SURVEY OF CASES IN CRIMINAL LAW

January-December 2013
Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra
Book II
FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS OF A PRIVATE,
PUBLIC, OR COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT: ELEMENTS

Tanenggee v. People, G.R. No. 179448, 26 June 2013.

On different occasions, accused Tanenggee affixed, forged,

or caused to be signed the signature of Tan as endorser and payee
of the proceeds of the checks at the back of the same to show that
the latter had indeed endorsed the same for payment. He handed
the checks to the loans clerk for encashment. Once said documents
were forged and falsified, Tanenggee released and obtained from
the bank

denoting honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of

circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. It is
actually a question of intent and although something internal, it can
be ascertained by relying not on ones self-serving protestations of
good faith but on evidence of his conduct and outward acts.
In this case, Ruzol should be acquitted because he acted in
good faith. Contrary to the conclusions made by the
Sandiganbayan, Ruzols act of consulting with the public through an
organizational meeting was not a badge of bad faith. Rather, it was
a sign supporting Ruzols good intentions to regulate and monitor
the movement of salvaged forest products to prevent abuse and
occurrence of untoward illegal logging.
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS: PRESUMPTION, MODES
OF COMMISSION

Cantos v. People, G.R. No. 184908, 3 July 2013.

All the elements of the crime of estafa through falsification

of commercial documents were established in this case.

Accused Cantos was convicted of the crime of malversation

of public funds.

First, Tanenggee is a private individual. Second, the acts of

falsification consisted in Tanenggees (1) counterfeiting or imitating
the victims handwriting or signature and causing it to appear that
the same is true and genuine in all respects; and (2) causing it to
appear that victim has participated in an act or proceeding when
he did not in fact so participate. Third, the falsification was
committed in promissory notes and checks which are commercial
documents.

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) states that the
failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds
or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly
authorized officer, isprima facie evidence that he has put such
missing fund or property to personal uses. This presumption,
however, may be rebutted upon evidence that can nullify any
likelihood that the accused put the funds or property to personal
use.

USURPATION OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS: ELEMENTS

Cantos failed to overcome this prima facie evidence of guilt.

He failed to explain the missing funds in his account and to
restitute the amount upon demand. His claim that the money was
taken by robbery or theft is self-serving and has not been
supported by evidence. In fact, Cantos even tried to unscrew the
safety vault to make it appear that the money was forcibly taken.
Moreover, Cantos explanation that there is a possibility that the
money was taken by another is belied by the fact that there was no
sign that the steel cabinet was forcibly opened. Finally, it was only
Cantos who had the keys to the steel cabinet.

Ruzol v. Sandiganbayan and People, G.R. Nos.

186739-960, 17 April 2013.

As mayor, accused Ruzol issued permits to transport

salvaged forest products to various recipients. An information for
usurpation of authority or official functions was filed against him on
the ground that he was not lawfully entitled to issue said permits,
such authority properly belonging to the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
The Supreme Court acquitted Ruzol.Good faith is a defense
in criminal prosecutions for usurpation of official functions. The
term good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT: CONSPIRACY

Bacasmas v. People, G.R. Nos. 189343, 189369, and

189553, 10 July 2013.

verify the ownership of the land through

which the canal would pass because,
according to him, it appeared to be public
land. The City Council consequently passed a
resolution, authorizing the city mayor to
enter into a contract for and on behalf of the
city for said canals construction.

A Commission of Audit (COA) report

showed that petitioners Bacasmas, Gaviola,
Cesa, and Jaca not only signed, certified, and
approved the City Government of Cebus
cash advance vouchers, but also signed and
countersigned the checks despite the
deficiencies, which amounted to violations of
R.A. 7160, P.D. 1445, and COA Circular Nos.
90-331, 92-382 and 97-002.2.

A certain Nadela discovered that a

canal was being constructed on her lot
without
her
consent.
Despite
the
governments assurances, it never initiated
efforts to remove the canal, promptingNadela
to file the instant complaint against Sanchez.

Petitioners are guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of violating Section 3 (e) of
R.A. No. 3019. Gross and inexcusable
negligence is characterized by a want of even
the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in
a situation in which there is a duty to act not
inadvertently, but wilfully and intentionally,
with conscious indifference to consequences
insofar as other persons are affected. Bad
faith does not simply connote bad judgment
or simple negligence. It imports a dishonest
purpose or some moral obloquy and
conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a
known duty due to some motive or interest or
ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.

Sanchez
conviction
was
proper.Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 may be
committed either by dolo, as when the
accused acted with evident bad faith or
manifest partiality or by culpa as when the
accused
committed
gross
inexcusable
negligence.

There is manifest partiality when

there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination
or predilection to favour one side or person
rather than another. Evident bad faith
connotes not only bad judgment but also
palpably and patently fraudulent and
dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or
conscious wrongdoing for some perverse
motive or ill will. Finally, gross inexcusable
negligence
refers
to
negligence
characterized by want of even the slightest
care, acting or omitting to act in a situation
where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently
but wilfully and intentionally, with conscious
indifference to consequences insofar as other
persons may be affected.

Petitioners were well aware of their

responsibilities before they affixed their
signatures on the cash advance vouchers.
Yet, they still chose to disregard the
requirements laid down by the law, rules, and
regulations by approving the vouchers
despite the incomplete information therein,
the previous unliquidated cash advances, the
absence of payroll to support the cash
requested, and the disparity between the
requested cash advances and the total net
pay. Worse, they continue to plead their
innocence, allegedly for the reason that it
was "common practice" in their office not to
follow the law and rules and regulations to
the letter.
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
ACT: SECTION 3(E)

Sanchez failure to validate the

ownership of Nadelas land on which the
canal is to be built because of his unfounded
belief that it is public land constitutes gross
and inexcusable negligence. Sanchez even
impliedly admitted that it fell squarely under
his duties to check the ownership of the land
with the Register of Deeds. Yet, he concluded
that it was public land solely on his
evaluation of its appearancethat Nadelas
land looked swampy.

Sanchez v. People, G.R. No.

187340, 14 August 2013
Petitioner Sanchez, a city engineer,
approved
and
submitted
documents
concerning the improvement of an existing
canal to the Cebu City Council. In the course
of the project preparation, however, Sanchez
never ordered any of his subordinates to

HOMICIDE: ELEMENTS

Plameras v. People, G.R. No.

187268, 4 September 2013;
Posadas and Dayco v. People, G.R.
Nos. 168951 and 169000, 27
November 2013. (same doctrine
as discussed above)

MURDER: ELEMENTS

No.

The victim was about to ride his

tricycle when petitioner Escamilla shot the
former four times, hitting him once in the
upper portion of his right chest.

People v. Peteluna, G.R. No.

187048, 23 January 2013.

On the way home, appellants followed

the victim and his companion. The
companion saw the appellants place their
arms on the victims shoulder, after which
they struck the latter with stones. The victim
pleaded appellants to stop, but they did not.
When the victim fell to the ground, one of the
appellants smashed his head with a stone as
big as the victims head. Afterwards,
appellants dragged him downhill toward a
farm.

Escamilla was found guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide,
which the Supreme Court upheld on appeal.
Intent to kill, as an essential element of
homicide at whatever stage, may be before
or simultaneous with the infliction of injuries.
The evidence to prove intent to kill may
consist of, among others:

Appellants claim that the crime

committed is only homicide because of the
absence of the circumstances of treachery
and evident premeditation, which would have
qualified the killing to murder, and that their
respective defenses of denial and alibi were
meritorious.

