evidence and thereafter rested its case.
• Barcenas filed a Motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, which the Sandiganbayan granted.
So private respondent filed a demurrer to evidence which was also granted.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in granting the demurrer for failure of the prosecution
to prove that damage was suffered by the Government>
HELD: No, actual damage to the government arising from the non-liquidation of the cash advance is not
an essential element of the offense punished under the second sentence of Section 89 of P.D. No. 1445 as
implemented by COA Circular No. 90-331.
• The mere failure to timely liquidate the cash advance is the gravamen of the offense.
• Verily, the law seeks to compel the accountable officer, by penal provision, to promptly render
an account of the funds which he has received by reason of his office.
VILLARIN v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 175289 | 31 Aug 2011
P.D. 705 or The Forestry Reform Code
DOCTRINE: Failure to present the confiscated timber in court was not fatal for conviction of P.D. 705..
Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the body or substance of the
crime, it does not refer to the seized timber.
FACTS:
● The prosecution witness Granada testified that he noticed a utility jeep loaded with timber stop
near his house, and identified Aniano Latayada as the driver and Boyatac as one of his companions.
He further testified that these men unloaded the timber near Batinay Bridge. Upon further
investigation, it was learned that Crisostomo Villarin, a Brgy. Captain requisitioned the timber.
● According to the Petitioners, Villarin ordered the timber because he was pressured to repair the
Batinay Bridge which had become impassable.
● The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged. It further ruled that while the timber was
intended for the repair of the bridge, it is still a face that the products were obtained without the
necessary authority and legal documents required under the forest laws and regulations. This was
affirmed by the CA.
● Villarin and Latayada argue that their convictions were improper because the corpus delicti had
not been established.
ISSUE: Whether the Petitioners are guilty of violating Sec. 68 of PD 705?
HELD: Yes, under Sec. 68 of PD 705, mere possession of forest products without the legal documents
required is considered a consummation of the offense.
• Further, that there was no intent for personal gain is inconsequential as the offense is malum
prohibitum. Failure to present the confiscated timber in court was not fatal to the cause of the
106
prosecution. Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the body
or substance of the crime. It does not refer to the seized timber.
107

Criminal Law Justice Del Castillo Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Justice Del Castillo Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

Lasallian Commission on Bar Operations 2018

REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK I

DOCTRINE: The offenses under PD 705 are mala prohibita.

ISSUE: Whether the Petitioners are guilty of violating Sec. 68 of PD 705?

ISSUE: Whether treachery is present in the commission of the crime?

ISSUE: Whether conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt?

ISSUE: Whether or not Baron is guilty.

ISSUE: Whether conspiracy was proven

ISSUE: Whether treachery was present?

ISSUE: Whether or not conspiracy was proven in this case.

MARQUEZ, et. al. v. PEOPLE

ISSUE: Whether or not conspiracy is proven.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is treachery.

HEIRS OF OCHOA VS. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION

ISSUE: Whether the stabbing was a case of self-defense?

ISSUE: Whether the killing is qualified by treachery.

HELD: Yes, the killing was qualified by treachery in this case.

ISSUE: Whether or not conspiracy is established.

ISSUE: Whether or no the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was present

ISSUE: Whether or not the justifying circumstance of self-defence was established?

DOCTRINE: In conspiracy, it is not necessary to adduce direct evidence of a previous agreement to

ISSUE: Whether or not there was conspiracy

PEOPLE v. ACABRILLAS AND CABTALAN

ISSUE: Whether or not treachery qualified the killing

ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty that should be imposed is death.

ISSUE: Whether or not Jalbonian is guilty of murder

ISSUE: Whether or not Rogelio should be acquitted on the ground of self-defense.

ISSUE: Whether or not the killing is attended by treachery.

DOCTRINE: In crimes against chastity, such as Acts of Lasciviousness, relationship is always

ISSUE: Whether or not treachery is present.

DOCTRINE: In malversation of public funds, the payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of the

ISSUE: Whether or not conspiracy existed

ISSUE: Whether or not treachery qualified the killing?

HELD: No, treachery attended the crime.

ISSUE: Whether or not evident premeditation was present

ISSUE: Whether or not there was the aggravating circumstance of conspiracy

ISSUE: Whether or not Mateo can be charged with estafa.

• All the elements are present in this case.

DOCTRINE: For the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation to be considered, it

ISSUE: Whether or not the killing is attended by evident premeditation.

HELD: No, the mitigating circumstance cannot be appreciated in his favor.

PEOPLE v. CAMPOSANO and DE LOS REYES

ISSUE: Whether treachery is properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.

ISSUE: Whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present.

ISSUE: Whether the aggravating circumstance of disguise is properly appreciated.

DOCTRINE: Treachery qualified the killing to murder.

ISSUE: Whether or not Gunda is guilty of murder.

ISSUE: Whether or not Dilla is guilty of murder.

HEIRS OF OCHOA VS. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION

ISSUE: Whether or not Abaigar is guilty of murder

ISSUE: Whether or not appellants are eligible for parole.

ISSUE: Whether or not CA is correct with regard to the penalty.

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is eligible for parole.

REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK II

ISSUE: Whether or not the Masangkay is guilty of perjury

ISSUE: Whether or not Escoton is guilty of rape.

ISSUE: Whether or not Villarino is guilty of rape with homicide

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner is guilty of homicide

ISSUE Whether or not AAA’s minority was sufficiently proven.

ISSUE: Whether or not Baron is guilty of Robbery with Homicide.

ISSUE: Whether or not Alfonso is guilty of the crime of sexual assault

DOCTRINE: Medical certificate is not an essential for the conviction of rape

ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of the crime of rape