BRYAN ALAN J.

TABAMO

149. G.R. No. 171019. February 23, 2007.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RAFAEL STA. MARIA y INDON, appellant.

FACTS:
On November 27, 2002, at around 10:00am, P/chief Insp. Noli Pacheco received an intelligence
report about the illegal drug activities in Sitio gulod, Baragay Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan of appellant
Rafael “Fael” Sta. Maria. Pacheco formed a surveillance team to look for a police asset to negotiate a
drug deal with appellant. On November 29, 2002 between 7:00 and 7:30pm, the surveillance team
conducted the buy-bust operation against appellant where PO1 Ventura, the prospective buyer gave 2
marked P100-bills to appellant in exchange of a sachet of shabu. Upon receiving the package, PO1
Ventura sparked his cigarette lighter which was the pre-arranged signal to the other members of the
team that the sale was consummated. Appellant was arrested and the two marked P100-bills recovered
from him. Zedric dela Cruz was also arrested who was allegedly sniffing shabu inside appellant’s house
where drug paraphernalia were recovered.
Appellant said that it was not an entrapment but an instigation since the informant met with
him on November 27, 2002 looking for shabu, and that were it not for the inducement of the informant
that the latter would buy shabu, he would not have produced the same on November, 29, 2002.

On May 5, 2004, RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On November 22, 2005,
CA promulgated the Decision denying the appeal and affirming that of the trial court.

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether the means employed in the arrest is instigation or entrapment.

HELD:
Entrapment
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Entrapment Distinguished from Instigation.—In entrapment, the
entrapper resorts to ways and means to trap and capture a lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan.
In instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be-defendant into committing the offense,
and himself becomes a co-principal. In entrapment, the means originates from the mind of the criminal.
The idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from him. In instigation, the law enforcer conceives
the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into
execution. The legal effects of entrapment do not exempt the criminal from liability. Instigation does.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the appealed decision of the CA, affirmatorary of that
of the trial court, is AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
150. G.R. No. 151205. June 9, 2004.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MARLOW DE GUZMAN y DELA CRUZ and JESUS VILLANUEVA
y CALMA, appellants.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of NBI Agent Charlemagne Veloso who apprehended
the accused in a buy-bust operation conducted on March 23, 2001 in Malabon, Metro Manila which says
as follows. On March 23, 2001, a buy bust operation happened at Wendy’s restaurant along Edsa,
Caloocan City at noontime for the purchase of 2 kilos of shabu for P 1,000,000.00 from a certain Mr.
Chang. NBI Agent Charlemagne Veloso, the designated poseur-buyer, together with the informant
entered Wendy’s and met with a man who introduced himself as Walter Sy, which was later identified as
Marlow De Guzman, a member of the PNP. After some talk, De Guzman demanded to see the money.
After seeing the money, De Guzman instructed them to follow his vehicle as somebody was waiting at
Tugatog, Malabon. De Guzman was met by Jesus Villanueva who was carrying two plastic bags. De
Guzman and Villanueva boarded the van and handed Veloso 2 plastic bags which contained shabu. After
confirming the contents of the package, Veloso introduced himself as an NBI operative and gave the pre-
arranged signal to the other members of the team. They arrested De Guzman and Villanueva.
De Guzman said that he and Jesus Villanueva were at the lugawan when a certain Andoy was
running and screaming for help. De Guzman said that he merely helped the pursued person and
approached the pursuers, the NBI agents, and introduced himself as a policeman. The NBI agents
allegedly arrested him and Villanueva and made them board the van and brought to the NBI office while
the pursued person ran away.
The trial court believed the version of the prosecution and found both accused guilty of the
charge. It meted accused Jesus Villanueva the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and accused Marlow De
Guzman the supreme penalty of death, considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of his
being a police officer.