1. the means used;

2. the nature, location, and number
of wounds sustained by the victim;
and

The Supreme Court upheld appellants

conviction. As a qualifying circumstance to
the crime of murder, the essence of treachery
is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording
the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or to escape, and
that it may still exist even if the attack is
frontal so long as the same is sudden and
unexpected.

3. the conduct of the malefactors

before, at the time of, or
immediately after the killing of the
victim.

Escamillas
intent
to
kill
was
simultaneous with the infliction of injuries.
Using a gun, he shot the victim in the chest.
Despite a bloodied right upper torso, the
victim still managed to run towards his house
to ask for help. Nonetheless, Escamilla
continued to shoot at him three more times,
albeit unsuccessfully.

It was clear that the victim, an elder,

had no inkling of the impending danger
against him. The attack was sudden
notwithstanding the prior act of placing the
assailants arms on the shoulder of the victim
because such was done in a friendly manner.

Escamilla v. People, G.R.

188551, 27 February 2013.

People v. Zapuiz, G.R. No. 199713,

20 February 2013. (same doctrine
as discussed above)

The attending physician, finding that

the bullet had no point of exit, did not

attempt to extract it; its extraction would just

have caused further damage. The doctor
further said that the victim would have died if
the latter were not brought immediately to
the hospital. All these facts belie the absence
of Escamillas intent to kill the victim.

against single women, but also against those

who are married, middle-aged, separated, or
pregnant. Even a prostitute may be a victim
of rape.
Physical resistance need not be
established in rape when threats and
intimidation are employed, and the victim
submits herself to her attacker because of
fear. It is not the sole test to determine
whether a woman has involuntarily
succumbed to the lust of an accused. It is not
an essential element of rape.

RAPE: ELEMENTS

People v. Buado, Jr., G.R. No.

170634, 8 January 2013; People v.
Zafra, G.R. No. 197363, 26 June
2013; People v. Manalili, G.R. No.
191253, 28 August 2013.

Delay in revealing the commission of a

crime, such as rape, does not necessarily
render such charge unworthy of belief. This is
because the victim may choose to keep quiet
rather than expose her defilement to the
cruelty of public scrutiny. Only when the
delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it
work to discredit the complainant.

Carnal knowledge of a female simply

means a male having bodily connections with
a female. The presence or absence of injury
or laceration in the victims genitalia is not
decisive of whether rape has been
committed. Such injury or laceration is
material only if force or intimidation were an
element of the rape charged. Otherwise, it is
merely circumstantial evidence of the
commission of the rape.

People v. Bacatan, G.R. No.

203315, 18 September 2013

In rape cases, the law does not

impose a burden on the rape victim to prove
resistance because it is not an element of
rape. Hence, the absence of abrasions or
contusions in AAAs body is inconsequential.
Also, not all victims react the same way.
Some people may cry out, some may faint,
some may be shocked into insensibility, while
others may appear to yield to the intrusion.
Some may offer strong resistance while
others may be too intimidated to offer any
resistance at all. The failure of a rape victim
to offer tenacious resistance does not make
her submission to accuseds criminal acts
voluntary. What is necessary is that the force
employed against her was sufficient to
consummate the purpose which he has in
mind.

People v. Penilla, G.R. No.

189324, 20 March 2013; People v.
Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, 3 April
2013; People v. Cabungan, G.R.
No. 189355, 23 January 2013;
People v. Lomaque, G.R. No.
189297, 5 June 2013; People v.
Zafra, G.R. No. 197363, 26 June
2013; People v. Basallo, G.R. No.
182457, 30 January 2013; People
v. Candellada, G.R. No. 189293,
10 July 2013; People v. Cedenio,
G.R. No. 201103, 25 September
2013; People v. Galagar, Jr., G.R.
No. 202842, 9 October 2013.

By the very nature of the crime of

rape, conviction or acquittal depends almost
entirely on the credibility of the
complainants testimony because of the fact
that, usually, only the participants can
directly testify as to its occurrence. Since
normally only two persons are privy to the
commission of rape, the evaluation of the
evidence thereof ultimately revolves around
the credibility of the complaining witness.

Sufficient force does not mean great

or is of such character that is irresistible; as
long as it brings about the desired result, all
considerations of whether it was more or less
irresistible are beside the point.

The moral character of the victim is

immaterial. Rape may be committed not only

People v. Espenilla, G.R. No.

192253, 18 September 2013.

When a rape victims testimony is

straightforward and marked with consistency
despite grueling examination, it deserves full
faith and confidence and cannot be
discarded. If such testimony is clear,
consistent and credible to establish the crime
beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction may
be based on it, notwithstanding its
subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by a
prosecution witness does not necessarily
vitiate her original testimony.

evidence to establish beyond reasonable

doubt that the perpetrators penis touched
the labia of the victim or slid into her female
organ, and not merely stroked the external
surface thereof, to ensure his conviction of
rape by sexual intercourse.
Rape under paragraph 2 of the abovequoted article is commonly known as rape by
sexual assault. The perpetrator, under any of
the attendant circumstances mentioned in
paragraph 1, commits this kind of rape by
inserting his penis into another persons
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object into the genital or anal orifice of
another person. It is also called instrument
or object rape, also gender-free rape, or
the narrower homosexual rape.

A retraction is looked upon with

considerable disfavor by the courts. It is
exceedingly unreliable for there is always the
probability that such recantation may later on
be repudiated. It can easily be obtained from
witnesses through intimidation or monetary
consideration. Like any other testimony, it is
subject to the test of credibility based on the
relevant circumstances and, especially, on
the demeanor of the witness on the stand.

CONSUMMATED RAPE

People v. Caoile, G.R. No. 203041,

5 June 2013; People v. Monticalvo,
G.R. No. 193507, 30 January 2013.

The law provides that there are two

circumstances for the carnal knowledge of a
woman with mental disability to be
considered rape. It may either be rape of a
person deprived of reason or rape of a
demented person.

Slightest penetration of the labia of

the female victim's genitalia consummates
the crime of rape. As the text of the law itself
shows, the breaking of the hymen of the
victim is not among the means of
consummating rape. All that the law requires
is that the accused had carnal knowledge of a
woman under the circumstances described in
the law. By definition, carnal knowledge was
"the act of a man having sexual bodily
connections with a woman." This
understanding of rape explains why the
slightest penetration of the female genitalia
consummates the crime.

The term deprived of reason

pertains to those suffering from a mental
abnormality, deficiency, or retardation.
Meanwhile, a demented person pertains to
one having dementiaa form of mental
disorder in which cognitive and intellectual
functions of the mind are prominently
affected and where total recovery is not
possible.

People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 173307,

17 July 2013; People v. Manalili,
G.R. No. 191253, 28 August 2013;
People v. De Jesus, G.R. No.
190622, 7 October 2013; People v.
Guillen, G.R. No. 191756, 25
November 2013.

In objective terms, carnal knowledge,

the other essential element in consummated
statutory rape, does not require full penile
penetration of the female. The mere touching
of the external genitalia by a penis capable of
consummating the sexual act is sufficient to
constitute carnal knowledge. All that is
necessary to reach the consummated stage
of rape is for the penis of the accused
capable of consummating the sexual act to
come into contact with the lips of the

People v. Gaduyon, G.R. No.

