PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NADY MAGALLANO, JR.

Y FLORES AND ROMEO TAPAR Y CASTRO

G.R. No. 220721, December 10, 2018
LEONEN, J.

DOCTRINE: For treachery to be appreciated, it must exist at the inception of the attack, and if absent
and the attack continues, even if present at the subsequent stage, treachery is not a qualifying or
generic aggravating circumstance

FACTS:
 In an information for Murder was filed against Sonny and Allan for the death of Tony, Xander
testified that at around 1:00 a.m. of January 15, 2018, he was at home sleeping beside his wife
when loud voices outside roused him from sleep. He peeked through his window and saw two
(2) men, Sonny and Allan, ganging up on Tony, who was by then lying on the ground. He testified
that he saw Sonny repeatedly strike Tony with a "dos por dos," while Allan watched.

 As Sonny was hitting Tony, a woman suddenly bolted from the fray. Sonny and Allan then
jumped inside a tricycle and chased the woman. By then, a still-conscious Tony began to crawl
slowly towards a gate.

 Sonny and Allan returned after a few minutes carrying several stones, each about a volleyball's
size. Sonny threw the stones on Tony’s head and body, while Allan prevented him from crawling
away. The RTC found Sonny and Allan guilty of the crime of Murder.

ISSUE: Whether the RTC correctly ruled in finding Sonny and Allan guilty of the crime of murder.

RULING: No. The prosecution only proved that Sonny and Allan committed homicide, not murder.

The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest
provocation on his part. For treachery to be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, two (2) things
must be proven: (1) that during the attack, the victim could not have defended himself or herself from
the offender; and (2) that the offender deliberately chose a form of attack which would render him or
her immune from risk or retaliation by the victim.

The prosecution failed to show the presence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. Xander's
testimony began when accused-appellants were in the middle of mauling the victim, and there was no
testimony to prove that the victim did not provoke them or expect their attack. The prosecution did not
present evidence that would show that Sonny and Allan reflected on and decided on the form of their
attack to secure an unfair advantage over the victim. Even when they returned after chasing the
screaming woman and hit the crawling victim with rocks, treachery is still absent. This is because the
second attack was not a surprise, as shown by the victim's attempt to go back to the safety of his own
house.

Further, for treachery to be appreciated, it must exist at the inception of the attack, and if absent and
the attack continues, even if present at the subsequent stage, treachery is not a qualifying or generic
aggravating circumstance. The prosecution must adduce conclusive proof as to the manner in which the
altercation started and resulted in the death of the victim. If the prosecution fails to discharge its
burden, the crime committed is homicide and not murder.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONG CHAN AND ELMO CHAN
G.R. No. 226836, December 05, 2018
DEL CASTILLO, J.

DOCTRINE: Actual confinement, detention, and restraint of the victim is the primary element of the
crime of kidnapping. Thus, in order to sustain a conviction, the prosecution must show "actual
confinement or restriction of the victim, and that such deprivation was the intention of the malefactor."

FACTS:
 Bong Chan and Elmo Chan, both private individuals, were charged of the crime of Kidnapping
and Serious Illegal Detention for conspiring, confederating and helping each other and after
threatening to kill the victim.
 It was alleged that the same did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously club RR with
pieces of bamboo until he was rendered unconscious and thereafter, placed his body in a sack
and carried him away depriving him of his liberty against his will and continued to detain and
hide him illegally up to the present.
 The RTC found Bong and Elmo guilty.
 Respondents appealed contending that the prosecution failed to establish all the elements of
the crime.

ISSUE: Whether all the elements of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention have been
established.

RULING: Yes. Under Article 267 of the RPC, the elements of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention are, as follows: "(1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in
any other manner deprives the victim of his liberty; (3) the act of kidnapping or detention is illegal; and
(4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or
detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious
physical injuries are inflicted on the victim or threats to kill are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or
detained is a minor, female or public officer."

Actual confinement, detention, and restraint of the victim is the primary element of the crime of
kidnapping. Thus, in order to sustain a conviction, the prosecution must show "actual confinement or
restriction of the victim, and that such deprivation was the intention of the malefactor."

In this case, the acts of appellants of hitting the victim until he was unconscious, of putting him inside
the sack, and of carrying him to their yard showed their intention to immobilize the victim and deprive
him of his liberty. Thus, contrary to the claim of appellants, the element of restraint was clearly
established. Actual restraint of the victim was evident from the moment appellants clubbed the victim
on the neck and other parts of his body and thereafter placed him inside a sack. Not only was the
victim's freedom of movement restricted, he was immobilized because the blows rendered him
unconscious. Putting him inside the sack completely rendered the victim powerless to resist.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANDRES TALIB-OG Y TUGANAN
G.R. No. 238112, December 05, 2018
Tijam, J.

Doctrine: As defined under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the RPC, rape by sexual assault is committed
by any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an
act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument
or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

FACTS:
Accused-appellant was charged with two counts of Statutory Rape and two counts of Rape by Sexual
Assault, committed against AAA,3 a ten-year old girl. The antecedent facts are as follows:

 October 25, 2004, accused-appellant inserted his right hand finger into her vagina and left
shortly thereafter.

 October 28, 2004, accused-appellant removed her underwear and inserted his middle finger into
her vagina.

 November 13, 2004, AAA felt pain as the accused-appellant inserted his organ into her vagina
and did a pumping motion

 November 28, 2004, accused- appellant inserted his penis into her vagina after removing her
underwear.

