78. Manulat, Jr. v.

People of the Philippines,

G.R. No.190892,

August 17, 2015.

FACTS:

Vicente, herein petitioner, is the husband of the deceased Genebe. They have
two children, Vince Earl and Leslie Kate, aged three and two years old, respectively.
One evening, Vicente, with his two children left their home and went to the house of his
mother-in-law, Carmen. Vicente left after dinner.The following morning, Carmen bathed
the two children and asked them what happened to their parents. Leslie Kate answered,
“Father threw the cellphone, mother’s mouth bled,” while Vince Earl said, “Father
choked mama” and “Mama was left home dead.” Carmen did not mind what the children
told her and instead told them that their mother was on duty at Gold City. That same
day, Genebe was found dead appearing to have committed suicide by hanging herself
using nylon rope. However, medical findings apparently show that the hanging was
done post mortem. A case for parricide was filed against Vicente.

One of the prosecution witness was Carmen, testifying on the statements made
by her grandchildren Vince Earl and Leslie Kate. In order to discredit the evidence of the
prosecution, Vicente claims that the testimony of Carmen was purely hearsay and not
reliable since the prosecution never presented the children as witnesses to testify as
what was told by them to Carmen, their own grandmother. Hence, inadmissible in
evidence being hearsay and not statements as part of the res gestae.

ISSUE: Whether the testimony of Carmen as to the statements of her

grandchildren qualify as part of res gestae.

HELD: YES.

In this case, this Court finds that the statements of the petitioner and victim’s
three-year-old son and two-year-old daughter were spontaneously made. They had no
opportunity or chance to invent a story although they made the statements the morning
after the occurrence while being bathed by their grandmother Carmen. Their statements
were unreflected and instinctive since a three-year-old and a two-year-old children,
given their age, do not have the capability, sophistication or malice to fabricate such an
incredible story of a violent altercation between their parents and to impute their own
father to the killing of their mother.
79. MONICO LIGTAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 200751.
August 17, 2015.

Facts:

Monico Ligtas (Ligtas) was charged for theft for taking of the harvest of Abaca in
the plantation of belonging to Anecita Pacate, having feloniously harvested 1,000 kilos
of abaca fibers, valued at Php29,000.00 per kilo, without the consent of said owner.
Where Ligtas pleaded not guilty, alleging himself as the owner of the said property as
he is the one who cultivated such, he further alleged the following defenses; setting an
alibi that the alleged taking did not happen since he claimed that he was with Cabero
and Cipres attending a barangay fiesta at Sitio Hubasan, San Juan, Sogod, Southern
Leyte, when the alleged harvesting happened but later on when confronted he admitted
harvesting the abaca but claimed as plantation owner, being a tenant of 1.5 to two
hectares of land that he just prevented the men to harvest from the land which he
himself cultivated.

Meanwhile, Ligtas filed a Complaint before the Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board (DARAB) of Sogod, Southern Leyte for Maintenance of Peaceful
Possession on November 21, 2000. On January 22, 2002,the DARAB rendered the
Decision ruling that Ligtas was a bona fide tenant of the land. While records are bereft
as to when the DARAB Decision was formally offered as evidence before the trial court,
records are clear thatthe DARAB Decision was considered by both the trial court and
Court of Appeals and without any objection on the part of the People of the Philippines.
In the Decision dated August 16, 2006, the Regional Trial Court held that the
prosecution was able to prove the elements of theft Ligtas defense of tenancy was not
supported by concrete and substantial evidence nor was his claim of harvest sharing
between him and Anecita Pacate dulycorroborated by any witness.

Issue:
 Whether the DARAB Decision, finding Ligtas as tenant of the conclusive or can
be taken judicial notice of in a criminal case for theft?

Held: YES.

The existence of the DARAB Decision adjudicating the issue of tenancy between
petitioner and private complainant negates the existence of the element that the taking
was done without the owner’s consent. The DARAB Decision implies that petitioner had
legitimate authority to harvest the abaca. The prosecution, therefore,failed to establish
all the elements of theft. No less than the Constitution provides that the accused shall
be presumed innocent of the crime until proven guilty. It is better to acquit ten guilty
individuals than to convict one innocent person.Thus, courts must consider every
circumstance against guilt and in favor of innocence.Equally settled is that where the
evidence admits of two interpretations, one of which is consistent with guilt, andthe
other with innocence, the accused must be given the beneÞt of doubt and should be
acquitted.In adjudicating a case on trial, courts are not authorized to take a judicial
notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been
tried or are pending in the same court and notwithstanding that both cases may have
been tried or are actually pending before the same judge; Rule admits of
exceptions.(Republic vs. Sandiganbayan [Fourth Division], 662 SCRA 152 [2011]).
80. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERIC ROSAURO Y BONGCAWIL
G.R. No. 209588,
February 18, 2015

Facts:

On July 3, 2004, the police authorities received information that drugs were being
distributed at Purok 3, Barangay Poblacion, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental. Thus, at 5:30
o’clock in the afternoon, the Provincial AntiIllegal Drugs Special Operation Task Unit
(PAID-SOTU) elements led by SPO4 Lorenzo Larot and PO3 Juancho Dizon positioned
themselves in the house of their confidential agent.