181473, 11 November 2013

In rape under paragraph 1 or rape

through sexual intercourse, carnal knowledge
is the crucial element which must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. This is also
referred to as organ rape or penile rape
and must be attended by any of the
circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs
(a) to (d) of paragraph 1. There must be

pudendum of the victim. This means that the

rape is consummated once the penis of the
accused capable of consummating the sexual
act touches either labia or the pudendum.

impose an obligation on the part of the victim

to exhibit defiance or to present proof of
struggle.

Also, the touching that constitutes

rape does not mean mere epidermal contact,
or stroking or grazing of organs, or a slight
brush or a scrape of the penis on the external
layer of the victims vagina, or the mons
pubis, but rather the erect penis touching the
labias or sliding into the female genitalia.
Accordingly, the conclusion that touching the
labia majora or the labia minora of the
pudendum constitutes consummated rape
proceeds from the physical fact that the
labias are physically situated beneath the
mons pubis or the vaginal surface, such that
for the penis to touch either of them is to
attain some degree of penetration beneath
the surface of the female genitalia. It is
required, however, that this manner of
touching of the labias must be sufficiently
and convincingly established.

Rape victims react differently. Some

may offer strong resistance, while others may
be too intimidated to offer any resistance at
all. The use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly
suggestive of force or at least intimidation,
and threatening the victim with a knife, much
more poking at her, as in this case, is
sufficient to bring her into submission.

People v. Veloso, G.R. No. 188849,

13 February 2013; People v. Dela
Cruz, G.R. No. 183091, 19 June
2013.

Due to its intimate nature, rape is

usually a crime bereft of witnesses and, more
often than not, the victim is left to testify for
herself. Thus, in the resolution of rape cases,
the victims credibility becomes the
primordial consideration.

People v. Guillen, G.R. No.

191756, 25 November 2013

Rape may be committed even in

places where people congregate. Thus, it is
not impossible or unlikely that rape is
perpetrated inside a room adjacent to a room
occupied by other persons, as in this case.

It is settled that when the victims

testimony is straightforward, convincing, and
consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things, unflawed by any material or
significant inconsistency, it passes the test of
credibility. The accused then may be
convicted solely on the basis thereof.

RAPE: WHEN COMMITTED WITH A

DEADLY WEAPON

People v. Penilla, G.R. No.

189324, 20 March 2013.

Also, the law does not impose a

burden on the rape victim to prove
resistance. What has to be proved by the
prosecution is the use of force or intimidation
by the accused in having sexual intercourse
with the victim.

People v. Basallo, G.R. No.

182457, 30 January 2013.

The gravamen of the offense of rape is

sexual intercourse with a woman against her
will or without her consent. Relating thereto,
when a victim is threatened with bodily injury
as when the rapist is armed with a deadly
weapon, such as a knife or bolo, such
constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring the
victim to submission to the lustful desires of
the rapist.

RAPE THROUGH FORCE OR

INTIMIDATION

The victims failure to shout for help

does not negate rape. Even the victims lack
of resistance, especially when intimidated by
the offender into submission, does not signify
voluntariness or consent. The law does not

People v. Vitero, G.R. No. 175327,

3 April 2013; People v. Deligero,
G.R. No. 189280, 17 April 2013;
People v. Amistoso, G.R. No.
201447, 9 January 2013; People v.
Diaz, G.R. No. 200882, 13 June
2013.

In rape committed by close kin, such

as the victims father, stepfather, uncle, or
the common-law spouse of her mother, it is
not necessary that actual force or
intimidation be employed. Moral influence or
ascendancy takes the place of violence and
intimidation.

the molestation, prostitution, or incest

with children; and
2. Lascivious conduct, which means
the intentional touching, either
directly or through clothing, of the
genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction
of any object into the genitalia, anus,
or mouth, of any person, whether of
the same or opposite sex, with an
intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of
the genitals or pubic area of a person.

RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL ASSAULT

Pielago v. People, G.R. No.

202020, 13 March 2013.

The gravamen of the crime of rape by

sexual assault is the insertion of the penis
into another persons mouth or anal orifice,
or any instrument or object, into another
persons genital or anal orifice. In this case,
this element is clearly present when the
minor victim has straightforwardly testified in
court that accused Pielago has inserted his
forefinger in her vagina and anus.

Notably, previous jurisprudence has

held that a child is deemed subjected to
other sexual abuse when the child indulges in
lascivious conduct under the coercion or
influence of an adult.
Unlike rape, therefore, consent is
immaterial in cases involving violation of
Section 5, Article III, R.A. No. 7610. The mere
act of having sexual intercourse or
committing lascivious conduct with a child
who is exploited in prostitution or subjected
to sexual abuse constitutes the offense.

STATUTORY RAPE: ELEMENTS

People v. Rayon, Sr., G.R. No.

194236, 30 January 2013; People
v. Lomaque, G.R. No. 189297, 5
June 2013; Caballo v. People, G.R.
No. 198732, 10 June 2013; People
v. Manalili, G.R. No. 191253, 28
August 2013; People v. Gaduyon,
G.R. No. 181473, 11 November
2013.

QUALIFIED RAPE

Sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of

R.A. No. 7610 has three elements:

People v. Rayon, Sr., G.R. No.

194236, 30 January 2013; People
v. Lomaque, G.R. No. 189297, 5
June 2013; People v. Candellada,
G.R. No. 189293, 10 July 2013.

Rape is qualified and the penalty is

death, pursuant to Article 266-B of the RPC,
when the victim is below 18 years of age and
the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim.

1. The accused commits an act of sexual

intercourse or lascivious conduct;
2. The said act is performed with a child
exploited in prostitution or subject to
other sexual abuse; and
3. The child is below 18 years old.
Corollarily, the Rules and Regulations
on the Reporting and Investigation of Child
Abuse Cases define the following terms:

To justify the imposition of the death

penalty, however, 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.
Needless to say, these two circumstances
must concur.

1. Sexual abuse, which includes the

employment, use, persuasion,
inducement, enticement, or coercion
of a child to engage in or assist
another person to engage in, sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct or

For the Court to even consider giving

credence to the sweetheart defense, it must
be proven by compelling evidence. The
defense cannot just present testimonial
evidence in support of the theory.
Independent proof is required such as
tokens, mementos, and photographs. And
while Cayanan produced two love letters
allegedly written by AAA, the CA correctly
sustained the finding of the RTC that these
letters were unauthenticated and therefore,
bereft of any probative value.

People v. Hilarion, G.R. No.

201105, 25 November 2013.

For a charge of rape under Article 266A of the RPC, the prosecution must prove that
1. the offender had carnal knowledge of
a woman; and
2. he accomplished this act through
force, threat or intimidation, when she
was deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious, or when she was under
12 years of age or was demented.

