Topic: Rape/ RA 7610

G.R. No. 237349, February 27, 2019

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MANUEL BASA,

JR., A.K.A. "JUN," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
AAA terstified that Basa raped her on two occasions. Both occasions took
place inside the office of “Ka Eddie”, an Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) pastor. AAA is a
member of the INC. Basa, also a member of the INC, had been doing the task of
cleaning the church. On the first incident, AAA was dragged by Basa and started
kissing her. He also inserted his finger and kissed AAA’s private part. AAA was also
threatened by Basa that she could not resist. A week thereafter, the second
incident occurred. She was again dragged by Basa. But this time, Basa inserted his
penis inside her private part, causing her to feel the pain. AAA told her teacher
about the incident. Later on, the incident was reported and two (2) separate
Information was filed against Basa.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered its Decision finding Basa guilty of
the crime charged [Crime of Rape under Article 266-A (1) and (2)]. The Court of
Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC ruling with modification on the penalties.

ISSUE:
Was the appellant guilty of the crime charged?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that appellant is guilty of one (1) count of
Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 and one (1)
count of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The requisites for Acts of Lasciviousness, as penalized under Article 336 of
the RPC, must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5
(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, namely: (1) the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it be done under any of the following
circumstances: (a)through force, threat, or intimidation; (b)when the offended
party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (c)by means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of authority; or (d) when the offended party is under
twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present; (3)that said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (4) that the offended party is a
child, whether male or female, below 18 years of age.
In the instant case, with respect to the first requisite, Basa committed
lascivious conduct against her when he dragged her to the room of Pastor Eddie,
pulled up her skirt and, through the side of her underwear, inserted his finger into
her private part, causing her to feel pain. As regards the second requisite, Basa
grabbed her right arm and forcefully dragged her to the office of Pastor Eddie and
threatened to kill her should she tell anybody of what he did to her. Anent the third
requisite,   AAA was clearly coerced, in fact dragged, by Basa into going with him
to the room of their pastor, where he forcefully inserted his finger into her private
part. Fourth, as previously mentioned, it is undisputed that AAA was only minor at
the time of the commission of the offense.

The elements of the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1), in
relation to R.A. No. 7610: 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or
intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
and d) When the offended pmiy is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented,
even though none of the circumstances mentioned.
In the instant case, during the trial, AAA vividly gave a detailed narration of
what transpired a week after the occurrence of the first incident of molestation. In
a sincere and convincing manner, she painstakingly recalled how she was once
again dragged into the room of Pastor Eddie, where Basa kissed her and mashed
her breast, and, thereafter, removed her skirt and underwear in order to insert his
penis inside her vagina.
Topic: Section 15, RA 9165/ Unlawful Arrest

G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019

SIMEON LAPI Y MAHIPUS, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

LEONEN, J.:

FACTS:
On April 16, 2006, operatives of the Bacolod City Anti- Illegal Drug special
Operation Task Group conducted a stake-out operation. During the operation, PO2
Villeran heard noises from one of the houses. He :peeped through its window” and
saw accused Lapi and 2 others “having a pot session..” PO2 Villeran entered the
house and saw through “peeking into the adjacent room” that the pot session was
ongoing. Accused Lapi and 2 others were arrested and their paraphernalia seized.
He and the two other undergo drug tests and were tested positive for shabu.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Lapi guilty of violation of Section 15 of
Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165). Lapi appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The
CA affirmed the RTC ruling. Hence, Lapi filed this petition asserting that while he
failed to question the validity of his arrest before entering his plea, his warrantless
arrest was illegal from the start. Hence, any evidence obtained cannot be used
against him.

ISSUE:
Was the petitioner’s right to question the validity of his arrest already
waived?

RULING:
Yes.
The Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of
arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the
objection is deemed waived.
In the present case, petitioner admits that he failed to question the validity
of his arrest before arraignment. He did not move to quash the Information against
him before entering his plea. He was assisted by counsel when he entered his
plea. Likewise, he was able to present his evidence. Moreover, no items were
seized from him during his arrest as he was not charged with possession or sale of
illegal drugs.
Thus, petitioner has already waived the right to question the validity of his
arrest before entering his plea.
Topic: Probation Law

G.R. No. 242455 March 4, 2019

Galicano S. Datu III, petitioner v. People of the Philippines, as herein
represented by the Office of the Solicitor- General, respondent

FACTS:
The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
Branch 59 (RTC) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
exercise of jurisdiction when it granted petitioner’s application for probation.
The RTC only had a blanket statement that it took into consideration the
post-investigation report of the MCPPO and the "best interests of justice and of the
public" would be served in suspending his sentence. It had no other basis or
supporting granting petitioner's application.

ISSUE:
Should the petitioner be granted of probation?

RULING:
No. the Supreme Court denied in a notice the granting of probation to
petitioner Datu.
It has been ruled that probation is not granted if it depreciates the
seriousness of the crime committed.
In the instant case, the circumstances surrounding the killing of George
Anikow showed the gravity of the crime and to grant probation to the perpetrators
would clearly diminish its seriousness. The evidence at the trial established that
Anikow was stabbed, kicked, and punched multiple times, even after disengaging
from his attackers and despite his inability to defend himself or to retaliate,
resulting to his death. The nature of the crime of homicide and the manner of its
commission are undoubtedly serious.
Hence, petitioner should not be granted of probation for it would depreciate
the seriousness of the crime.
Topic: RA 9165
Topic: Self- Defense

People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, versus Aries Santos y Santos,

accused-appellant

G.R. No. 232244 June 19, 2019

FACTS:
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) convicted
accused-appellant guilty of the crime of Murder.
Accused asserts that he acted in self-defense that he was passing by the
victim’s house and that upon seeing him, the victim approached him while holding
a knife. The victim tried to lunge at him so he stepped back but the victim
continued to move towards him. He got hold of the victim’s arm and lost hold of
the knife, landing near their feet. He contends that he accidentally hit the victim
while they were grappling for the possession of the knife. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Did the accused- appellant Aries acted in self-defense?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court, in a Notice, supported the conclusion that accused-
appellant Aries Santos is guilty of the crime of murder, and did not acted in self-
defense.
When the accused interposes self-defense, he must prove that: (1) he was
not the unlawful aggressor; (2) there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part;
and (3) he employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression.
Although all these elements must concur, self-defense is perched in proof of
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Without it, there can be no self-
defense, complete or incomplete. A plea of self-defense is belied by the nature,
number, and location of the wounds inflicted on the victim since the gravity of said
wounds is indicative of a determined effort to kill and not just to defend.
In the instant case, assuming arguendo the assertions of the accused were
true, the supposed unlawful aggression had already ceased. In addition, the
physical evidence based on the nature and number of injuries sustained by the
victim negate self-defense.