There, they saw Rosauro negotiate with the confidential agent and in exchange
for the one (1) sachet of shabu given by Rosauro to the confidential agent, the latter
gave him a marked 100-peso bill with serial number YZ7 12579. After the transaction,
Larot and Dizon came out of their hiding place and arrested Rosauro. Thereafter, the
confidential agent handed the sachet to Larot, who taped it, marked it with the marking
“Exhibit A”, and placed it inside his pocket. He also took pictures of Rosauro and the
drugs. In the police station, he prepared a Certificate of Inventory and a Request for
Laboratory Examination. Both the drugs and Rosauro were then turned over to the
Crime laboratory. Upon re-arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the
crime charged and claimed that he was merely a victim of instigation. Thereafter, pre-
trial and trial on the merits ensued. Finding the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to
establish the guilt of accused-appellant, the RTC rendered a judgment of conviction
After a review of the records, the CA affirmed the RTC Judgment. The appellate court
ruled that what transpired in the case at bar was an entrapment and not an instigation

Issue:

Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant
when his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt?

Held: NO.

In the case at bar, after the sale was consummated, the confidential informant
gave the seized item to SPO4 Larot who placed tape on the sachet and marked it
“Exhibit A.” Upon reaching the police station, SPO4 Larot executed the Certificate of
Inventory, as well as the request for laboratory examination. The request, the specimen,
as well as the marked money and accused-appellant were then brought to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for examination. They were received by SPO2 Ricardo Maisog, the
Receiving Clerk of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office, who then forwarded them to Police
Inspector Ma. Leocy Jabonillo Mag-abo, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP
Crime Laboratory. Moreover, the seized item was duly identified by SPO4 Larot in open
court as the same item seized from accused-appellant.

Accused-appellant’s guilt having been established, we likewise affirm the penalty

imposed by the RTC and the CA.
81. REPUBLIC v. FE ROA GIMENEZ
GR No. 174673
January 11, 2016
Facts:
The Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG),
instituted a Complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and Damages
against the Gimenez Spouses before the Sandiganbayan. The Complaint seeks to recover
ill-gotten wealth acquired by [the Gimenez Spouses] as dummies, agent, or nominees of
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda Marcos..
In the first assailed Resolution dated May 25, 2006, the Sandiganbayan noted that
the Republic failed to file its Formal Offer of Evidence notwithstanding repeated extensions
and the lapse of 75 days from the date it terminated its presentation of evidence. Thus, it
declared that the Republic waived the filing of its Formal Offer of Evidence.
In the second assailed Resolution dated September 13, 2006, the Sandiganbayan
denied the Republic's Motion for Reconsideration and granted the Gimenez Spouses'
Motion to Dismiss.
The Republic filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari dated November 3, 2006
before this court.
Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in denying petitioner's Motion to
Admit Formal Offer of Evidence on the basis of mere technicalities depriving petitioner of its
right to due process.
Ruling:.
The rule on formal offer of evidence is intertwined with the constitutional guarantee
of due process. Parties must be given the opportunity to review the evidence submitted
against them and take the necessary actions to secure their case. Hence, any document or
object that was marked for identification is not evidence unless it was formally offered and
the opposing counsel [was] given an opportunity to object to it or cross-examine the witness
called upon to prove or identify it. This court is of the belief that it is but only just that the
Rules be relaxed and petitioner be allowed to submit its written Formal Offer of Evidence.
The Sandiganbayan's Resolutions should be reversed.

82. PEOPLE v. RICARDO LAGBO

GR No. 207535
Feb 10, 2016

Facts:

One afternoon in October 2000, AAA was washing dishes inside their house. She
was alone with her father, as her mother was at the marketplace selling vegetables
while her siblings were playing outside the house. All of a sudden, accused-appellant
grabbed her and forcibly removed her short pants and her panty. After removing his
short pants, accused appellant pushed AAA and made her lie down on their "papag".
Thereafter, he boxed AAA's face twice and threatened to kill her mother and siblings.
He then placed himself on top of AAA and made pumping motions while covering her
mouth and pulling her hair. AAA felt pain and cried as accused-appellant's sex organ
penetrated hers. After gratifying himself, accused-appellant put on his clothes, sat
beside AAA and told her to stop crying. AAA did not relate this incident to her mother for
fear that accused-appellant would make good his threat to harm her mother and
siblings.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court’s decision is correct and binding between the parties?
Held: YES.
The rule is that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of
the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its
conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect.
This is truer if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court's
findings have been affirmed by the appellate court,said findings are generally binding
upon this Court.
83. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALFREDO R. DE BORJA
G.R. No. 187448
January 9, 2017

Facts:

The case started in a complaint filed before Sanguniangbayan (SB) by the

petitioner thru Presidential Commission on Good Government for the recovery of ill-
gotten assets allegedly amassed by the individual respondents therein, during the
administration of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Geronimo Z. Velasco, was the
President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine National Oil
Company (PNOC) in which respondent De Borja is Velasco' s nephew.