RAPE: SWEETHEART DEFENSE

When the accused in a rape case

claims, as in the case at bar, that the sexual
intercourse between him and the
complainant was consensual, the burden of
evidence shifts to him, such that he is now
enjoined to adduce sufficient evidence to
prove the relationship. Being an affirmative
defense, it must be established with
convincing evidence, such as by some
documentary and/or other evidence like
mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and
the like. The sweetheart theory as a defense
necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first
element of rape. Effectively, it leaves the
prosecution the burden to prove only force or
intimidation, the coupling element of rape.
This admission makes the sweetheart theory
more difficult to defend, for it is not only an
affirmative defense that needs convincing
proof; after the prosecution has successfully
established a prima faciecase, the burden of
evidence is shifted to the accused, who has
to adduceevidence that the intercourse was
consensual.

People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 201728,

17 July 2013.

As to the "sweetheart defense", it is

said that love is not a license for lust. "A love
affair does not justify rape for a man does not
have the unbridled license to subject his
beloved to his carnal desires against her will."
In this case, Cruzs argument that they are
lovers may be true; however, the sexual
incidents between him and AAA have not
been proven to be consensual.

People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 200508,

4 September 2013

In determining whether the act was

consensual and that no force of any kind and
degree was employed, circumstances as to
the age, size and strength of both parties
must also be looked into because force in
rape is relative. The sweetheart defense is an
affirmative defense that must be supported
by convincing proof.

KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL

DETENTION: ELEMENTS

As correctly ruled by the CA, such

defense is "effectively an admission of carnal
knowledge of the victim and consequently
places on accused-appellant the burden of
proving the alleged relationship by
substantial evidence." Independent proof is
required.

People v. Alcober, G.R. No.

192941, 13 November 2013.

People v. Salvador, G.R. No.

201443, 10 April 2013.

Here, the Supreme Court affirmed the

accuseds convictions. Based on the victims
clear and categorical testimony, the
accuseds overt acts were undoubtedly
geared toward unlawfully depriving the victim
of his liberty and extorting ransom in
exchange for his release. That no ransom
was actually paid does not negate the fact of

People v. Cayanan, G.R. No.

200080, 18 September 2013

the commission of the crime, it being

sufficient that a demand for it was made.

the victim also came from the same caliber of

gun recovered from said accused.

KIDNAPPING WITH RANSOM: ELEMENTS

THEFT: SIMPLE THEFT AND QUALIFIED

THEFT DISTINGUISHED

People v. Niegas, G.R. No.

194582, 27 November 2013

In countering the charge against him,

Niegas contends that the victims testimonies
do not prove that he has kidnapped them. He
denies all allegations against him and
furthers that it is not him who has demanded
or received the ransom money.

This case is an offshoot of an earlier

case, convicting petitioner Almuete for
violating Section 68 of the Revised Forestry
Code of the Philippines, as amended. A
person violating said section shall be
punished with the penalties imposed under
Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal
Code.

Niegas defenses cannot be upheld.

The victims testimonies proved that the
offenders detained them for more than three
days, for the purpose of extorting ransom.
Also, the mere circumstance that Niegas did
not personally perform all the acts necessary
to consummate the crime of murder would be
irrelevant when conspiracy was proven here
since, in conspiracy, the act of one is the act
of all.

Accordingly, Articles 309 and 310 of

the RPC provide:
Art. 309. Penalties.Any
person found guilty of theft
shall be punished by:
1. The penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum and
medium periods, if the
value of the thing stolen is
more than 12,000 pesos
but does not exceed 22,000
pesos; but if the value of
the thing stolen exceed[s]
the latter amount, the
penalty shall be the
maximum period of the one
prescribed in this
paragraph, and one year
for each additional ten
thousand pesos, but the
total of the penalty which
may be imposed shall not
exceed twenty years. In
such cases, and in
connection with the
accessory penalties which
may be imposed and for
the purpose of the other
provisions of this Code, the
penalty shall be termed
prision mayor or reclusion
perpetua, as the case may
be.

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE: ELEMENTS

People v. Cachuela, G.R. No.

191752, 10 June 2013.

Homicide is said to have been

committed by reason or on the occasion of
robbery if, for instance, it was committed:
1
2
3
4

Almuete v. People, G.R. No.

179611, 12 March 2013.

To facilitate the robbery or the escape

of the culprit;
To preserve the possession by the
culprit of the loot;
To prevent discovery of the
commission of the robbery; or
To eliminate witnesses in the
commission of the crime.

In this case, the victim was killed to

facilitate the robbery. The fact that the
cartridge bullet shells found at the firing
range where the victims lifeless body was
discovered matched with one of the guns
found from one of the accused during an
entrapment operation clinches the case
against accused insofar as establishing the
nexus between the robbery and the victims
killing. Also, the gunshot wounds suffered by

XXX

house. He was thereafter seen carrying a

heavy-looking sack as he was leaving private
complainants house. All these circumstances
portray a chain of events that leads to a fair
and reasonable conclusion that petitioner
took the personal properties with intent to
gain, especially considering that, fourth,
Vedua had not consented to the removal
and/or taking of these properties.

Art. 310. Qualified theft.The

crime of theft shall be punished
by the penalties next higher by
two degrees than those
respectively specified in the
next preceding articles, if
committed by a domestic
servant, or with grave abuse of
confidence, or if the property
stolen is motor vehicle, mail
matter or large cattle or
consists of coconuts taken from
the premises of the plantation
or fish taken from a fishpond or
fishery, or if property is taken
on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic
eruption, or any other calamity,
vehicular accident or civil
disturbance. XXX

Notably, however, the very fact that

Viray forced open the main door and screen
because he was denied access to Veduas
house negates the presence of such
confidence in him by Vedua. Without ready
access to the interior of the house and the
properties that were the subject of the taking,
it cannot be said that Vedua had a firm
trust on Viray or that she relied on his
discretion and that the same trust reposed
on him facilitated Virays taking of the
personal properties justifying his conviction of
qualified theft.

Perusal of the records would show that

the Regional Trial Court (RTC) imposed the
penalty prescribed in Article 310, which is
two degrees higher than those specified in
Article 309. This is erroneous considering that
Article 310 only applies if the theft were
committed under the circumstances provided
therein. In this case, however, none of these
circumstances were present. The proper
imposable penalty then is that provided in
Article 309.

ANTI-FENCING LAW: ELEMENTS

As to the element of the crime that

the accused knew or should have known that
the said article, item, object, or anything of
value has been derived from the proceeds of
the crime of robbery or theft, the words
should know denote the fact that a person
of reasonable prudence and intelligence
would ascertain the fact in performance of his
duty to another or would govern his conduct
upon assumption that such fact exists.

QUALIFIED THEFT

Ong v. People, G.R. No. 190475,

10 April 2013.

Viray v. People, G.R. No. 205180,

11 November 2013

The crime charged against petitioner

Viray is theft qualified by grave abuse of
confidence.

Circumstances normally exist to

forewarn a reasonably vigilant buyer that the
object of the sale may have been derived
from the proceeds of robbery or theft. Such
circumstances include the time and place of
the sale, both of which may not be in accord
with the usual practices of commerce. The
nature and condition of the goods sold, and
the fact that the seller is not regularly
engaged in the business of selling goods may
likewise suggest the illegality of their source,
and therefore should caution the buyer.