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellants of the crime
charged based on the uncorroborated testimony of the poseur-buyer.
2. Whether the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellants of the crime
charged when the prosecution miserably failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

HELD:

No, the trial court did not gravely erred in convicting the accussed-appellants. In buy-bust
operations, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full
faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. The
presumption is overturned only if there is clear and convincing evidence that they were not properly
performing their duty or that they were inspired by improper motive. The courts, nonetheless, are
advised to take caution in applying the presumption of regularity. It should not by itself prevail over the
presumption of innocence and the constitutionally-protected rights of the individual. Thus, we discussed
in People vs. Doria, the “objective” test in buy-bust operations to determine the credibility of the
testimony of the police officers involved in the operation: We therefore stress that the “objective” test
in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and
adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher,
the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale
by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made,
whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the “buy-bust”
money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be
the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to
commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining
the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused’s predisposition to commit
the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal
proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the
predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the
validity of the defense of inducement.

The court found the testimony of the poseur-buyer, Charlemagne Veloso, clear and credible. He
recounted in full detail how the deal was set by the informant, their initial meeting with De Guzman at
Wendy’s in Caloocan City, their agreement to purchase two kilos of shabu for P1,000,000.00, how they
met with Villanueva in Tugatog, Malabon, the actual exchange of the plastic bags containing the
substance and the boodle money, and the apprehension of the two accused. They also presented before
the court the substance confiscated from the appellants10 and the boodle money used in the operation.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appeal is DISMISSED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Malabon Branch 72 in Criminal Case No. 24671-MN is AFFIRMED.13
In accordance with Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by section 25 of Republic Act
No. 7659, upon finality of this decision, let the records of these cases be forwarded to the Office of the
President for possible exercise of executive clemency.
SO ORDERED.
151. G.R. No. 113446. August 4, 2000.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ELMER FEGIDERO y CORDOVA, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Robbery with Homicide; Evidence; Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the
only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt; Elements of
circumstantial evidence.

FACTS:
On or about March 21, 1993, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, Elmer Fegidero y
Cordova, conspired together with Bok-bok Morales, one whose true name, real identity and present
whereabouts are still unknown and mutually helping each other, robbed and stabbed EMILIO CASTRO Y
MALLARI, owner of a watch and jewelry repair shop, with fan knife several times on the different parts
of his body at the same time forcibly taking away from him his shoulder bag containing the following, to
wit:
Cash money amounting P5,000.00
Two gold ring worth 2,000.00
One Rolex watch 2,000.00
Five pcs., gold bracelet 10,000.00
Sunglass worth 500.00
And several important papers all valued at P19, 500.00 inside a public utility jeepney and as a result
thereof, he sustained mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.
Nobody saw the actual taking of the bag and the stabbing of the victim, but there are several
circumstantial evidence presented which pointed to accused as the culprit.
On August 27, 1993, the trial court rendered a decision finding accused Elmer Fegidero y Cordova
guilty of robbery with homicide. On September 13, 1995, accused Elmer Fegidero y Cordova filed a
notice of appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution sufficiently established his guilt.

HELD:
No. Since nobody saw the actual taking of the bag and the stabbing of the victim, in arriving at a
judgment of conviction the trial court relied on circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence of the
commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding
of guilt. Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict if the following elements are present: “(a) There is
more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c)
The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.”
The combination of all circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly and convincingly
established the participation of accused in the robbery and death of the victim Emilio Castro y Mallari.
The chain of events pointed to accused as the culprit. More than one person identified accused Elmer as
the one who alighted from the passenger jeepney clutching the bag of the victim. The manner that he
held on to the bag of the victim belied his claim that he had no intention of taking it. As demonstrated
by Jose Peñaredondo, when accused alighted from the jeepney, he was clutching the bag with his left
arm, the bag was over his breast and his right hand was on the handle,29 as if protecting the loot against
anyone who would take it away from him.
 Assuming arguendo that it was Bok-bok Morales who had the intention of robbing the victim and
that accused was just an unsuspecting companion, why then did he try to escape from the vehicle
carrying the bag of the victim? Instead of running away with the loot, the normal reaction of a person
who has come into possession of a thing which he knew to be stolen is to return it to the owner if he
had no intent to gain. This showed that he had knowledge about the plan to commit the robbery, he
was part of the conspiracy and he did nothing to stop it.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Manila
in Criminal Case No. 93-118514 finding accused Elmer Fegidero y Cordova guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of robbery with homicide, defined and penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code,
and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and to pay the heirs of Emilio Castro y Mallari, the amount
of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as death indemnity, and fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as
moral damages.
With costs.
SO ORDERED.
152. No. L-19069. October 29, 1968.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMADEO PERALTA, ET AL., defendants,
ANDRES FACTORA, LEONARDO DOSAL, ANGEL PARUMOG, AMADEO PERALTA, FLORENCIO LUNA and
GERVASIO LARITA, defendants-review.

