Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reminders:
*Please use the excel file uploaded for the digests. Just add 3 more column
*Please fill out the ponente column as well.
*Limit the digests to the main issue.
*Please feel free to make comments and suggestions.
CAMILLE ANNE DAVID MARCH 13, 2017 G.R. NO. 225965
MEDEL CORONEL Y SANTILLAN, ET AL. VS. PEOPLE Criminal Law Special Law
OF THE PHILIPPINES
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JESSIE GABRIEL Y Criminal Law RPC Book II
GAJARDO
XXX
Two (2) criminal cases were filed against the accused (Puyat) for violating Sections 5
and 11, Article II of RA 9165, for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs
(EPHEDRINE), respectively. The prosecution presented that Police Chief Inspector (PCI)
Christopher Prangan (PCI Prangan) ordered the conduct of a buy-bust operation in
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and other police
officers. They caught in Popoy in the act and PO3 Ardedon marked the plastic sachet
he purchased from Macapundag, while SPO1 Victoriano marked the other three (3)
recovered from his pocket. Thereafter, they brought Macapundag to the police
station, where the seized items were turned over to PO2 Randulfo Hipolito (PO2
Hipolito), the investigator on duty. Later, PO2 Hipolito brought the items to the crime
laboratory for physical examination. Eventually, Forensic Chemical Officer-PCI Stella
Ebuen (PCI Ebuen) examined the specimen, which tested positive for ephedrine, a
dangerous drug. The accused prayed for his acquittal claiming that they did not make
any inventory and failed to take pictures of the confiscated drugs along with him at
the scene of his arrest. There was also no justification given as to why they failed to
comply with these requirements of law.
Two (2) informations were filed against the accused-petitioners (Coronel, Permejo,
Villafuerte, Olivarez) for violating Article II, Sections 7 and 15 of Republic Act No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), for knowingly and illegally visiting a
drug den and using methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) respectively. The
petitioners stress that prosecution's failure to establish both a continuous and
unbroken chain of custody of the subject evidence, that the house, where petitioners
were apprehended, was a drug den, or that petitioners were aware that said house
was a drug den and that they visited it knowingly. Respondent apparently maintains
that because the petitioners' drug tests were conducted right after their arrest, it was
proven that drugs were used at the drug den itself. Moreover, the use of drugs at a
drug den automatically implies that the drug users were aware of the nature of the
place as a drug den before visiting it.
Appellant was indicted for rape in an Information which alleged that by force and
intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, have carnal
knowledge upon one ["AAA"], a 17-year old minor, against her will and consent, to
the damage and prejudice of the latter. AAA testifies for herself and the appellant
denies charges against him and contended AAA was motivated by revenge because he
had accused her of stealing and insisted that she admit the act.
XXX
Whether or not Macapundag's conviction for illegal sale and illegal p
XXX
No, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure police
officers must follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary
value. Under the said section, the apprehending team shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation
conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the
person from whom the items were seized, his representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to
the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination.
In this case, the prosecution was able to establish that PO3 Ardedon (with respect to the sachet
handed over by Macapundag to him) and SPO1 Victoriano (with respect to the three sachets recovered
from Macapundag upon his arrest) marked the seized items immediately at the place of arrest.
However, the prosecution's witnesses failed to state whether or not the police officers inventoried and
photographed the seized sachets in the presence of Macapundag or his representative. Likewise, they
were silent as to the presence of the other required witnesses, i.e., a representative from the
Department of Justice (DOJ), any elected public official, and a member of the press.
No, there is no basis to assume that petitioners used drugs at the moment immediately before arrest,
and thus, at the location of the arrest. Assuming that persons who test positive for drugs used them at
the place of arrest is not sufficient to show that they were aware of the nature of the suspected drug
den before visiting it, absent any other circumstantial evidence. There were no acts alleged or evidence
found, which would tend to show a familiarity with the nature of the place as a drug den.
As to simple rape, No ; As to homicide, Yes. Elements of homicide: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that
the accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the
intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide. Moreover, the offender is said to have
performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the
death of the victim without medical intervention or attendance.
The elements of Rape are: (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (b) said carnal
knowledge was accomplished through the use of force or intimidation; or the victim was deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim was under twelve (12) years of age or demented.
The provision also states that if the act is committed either with the use of a deadly weapon or by two
(2) or more persons, the crime will be Qualified Rape, necessitating the imposition of a higher penalty.