The elements constituting the crime of

simple theft are present here. First, it was
proved that the subjects of the offense were
all personal or movable properties, consisting
as they were of jewelry, clothing, cellular
phone, a media player and a gaming device.
Second, these properties belong to private
complainant Vedua. Third, circumstantial
evidence places petitioner in the scene of the
crime during the day of the incident, as
numerous witnesses saw him in Veduas
house and his clothes were found inside the

Accused Ong, who was in the business

of buy and sell of tires for the past 24 years,

10

ought to have known the ordinary course of

business in purchasing from an unknown
seller. Nevertheless, Ong bought the tires
subject of this case without even asking for
proof of ownership thereof and allowing the
entire transactionthat is, from the proposal
to buy until delivery of the tires, to happen in
just one day. His experience from the
business should have given him doubt as to
the legitimate ownership of the tires,
considering that it was his first to transact
with the seller of the tires and that the
sellers conduct as if he were peddling said
tires on the streets.

committing estafa because, before the

falsified document is actually utilized to
defraud another, the crime of falsification has
already been consummated, damage or
intent to cause damage not being an element
of the crime of falsification of public, official,
or commercial document. In other words, the
crime of falsification has already existed.
Actually utilizing that falsified public,
official, or commercial document to defraud
another is estafa. But the damage is caused
by the commission of estafa, not by the
falsification of the document. Therefore, as a
special complex crime, the falsification of the
public, official, or commercial document is
only a necessary means to commit estafa.

Also, while for all practical purposes,

the issuance of a sales invoice or receipt is
proof of a legitimate transaction and may be
raised as a defense in the charge of fencing,
this defense is disputable. Ong failed to
overcome the evidence presented by the
prosecution in rebutting this presumption.

The elements of estafa are obtaining

in this case. By falsely representing that the
victim requested accused Tanenggee to
process purported loans on the latters
behalf, Tanenggee counterfeited or imitated
the victims signature in the cashiers checks.
Thus, Tanenggee succeeded in withdrawing
money from the bank. Clearly, he employed
deceit in order to take hold of the money, and
misappropriated and converted it to his own
personal use and benefit, resulting to the
damage and prejudice of the bank.

CARNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE:

ELEMENTS

People v. Mallari, G.R. No.

179041, 1 April 2013.

The Supreme Court sustained Mallaris

conviction for the special complex crime of
carnapping with homicide.To prove this
special complex crime, there must be proof
not only of the essential elements of
carnapping, but also that it was the original
criminal design of the culprit and the killing
was perpetrated in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the
occasion thereof.

ESTAFA: MODES OF COMMISSION

Article 315, paragraph 1(b) provides

for the liability for estafa committed by
misappropriating or converting to the
prejudice of another money, goods, or any
other personal property 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, even though that obligation
be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond;
or by denying having received such money,
goods, or other property. This is clearly shown
by the factual allegations of the Informations.

Mallari stole the FX taxi driven by the

victim after he agreed to illegally supply his
co-accused with this type of vehicle. It was
correctly found that Mallari killed the victim in
the course of the commission of the
carnapping.
ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF A
PRIVATE, PUBLIC, OR COMMERCIAL
DOCUMENT: ELEMENTS

Espino v. People, G.R. No. 188217,

3 July 2013

Applying these standards to this case,

first, accused Espino received personal
property in the form of checks in trust or on
commission, with the duty to deliver it to
another. Even though Espino misrepresented

Tanenggee, G.R. No. 179448.

The falsification of a public, official, or

commercial document may be a means of

11

the existence of a deliverable commission, it

is a fact that he was obliged by the injured
party, to deliver the check and account for it.
Second, Espino rediscounted the checks to
his aunt-in-law. Third, this rediscounting
resulted in the wrongful encashment of the
checks by someone who was not the payee
and therefore not lawfully authorized to do
so. Finally, this wrongful encashment
prejudiced the injured party, which lost the
proceeds of the check. When accounting was
demanded from the accused, he could not
conjure any justifiable excuse.

Wagas countered that it was a certain

Canada and not him who had transacted with
Ligaray. While he admitted to receiving a
letter from the prosecution regarding his
outstanding liability against Ligaray, he
signed it only to accommodate the pleas of
his sister and Canada and to avoid
jeopardizing Canadas application for
overseas employment.
Wagas should be acquitted here,
however. It is the criminal fraud or deceit in
the issuance of a check that is punishable,
not the non-payment of a debt. Prima facie
evidence of deceit exists by law upon proof
that the drawer of the check failed to deposit
the amount necessary to cover his check
within three days from receipt of the notice of
dishonor.

ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE:

ELEMENTS

Jandusay v. People, G.R. No.

185129, 17 June 2013.

But, in every criminal prosecution, the

identity of the offender, like the crime itself,
must be established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. In that regard, the
prosecution did not establish beyond
reasonable doubt that it was Wagas who had
defrauded Ligaray by issuing the check.

Misappropriation or conversion may

be proved by the prosecution by direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence. The
failure to account upon demand, for funds or
property held in trust, is circumstantial
evidence of misappropriation.
In the instant case, it cannot be
denied that accused Jandusay, as
CALAPUPATODA treasurer, received and held
money for administration of and in trust for
the association. He was thus under an
obligation to turn over the same upon
conclusion of his term as treasurer. Instead,
he misappropriated the money to the
prejudice of the association and, despite
demand, failed to account for or return them.
Such failure to account, upon demand, of
funds or property held in trust is
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.

ESTAFA: TRUST RECEIPTS LAW

The fact that the entruster bank,

Metrobank in this case, knew even before the
execution of the alleged trust receipt
agreements that the covered construction
materials were never intended by the
entrustee, accused Yang, for resale or for the
manufacture of items to be sold would take
the transaction between petitioner and
Metrobank outside the ambit of the Trust
Receipts Law.

ESTAFA: ELEMENTS OF SECTION 2(D)

Hur Tin Yang v. People, G.R. No.

195117, 14 August 2013

People v. Wagas, G.R. No. 157943,

4 September 2013

The subject transactions in the instant

case are not trust receipts transactions. Thus,
the consolidated complaints for Estafa in
relation to P.D. No. 115 have no leg to stand
on. The practice of banks of making
borrowers sign trust receipts to facilitate
collection of loans and place them under the
threats of criminal prosecution should they be
unable to pay it may be unjust and
inequitable, if not reprehensible. Such
agreements are contracts of adhesion which

Accused Wagas placed an order for

200 bags of rice from complainant Ligaray.
Ligaray accepted Wagas proposed payment
of the order by postdated check, upon the
latters assurance of his lending business and
money with the bank. Upon Ligarays deposit
of the check, it was dishonored for
insufficiency of funds.

12

borrowers have no option but to sign lest

their loan be disapproved. The resort to this
scheme leaves poor and hapless borrowers at
the mercy of banks and is prone to
misinterpretation.

subsistence of a valid first marriage between

petitioner and Karla Y. Medina-Capili
contracted on 3 September 1999. Notably,
the RTC of Antipolo City itself declared the
bigamous nature of the second marriage
between petitioner and private respondent.
Thus, the subsequent judicial declaration of
the second marriage for being bigamous in
nature does not bar the prosecution of
petitioner for the crime of bigamy.

BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. 22):

ELEMENTS

San Mateo v. People, G.R. No.

200090, 6 March 2013.

Capili may still be charged with the

crime of bigamy, even if there is a
subsequent declaration of the nullity of the
second marriage, so long as the first
marriage was still subsisting when the second
marriage was celebrated.

Petitioner San Mateo issued postdated

checks in partial payment of the assorted
yarns bought from ITSP International. When
Sehwani deposited one of the checks, it was
dishonored for insufficiency of funds. San
Mateo failed to settle her outstanding
account, despite Sehwanis requests for
payment.