It appears from the records that PNOC would regularly enter into charter
agreements with vessels and, pursuant to industry practice, vessel owners would pay
"address commissions" to PNOC as charterer, amounting to five percent (5%) of the
total freight wherein during the tenure of Velasco, allegedly, no address commissions
were remitted to PNOC.

Given the foregoing, petitioner Republic claimed that it was De Borja who
collected these address commissions on behalf of Velasco, basing its allegation on the
testimony of Epifanio F. Veranoa witness for petitioner Republic. De Borja was further
alleged to have acted as Velasco's dummy, nominee, and/or agent for corporations he
owned and/or controlled, such as DRMC.
 Respondent De Borja filed his Demurrer to Evidence of even date, stating
therein, among others:

1. that Verano, on two (2) occasions, testified that he delivered an envelope to

Velasco who, in turn, instructed him to deliver the same to De Borja;
2. that Verano admitted that the envelope was sealed;
3. that Verano did not open the envelope and therefore had no knowledge of the
contents thereof;
4. that Verano did not deliver the envelope personally to De Borja; and that Verano
did not confirm whether De Borja in fact received the said envelope.

SB finds that the plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that
defendant De Borja is liable for damages as averred in the complaint. witness Verano
admitted that although he was instructed to deliver two envelopes to the office of De
Borja, he did not know for a fact that De Borja actually received them. Moreover,
witness Verano testified that after he delivered the envelopes, he did not receive any
word that they did reach De Borja, nor did Verano confirm De Borja's receipt of them.
Where the plaintiff's evidence against defendant De Borja consists only of Verano's
testimony and Reyes' affidavit, no preponderance of evidence has been satisfactorily
established. The SB rendered a Decision dismissing Civil Case No. 0003 with respect to
the remaining respondents therein. This, in turn, was subject of an appeal before
Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not the SB committed irreversible error in granting respondent De

Borja's Demurrer to Evidence.

Held:

The insinuations of petitioner Republic in the instant Petition can best be

described as speculative, conjectural, and inconclusive at best. Nothing in the testimony
of Verano reasonably points, or even alludes, to the conclusion that De Borja acted as a
dummy or conduit of Velasco in receiving address commissions from vessel owners.

The Court concurs in the SB's observations. As admitted by Verano himself, he

did not and could not have known what was inside the envelopes when they were
purportedly entrusted to him for delivery. In the same vein, Verano did not even confirm
respondent De Borja's receipt of the envelopes, despite numerous opportunities to do
so. Relatedly, it was further revealed during the cross-examination of Verano that in the
first place, Velasco did not even deal directly with brokers.

All told, the Court finds that the evidence adduced is wholly insufficient to support
the allegations of the Complaint before the SB. Thus, for failure of petitioner Republic to
show any right to the relief sought, the Court affirms the SB in granting the Demurrer to
Evidence.
84. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ROLANDO SANTOS ZARAGOZA
G.R. No. 223142
January 17, 2018

Facts:

Accused-appellant Santos was charged before the RTC of Caloocan City with
three (3) counts of violation of certain provisions of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

When arraigned, both Santos and Loquinario-Flores pleaded not guilty. Joint trial
of the cases thereafter ensued.

The RTC ruled that the entry in the house of Santos by the NBI team and the
subsequent confiscation of the paraphernalia and marijuana were valid and legal since
the team had a search warrant.

The CA denied the appeal filed by the accused and affirms the decision of the
RTC.

Issue:

Whether or not there was a significant gap in the chain of custody of the seized
items.

Held: NO
 There was no significant gap in the chain of custody of the seized items.
Moreover, the assertion of Santos that the forensic chemist did not testify to explain the
measures undertaken to preserve the integrity and identity of the substance examined
until their presentation in court, has no merit. As earlier mentioned, both the prosecution
and the defense had agreed to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist upon
stipulation on certain facts. Moreover, the defense counsel had the opportunity to cross-
examine the forensic chemist but, as revealed by the records, his cross-examination
never dealt on matters pertaining to the measures carried out by the NBI team to
maintain the integrity of the confiscated items.