Article 335 of the RPC states that if the rape is committed under certain circumstances, such as when it
was committed by two (2) or more persons, the crime will be Qualified Rape, as in this instance.
As to simple rape, No ; As to homicide, Yes. Elements of homicide: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that
the accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the
intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide. Moreover, the offender is said to have
performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the
death of the victim without medical intervention or attendance.
The elements of Rape are: (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (b) said carnal
knowledge was accomplished through the use of force or intimidation; or the victim was deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim was under twelve (12) years of age or demented.
The provision also states that if the act is committed either with the use of a deadly weapon or by two
(2) or more persons, the crime will be Qualified Rape, necessitating the imposition of a higher penalty.
Article 335 of the RPC states that if the rape is committed under certain circumstances, such as when it
was committed by two (2) or more persons, the crime will be Qualified Rape, as in this instance.
No, only homicide. The following essential elements must be present in order to warrant a conviction
for the crime of murder: 1. that a person was killed; 2. that the accused killed him or her; 3. that the
killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and 4.
that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. One of the circumstances mentioned in Article 248, which
qualifies the killing of the victim to murder is abuse of superior strength.
In this case, the SC stated that the prosecution failed to present evidence as regards the relative
disparity in age, size, strength or force between the accused-appellants and Valencia, on one hand, and
Enrico, on the other. Indeed, the lower courts merely inferred the existence of qualifying circumstance
of abuse of superior strength on the facts that Enrico was attacked by three assailants, the accused-
appellants and Valencia, who were armed with a knife and a stone. However, mere superiority in
numbers does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength.
Yes, In the 1901 case of United States v. Ramos, this Court had already declared that when a woman
testifies that she has been raped she says, in effect, that all that is necessary to constitute the
commission of this crime has been committed. It is merely a question then, whether or not this court
accepts her statement." Jurisprudence has clung with unrelenting grasp to tills precept.
Appellant's denial cannot prevail over "AAA's" direct positive and categorical assertion that rings with
truth. Denial is inherently a weak defense which cannot outweigh positive testimony. As between a
categorical statement that has the earmarks of truth on the one hand and bare denial, on the other,
the former is generally held to prevail.
shooting of the victims, the burden shifted to Bugarin to prove that he indeed acted in self-defense by
establishing the following with clear and convincing evidence: (1) Unlawful aggression on the part of
the victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and
(3) lack of provocation on his part. One who admits killing or fatally injuring another in the name of
self-defense bears the burden of proving the aforementioned elements. While all three elements must
concur, self-defense relies first and foremost on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
If no unlawful aggression is proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded. Contrary to his
None, ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances
concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and
those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites
prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the
provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
It is settled that when an accused admits [harming] the victim but invokes self-defense to escape
criminal liability, the accused assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and
convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he [harmed] the
victim. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and
competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, in invoking self-defense, the
burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his
own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.
Yes, Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as
the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the
accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising
from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may
also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code
enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the
same act or omission:
a) Law b) Contracts c) Quasi-contracts d) xxx e) Quasi-delicts
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor
may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either
against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation
upon which the same is based as explained above.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil
action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its
extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the
statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal
case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any
apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription.
No, Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - The following are exempt from
criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony
(delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission
of the same court
Accused-appellant argues that the presumption of sanity must not be applied in his case, because of
the rule that a person who has been committed to a hospital or to an asylum for the insane is
presumed to continue to be insane. In this case, however, it is noteworthy that while accused-
appellant was confined in a mental institution in 2001, he was properly discharged therefrom in 2002.
This proper discharge from his confinement clearly indicates an improvement in his mental condition;
otherwise, his doctors would not have allowed his discharge from confinement. Absent any contrary
evidence, then, the presumption of sanity resumes and must prevail.
Strict compliance with the chain of custody requirement, however, is not always the case. Hence, the
IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
SECTION 21.(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the
place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further,
that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
In the case at bench, the prosecution failed to demonstrate substantial compliance by the
apprehending officers with the safeguards provided by R.A. No. 9165 as regards the rule on chain of
custody. To begin with, the records are bereft of any showing that an inventory of the seized items was
made. Neither does it appear on record that the apprehending team photographed the contraband in
accordance with law.
Further, People v. Dahil restated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in
a buy-bust situation to be as follows: 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