What makes a person criminally liable

for bigamy is when he contracts a second or
subsequent marriage during the subsistence
of a valid first marriage. Parties to the
marriage should not be permitted to judge for
themselves its nullity, for the same must be
submitted to the judgment of competent
courts and only when the nullity of the
marriage is so declared can it be held as void,
and so long as there is no such declaration
the presumption that the marriage exists.

Relating to the second element of

violation of B.P. 22, Section 2 of said law
creates the presumption that the issuer of
the check has been aware of the insufficiency
of funds when he has issued a check and the
bank dishonors it. This presumption,
however, arises only after it has been proved
that the issuer has received a written notice
of dishonor and that, within five days from
receipt thereof, has failed to pay the amount
of the check or to make arrangements for its
payment.

ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS: ELEMENTS

In this case, there is no basis in

concluding that San Mateo knew of the
insufficiency of her funds. While she may
have requested to Sehwani to defer
depositing all checks, this did not amount to
an admission that, when she issued the
checks, she knew that she would have no
sufficient funds in the drawee bank to pay for
them.

Accused Lomaque was convicted of

the crime of acts of lasciviousness against his
stepdaughter for acts prejudicial to the childs
psychological and emotional development,
and which debase, demean, and degrade her
intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being.
The elements of acts of lasciviousness
are:

BIGAMY: ELEMENTS

People v. Lomaque, G.R. No.

189297, 5 June 2013.

1
Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805,
3 July 2013

All the elements of the crime of

bigamy were present in this case when the
Information was filed on 28 June 2004. It is
undisputed that a second marriage between
petitioner and private respondent was
contracted on 8 December 1999 during the

13

that the offender commits any acts

of lasciviousness or lewdness;
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.

that the offended person is

another person of either sex.

G.R. No. 191391, 19 June 2013;

People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No.
188310, 13 June 2013; People v.
Dumalag, G.R. No. 180514, 17
April 2013; People v. Aguilar, G.R.
No. 191396, 17 April 2013; People
v. Soriano, G.R. No. 189843, 20
March 2013; People v. Adrid, G.R.
No. 201845, 6 March 2013; People
v. Secreto, G.R. No. 198115, 22
February 2013; People v. Diwa,
G.R. No. 194253, 27 February
2013; People v. Tapere, G.R. No.
178065, 20 February 2013; People
v. Galido, G.R. No. 192231, 13
February 2013; People v. Alviz,
G.R. No. 177158, 6 February 2013;
People v. Manalao, G.R. No.
187496, 6 February 2013; People
v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 198794, 6
February 2013; People v. Seraspe,
G.R. No. 180919, 9 January 2013;
People v. Hong Yeng E, G.R. No.
181826, 9 January 2013; People v.
Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, 17 July
2013; People v. Blanco, G.R. No.
193661, 14 August 2013; People
v. Salonga, G.R. No. 194948, 2
September 2013; People v.
Enriquez, G.R. No. 197550, 25
September 2013; People v.
Monceda and Lai, G.R. No.
176269, 13 November 2013;
People v. Spouses Gani, G.R. No.
198398, 27 November 2013;
People v. Loks, G.R. No. 203433,
27 November 2013.

To obtain conviction for the same, the

prosecution is bound to establish the
elements of sexual abuse under Section 5,
Article III of Republic Act No. 7610:
1
2

The accused commits the act of

sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct;
The said act is performed with a
child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse;
and
The child, whether male or female,
is below 18 years of age.

Lascivious conduct is defined under

Section 2 (H) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 7610 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,
among others. In this case, it is undisputed
that appellant committed lascivious conduct
when he smelled the victims genital area
and inserted his finger inside her vagina to
gratify or arouse his sexual desire. At the
time this happened, the victim was barely
eight years old. Without a doubt, all the said
elements are obtaining in this case.

People v. Velasco, G.R. No.

190318, 27 November 2013.

The elements necessary to

successfully prosecute an illegal sale of drugs
case are:

The Supreme Court upheld accused

Velascos conviction. The victims testimony
was made in a straightforward and
convincing manner. Her testimony detailed
how she was forced and intimidated by
Velasco and how the latter succeeded in
molesting her by kissing and touching her
private parts, thus, satisfying the required
elements of the crime charged.

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.
It is material in this crime that the sale
has actually taken place. What consummates
the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the
drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the
sellers receipt of the marked money. While
the parties may have agreed on the selling
price of the shabu and delivery of the

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT: ILLEGAL SALE

OF DANGEROUS DRUGS

People v. Linda, G.R. No. 200507,

26 June 2013; People v. Lucio,

14

payment was intended, these do not prove

consummated sale.

To establish the crime of illegal sale of

dangerous drugs, the material proof is that
the transaction or sale has actually taken
place, coupled with the presentation in court
of evidence of the corpus delicti. The
commission of illegal sale merely
consummates the selling transaction, which
happens the moment the buyer receives the
drug from the seller.

People v. Aguilar, G.R. No.

191396, 17 April 2013; People v.
Seraspe, G.R. No. 180919, 9
January 2013.

When the accused is charged with the

sale of such drugs, the following defenses
cannot be set up:
1
2

As long as the police officer went

through the operation as a buyer, whose offer
was accepted by the seller, followed by the
delivery of the dangerous drugs to the
former, the crime is already consummated.

That facilities for the commission

of the crime were intentionally
placed in his way;
That the criminal act was done at
the solicitation of the decoy or the
poseur-buyer seeking to expose
his criminal act; or
That police authorities feigning
complicity in the act were present
and apparently assisted in its
commission.

The crime of illegal sale of shabu is

committed simply when the selling
transaction has been consummated, which
happens at the moment the buyer receives
drugs from the seller. In short, what is
material is the proof showing that the
transaction or sale has actually taken place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the
thing sold as evidence of the corpus delicti.

People v. Gonzales, G.R. No.

182417, 3 April 2013; People v.
Lagos, G.R. No. 184658, 6 March
2013.

As in the instant case, if the police

officer would go through the operation as a
buyer, the crime is consummated when the
police officer makes an offer to buy that is
accepted by the accused, and there is an
ensuing exchange between them involving
the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the
police officer.

To secure a conviction of the accused

of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
following elementsmust concur:
1
2

The transaction or sale took place

between the accused and the
poseur buyer; and
The dangerous drugs subject of
the transaction or sale is
presented in court as evidence of
the corpus delicti.

People v. Somoza, G.R. No.

197250, 17 July 2013.

Illegal sale of dangerous drugs is

committed when the sale transaction is
consummated, that is, upon delivery of the
illicit drug to the buyer and the receipt of the
payment by the seller. While the marked
money may be used to prove payment, it is
not material in proving the commission of the
crime. What is material is the proof that the
sale transaction actually took place, coupled
with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti, the dangerous drug subject of the
sale.

As to the second element, it is

indispensable for plaintiff to establish that the
dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or
sale and subsequently examined in the
laboratory are the same dangerous drugs
presented in court as evidence. The identity
of the dangerous drug is essential to prove
the corpus delicti.

People v. Bartolome, G.R. No.

191726, 6 February 2013.

People v. Langcua, G.R. No.

190343, 6 February 2013.