Facts:
On February 16, 1958, in the municipality of Muntinglupa, province of Rizal, two known warring gangs
inside the New Bilibid Prison as “Sigue-Sigue” and “OXO” were preparing to attend a mass at 7 a.m.
However, a fight between the two rival gangs caused a big commotion in the plaza where the prisoners
were currently assembled. The fight was quelled and those involved where led away to the investigation
while the rest of the prisoners were ordered to return to their respective quarters.

In the investigation, it was found out that the accused, “OXO” members, Amadeo Peralta, Andres
Factora, Leonardo Dosal, Angel Paramog, Gervasio Larita and Florencio Luna (six among the twenty-two
defendants charged therein with multiple murder), are also convicts confined in the said prisons by
virtue of final judgments.

They conspired, confederated and mutually helped and aided each other, with evident premeditation
and treachery, all armed with deadly weapons, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
killed “Sigue-Sigue” sympathizers Jose Carriego, Eugenio Barbosa and Santos Cruz, also convicts confined
in the same institution, by hitting, stabbing, and striking them with ice picks, clubs and other improvised
weapons, pointed and/or sharpened, thereby inflicting upon the victims multiple serious injuries which
directly caused their deaths.

Issues:

(a) Whether or not there was conspiracy in the commission of the multiple murder?

(b) Whether or not an aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism is present in the commission of the
crime?

Held:

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. Generally, conspiracy is not a crime unless when the law specifically
provides a penalty thereof as in treason, rebellion and sedition. However, when in resolute execution of
a common scheme, a felony is committed by two or more malefactors, the existence of a conspiracy
assumes a pivotal importance in the determination of the liability of the perpetrators. Once an express
or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent
and character of their respective active participation in the commission of the crime/s perpetrated in
furtherance of the conspiracy because in contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all.

The collective criminal liability emanates from the ensnaring nature of conspiracy. The concerted action
of the conspirators in consummating their common purpose is a patent display of their evil partnership,
and for the consequences of such criminal enterprise they must be held solidarity liable. However, in
order to hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, it must be established that he
performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, either by actively participating in the actual
commission of the crime, or by lending moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the
scene of the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators as to move them
to executing the conspiracy.

Conspiracy alone, without execution of its purpose, is not a crime punishable by law, except in special
instances (Article 8, Revised Penal Code) which, do not include robbery.

Reverting now to the case at bar, the trial court correctly ruled that conspiracy attended the commission
of the murders. To wit, although there is no direct evidence of conspiracy, the court can safely say that
there are several circumstances to show that the crime committed by the accused was planned. First, all
the deceased were Tagalogs and members of sympathizers of “Sigue-Sigue” gang (OXO members were
from either Visayas or Mindanao), singled out and killed thereby, showing that their killing has been
planned. Second, the accused were all armed with improvised weapons showing that they really
prepared for the occasion. Third, the accused accomplished the killing with team work precision going
from one brigade to another and attacking the same men whom they have previously marked for
liquidation and lastly, almost the same people took part in the killing of the Carriego, Barbosa and Cruz.

In view of the attendance of the special aggravating circumstances of quasi-recidivism, as all of the six
accused at the time of the commission of the offenses were serving sentences in the New Bilibid Prison
by virtue of convictions by final judgments that penalty for each offense must be imposed in its
maximum period, which is the mandate of the first paragraph of article 160 of the RPC. Hence, severe
penalty imposed on a quasi-recidivist is justified because of the perversity and incorrigibility of the
crime.

Accordingly, the judgment a quo is hereby modified as follows: Amadeo Peralta, Andres Factora,
Leonardo Dosal, Angel Paramog, Gervasio Larita and Florencio Luna are each pronounced guilty of
three separate and distinct crimes of murder, and are each sentenced to three death penalties; all of
them shall, jointly and severally, indemnify the heirs of each of the three deceased victims in the sum
of P12,000; each will pay one-sixth of the costs.