15

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT: ILLEGAL

POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS

substance be established with moral

certainty, together with the fact that the
same is not authorized by law. The dangerous
drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti
of the offense and the fact of its existence is
vital to a judgment of conviction. Essential
therefore in these cases is that the identity of
the prohibited drug be established beyond
doubt. Be that as it may, the mere fact of
unauthorized possession will not suffice to
create in a reasonable mind the moral
certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt.
More than just the fact of possession, the fact
that the substance illegally possessed in the
first place is the same substance offered in
court as exhibit must also be established with
the same unwavering exactitude as that
requisite to make a finding of guilt.

People v. Lucio, G.R. No. 191391,

19 June 2013; People v.
Resurreccion, G.R. No. 188310, 13
June 2013; People v. Dumalag,
G.R. No. 180514, 17 April 2013;
People v. Aguilar, G.R. No.
191396, 17 April 2013; People v.
Soriano, G.R. No. 189843, 20
March 2013; Marquez v. People,
G.R. No. 197207, 13 March 2013;
People v. Secreto, G.R. No.
198115, 22 February 2013; People
v. Diwa, G.R. No. 194253, 27
February 2013; People v. Galido,
G.R. No. 192231, 13 February
2013; Sales v. People, G.R. No.
191023, 6 February 2013; People
v. Manalao, G.R. No. 187496, 6
February 2013; People v. De
Jesus, G.R. No. 198794, 6
February 2013; Valleno v. People,
G.R. No. 192050, 9 January 2013;
People v. Hong Yeng E, G.R. No.
181826, 9 January 2013; People v.
Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, 17 July
2013; People v. Enriquez, G.R. No.
197550, 25 September 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT:

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS

Transport, as used under R.A. No.

9165, means to carry or convey from one
place to another. The essential element of
the charge is the movement of the dangerous
drug from one place to another.

When prosecuting an illegal

possession of dangerous drugs case, the
following elements must be established:

Appellant Laba was apprehended in

the airport, as he had intended to board a
certain flight with a substantial amount of
shabu in his possession. While it may be
argued that Laba has yet to board the aircraft
or travel, it cannot be denied that his
presence at the airport at that particular
instance is for the purpose of transporting or
moving the dangerous drugs from one place
to another.

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.
Possession of dangerous drugs
constitutes prima facie evidence of
knowledge or animus possidendi, which is
sufficient to convict him, unless there is a
satisfactory explanation of such possession.

People v. Laba, G.R. No. 199938,

28 January 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT: CHAIN OF

CUSTODY RULE

People v. Quesido, G.R. No.

189351, 10 April 2013.

Prosecutions for illegal possession of

prohibited drugs necessitates that the
elemental act of possession of a prohibited

16

People v. Abdul, G.R. No. 186137,

26 June 2013; People v. Rebotazo,
G.R. No. 192913, 13 June 2013;
People v. Adrid, G.R. No. 201845,
6 March 2013; People v. Sadidia,
G.R. No. 191263, 16 October
2013.

The chain of custody rule requires that

the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be. It would include testimony
about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it
was offered in evidence, in such a way that
every person who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what happened to it while in
the witness possession, the condition in
which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the
chain. These witnesses would then describe
the precautions taken to ensure that there
had been no change in the condition of the
item and no opportunity for someone not in
the chain to have possession of the same.

2
3

Hence, every link the chain of custody

must not show any possibility of tampering,
alteration, or substitution. But, it is accepted
that a perfect chain is not the standard.
Nevertheless, two crucial links must
be complied with:
1. The seized illegal drug must be
marked in the presence of the
accused and immediately upon
confiscation; and
2. The turnover of the seized drugs at
every stagefrom confiscation
from the accused, transportation
to the police station, conveyance
to the chemistry lab, and
presentation to the courtmust be
shown and substantiated.

The seizure and marking, if

practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
The turnover of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending officer
to the investigating officer;
The turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and
The turnover and submission of
the marked illegally drug seized by
the forensic chemist to the court.

People v. Lucio, G.R. No. 191391,

19 June 2013; People v. Dumalag,
G.R. No. 180514, 17 April 2013;
People v. Aguilar, G.R. No.
191396, 17 April 2013; People v.
Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, 3 April
2013; Marquez v. People, G.R. No.
197207, 13 March 2013; Sales v.
People, G.R. No. 191023, 6
February 2013; People v. Langcua,
G.R. No. 190343, 6 February 2013;
People v. Manalao, G.R. No.
187496, 6 February 2013, People
v. Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, 17
July 2013; People v. Enriquez, G.R.
No. 197550, 25 September 2013;
People v. Castillo, G.R. No.
190180, 27 November 2013;
People v. Loks, G.R. No. 203433,
27 November 2013.

Failure to strictly comply with the

chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165 will not render an arrest illegal or
the items seized from the accused
inadmissible in evidence. What is crucial is
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are preserved, for they will be
used in determining the guilt or innocence of
the accused.

People v. Quesido, G.R. No.

189351, 10 April 2013; People v.
Langcua, G.R. No. 190343, 6
February 2013; People v.
Manalao, G.R. No. 187496, 6
February 2013; People v. Spouses
Oniza, G.R. No. 202709, 3 July
2013; People v. Clara, G.R. No.
195528, 4 July 2013; People v.
Enriquez, G.R. No. 197550, 25
September 2013.

Rontos v. People, G.R. No.

188024, 5 June 2013.

In illegal drugs cases, the identity and

integrity of the drugs seized must be
established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that required to arrive at a
finding of guilt.

The prosecution must prove the

following links in order to establish the chain
of custody in a buy-bust operation:

17

accused and upon immediate confiscation.

Immediate confiscation has no exact
definition. Notably, previous jurisprudence
has held that testimony that includes the
marking of the seized items at the police
station and in the presence of the accused is
sufficient in showing compliance with the
rules on chain of custody. Marking upon
immediate confiscation contemplates even
marking at the nearest police station or office
of the apprehending team.

The chain of custody rule under R.A.

No. 9165 is intended precisely to ensure the
identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs
seized. This provision requires that upon
seizure of illegal drug items, the
apprehending team having initial custody of
the drugs shall:
1. conduct a physical inventory of the
drugs;
2. take photographs thereof;
3. in the presence of the person from
whom these items were seized or
confiscated and;
4. a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice and any
elected public official; and
5. who shall all be required to sign the
inventory and be given copies thereof.

To be admissible in evidence, the

prosecution must be able to present through
records or testimony the whereabouts of the
dangerous drugs from the time these were
seized from the accused by the arresting
officers, turned over to the investigating
officer, forwarded to the laboratory for
determination of their composition, and up to
the time these were offered in evidence.

People v. Somoza, G.R. No.

197250, 17 July 2013.

"Marking" is the placing by the

apprehending officer of some distinguishing
signs with his/her initials and signature on the
items seized. It helps ensure that the
dangerous drugs seized upon apprehension
are the same dangerous drugs subjected to
inventory and photography when these
activities are undertaken at the police station
or at some other practicable venue rather
than at the place of arrest.

The integrity of the evidence is

presumed to have been preserved, unless
there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or
proof that the evidence has been tampered
with. Appellants bear the burden of showing
that the evidence has been tampered or
meddled with in order to overcome the
presumption of regularity in the handling of
exhibits by public officers and the
presumption that public officers have
properly discharged their duties.

People v. Dumalag, G.R. No.

180514, 17 April 2013; People v.
Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, 17 July
2013; People v. Ocfemia, G.R. No.
185383, 25 September 2013.

Consistency with the chain of custody

rule requires that the marking of the seized
itemsto truly ensure that they are the same
items that enter the chain and are eventually
the ones offered in evidenceshould be
done:
1
2

People v. Octavio, G.R. No.

199219, 3 April 2013; People v.
Calumbres, G.R. No. 194382, 10
June 2013.

People v. Gonzales, G.R. No.

182417, 3 April 2013.

The law on dangerous drugs

pertinently provides for the chain of custody
rule. The provisions defining it obviously
demand strict compliance, for only by such
strict compliance may be eliminated the
grave mischiefs of planting or substitution of
evidence and the unlawful and malicious
prosecution of the weak and unwary that
they are intended to prevent. Such strict
compliance is also consistent with the
doctrine that penal laws shall be construed
strictly against the government and liberally
in favor of the accused.

in the presence of the

apprehended violator; and
immediately upon confiscation.

To be able to create a first link in the

chain of custody then, what is required is that
the marking be made in the presence of the

18

been confiscated from the accused until their

presentation as evidence in court.

The first stage in the chain of custody

is the marking of the dangerous drugs or
related items. Marking, which is the affixing
on the dangerous drugs or related items by
the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer
of his initials or signature or other identifying
signs, should be made in the presence of the
apprehended violator immediately upon
arrest.

Pertinently, a buy-bust operation

resulting from the tip of an anonymous
confidential informant, although an effective
means of eliminating illegal drug-related
activities, is susceptible to police abuse.
Worse, it is usually used as a means for
extortion. It is for this reason that procedures
to counter these abuses are provided in R.A.
No. 9165.

The importance of the prompt marking

cannot be denied because succeeding
handlers of the dangerous drugs or related
items will use the marking as reference. The
marking also operates to set apart as
evidence the dangerous drugs or related
items from other materials from the moment
they are confiscated until they are disposed
of at the close of the criminal proceedings,
thereby forestalling switching, planting, or
contamination of evidence. Otherwise stated,
the marking immediately upon confiscation
or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related
items is indispensable in preserving their
integrity and evidentiary value.

In the instant case, the Supreme Court

found meritorious accused-appellant
Secretos appeal. With the requirements of
the chain of custody rule not being followed,
the prosecution has the burden to prove that,
despite this non-observance, the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are
nonetheless preserved.
This was not done in this case. The
prosecution failed to show how SPO1 Pamor
had ensured the integrity of the seized items
from time they had been entrusted to him at
the place of confiscation until the team had
reached the police station, as well as until he
had handed them over to PO2 Lagmay for the
marking of the sachets. The prosecution did
not likewise show to whom the confiscated
articles were turned over and how they were
preserved after the laboratory examination
and until their final presentation in court as
evidence of the corpus delicti. Clearly, these
lapses raise doubt on the integrity and
identity of the drugs presented as evidence in
court.

People v. Adrid, G.R. No. 201845,

6 March 2013.

Coordination with the Philippine Drug

Enforcement Agency (PDEA) is likewise not an
indispensable requirement. While it is true
that Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the
NBI, PNP, and the Bureau of Customs to
maintain close coordination with the PDEA on
all drug-related matters, the provision does
not make PDEAs participation a condition
sine qua non for every buy-bust operation.
After all, a buy-bust operation is just a form of
an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Rule 113,
Section 5 of the Rules of Court, which the
police authorities may rightfully resort to in
apprehending violators of R.A. No. 9165 in
support of the PDEA.

The prosecution also did not follow the

proper marking of the seized evidence,
pursuant to the chain of custody rule.
Consistency with the chain of custody rule
requires that the marking of the seized items
to truly ensure that they are the same
items that enter the chain and are eventually
the ones offered in evidenceshould be
done:

People v. Secreto, G.R. No.

198115, 22 February 2013.

In the prosecution of dangerous drugs

offenses, the primary consideration is to
ensure that the identity and integrity of the
seized drugs and other related articles have
been preserved from the time they have

in the presence of the

apprehended violator; and
immediately upon confiscation.

This step initiates the process of

protecting innocent persons from dubious

19

and concocted searches, and of protecting as

well the apprehending officers from
harassment suits based on planting of
evidence under Section 29 of R.A. No. 9165
and on allegations of robbery or theft.

prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic

substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti
of the offense. The fact of its existence is vital
to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
Of paramount importance in these
cases therefore is that the identity of the
dangerous drug be likewise established
beyond reasonable doubt.

People v. Alviz, G.R. No. 177158, 6

February 2013; People v. Salonga,
G.R. No. 194948, 2 September
2013.

There must be strict compliance with

the prescribed measures to be observed
during and after the seizure of dangerous
drugs and related paraphernalia, during the
custody and transfer thereof for examination,
and at all times up to their presentation in
court. This is considering the unique
characteristic of dangerous and illegal drugs
that is, they are indistinct, not readily
identifiable, and easily susceptible to
tampering, alteration, or substitution, either
by accident or otherwise.

Chain of custody means the duly

recorded authorized movements and custody
of seized drugs or controlled chemicals, or
plant sources of dangerous drugs, or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
time of seizure or confiscation to receipt in
the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction.
Such record of movements and
custody of seized item shall include the
identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the
date and time when such transfer of custody
was made in the course of safekeeping and
use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition.

Relating thereto, previous

jurisprudence has settled that the marking of
seized drugs must be done immediately after
they are seized from the accused. Marking
after seizure is the starting point in the
custodial link; thus, it is vital that the seized
contraband are immediately marked because
succeeding handlers of the specimens will
use the markings as reference.

This rule requires that the admission

of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter
in question is what the proponent claims it to
be. It would include testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item
was picked up to the time it is offered into
evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched the exhibit would describe how
and from whom it was received, where it was
and what happened to it while in the witness
possession, the condition in which it was
received, and the condition in which it was
delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item
and no opportunity for someone not in the
chain to have possession of the same.

Failure to do so suffices to rebut the

presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duties and raises reasonable doubt
as to the authenticity of the corpus delicti.

Valleno v. People, G.R. No.

192050, 9 January 2013; People v.
Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, 17 July
2013; People v. Ocfemia, G.R. No.
185383, 25 September 2013;
People v. Spouses Gani, G.R. No.
198398, 27 November 2013.

The failure to submit the required

physical inventory of the seized drugs and
the photograph, as well as the absence of a
member of the media or the DOJ, does not
make the arrest of the accused illegal or the
seized items inadmissible in evidence. What
is of utmost importance is that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items

People v. Nacua, G.R. No. 200165,

30 January 2013.

Sale or possession of a dangerous

drug can never be proven without seizure
and identification of the prohibited drug. In

20

have been preserved. These characteristics

would be utilized in determining the guilt or
innocence of the accused.

supposedly confiscated from the accused.

Compliance with the law, especially the
required physical inventory and photograph
of the seized drugs in the presence of the
accused, the media, and responsible
government functionaries, would be clear
evidence that the police had carried out a
legitimate buy-bust operation.

People v. Spouses Oniza, G.R. No.

202709, 3 July 2013.

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165

prescribes certain procedures in keeping
custody and disposition of seized dangerous
drugs like the shabu that the police

o0o

21