ISSUE: Whether the RTC erred in charging the accused appellant with with two counts of Statutory Rape
and two counts of Rape by Sexual Assault.

RULING: No. Under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by
Republic Act No. 8353 or otherwise known as "The Anti Rape Law of 1997," the crime of rape may be
committed:

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 party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

In Criminal Case Numbers (Nos.) 12890 and 13001, the prosecution sufficiently established the presence
of the elements of statutory rape under paragraph 1(d) as cited above, viz: (1) the offended party is
under 12 years of age; and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether
there was force, threat, or intimidation or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the
victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. 19 Here, it is undisputed that AAA was a minor
when accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with her on two separate incidents, i.e. on November 13
and 28, 2004.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CEZAR CORTEZ AND FROILAN BAGAYAWA, ACCUSED, CEZAR CORTEZ
G.R. No. 239137, December 05, 2018
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

DOCTRINE: Case law instructs that "[t]here is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly
and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make." In other words, to appreciate treachery, it must be shown that: (a) the means of
execution employed gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (b) the methods
of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted; indeed, treachery cannot be presumed, it must
be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
FACTS: The RTC FOUND accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of
Homicide and three (3) counts of Murder. The antecedent facts are as follows:

 In the evening of May 19, 1988, eyewitness Janet Quiambao was sleeping with her cousins,
namely, Baby and Jocelyn, in a room at the back of "Minda's Bakery" owned by her sister, Minda
and brother-in-law, Mario. Minda and Mario were occupying the other room of the bakery,
while their bakers, Cezar and Froilan, were staying in another room upstairs.
 At around two (2) to three (3) o'clock in the morning of the following day, Janet was awakened
by a banging sound on the wall. She then peeped through the door of her room and saw Cezar
hitting Mario on the head with an object similar to a rolling pin while the latter was asleep.
Subsequently, she witnessed Cezar stabbing Minda with a knife and Froilan stabbing his co-
baker, Efren.
 Shortly thereafter, Cezar and Froilan forcibly entered Janet's room and proceeded to stab and
kill Baby and Jocelyn. Fortunately for Janet, she was able to immediately hide under a table just
before Cezar and Froilan barged in, leaving her unscathed.

ISSUE: Whether the RCT erred in convicting the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
two (2) counts of Homicide and three (3) counts of Murder.

RULING: Yes.
To successfully prosecute the crime of Murder, the following elements must be established: (a) a person
was killed; (b) the accused killed him or her; (c) the killing is not Parricide or Infanticide; and (d) the
killing was accompanied with any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC.
Notably, if the accused killed the victim without the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances of
Murder, or by that of Parricide or Infanticide, a conviction for the crime of Homicide will be sustained.

Anent Mario's killing, records clearly show that Cezar killed Mario by hitting him on the head with an
object similar to a rolling pin while he was sleeping, thereby indicating that Cezar purposely sought such
means of attack against Mario so as the latter would have no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate
and thus, ensuring the execution of the criminal act.Hence, contrary to the courts a quo's findings, there
is sufficient factual basis to support the existence of treachery, and therefore, the same may be properly
appreciated.
AMANDO JUAQUICO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 223998, March 05, 2018
TIJAM, J

DOCTRINE: For one to be guilty of the crime of Estafa, the prosecution must prove that the accused had
guilty knowledge of the fact that the drawer of the check had no funds in the bank at the time the
accused indorsed the same.

FACTS:
 In 1991, petitioner went to Robert Chan's (private complainant) store in Juan Luna, Tondo,
Manila and asked to exchange for cash a number of checks all issued by Home Bankers Trust. On
their maturity dates, however, the checks were all returned due to insufficient funds.
 Immediately, private complainant sent a demand letter dated October 17, 1991 to petitioner.
The same, however, was ignored by the petitioner. Consequently, private complainant was
constrained to file the instant case.
 For his defense, petitioner averred that he did not receive cash from petitioner in exchange of
the checks indorsed to him. He explained that the subject checks were issued to him by his
Korean customer which he subsequently indorsed as payment to private complainant for the
materials he purchased from him. Upon learning that the checks bounced, he tried to search for
the Korean, but his efforts remained futile.
 The RTC convicted the petitoner the crime of estafa.

ISSUE: Whether the RTC erred in finding the petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa.

RULING: No. The elements of the offense are: (i) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (ii) lack of or insufficiency of funds to cover the
check; and (iii) the payee was not informed by the offender and the payee did not know that the
offender had no funds or insufficient funds.
As to the third element, the Court held in Ilagan v. People15 that the prosecution must prove that the
accused had guilty knowledge of the fact that the drawer of the check had no funds in the bank at the
time the accused indorsed the same.
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove the same. There is no showing whatsoever that
petitioner had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds of the check he endorsed to private complainant.
Admittedly, the checks received by private complainant were checks issued and paid to petitioner by a
certain Ham. Upon notice that the subject checks were dishonored, petitioner immediately searched for
Ham but the same proved to be futile considering that the latter already left the country.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs.TENG MONER y ADAM, Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 202206, March 5, 2018
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

DOCTRINE: We have consistently ruled that noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 will not necessarily render the illegal drugs seized or confiscated in a buy-bust
operation inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear
showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs have been preserved, i.e., the
illegal drugs being offered in court as evidence is, without a specter of doubt, the very same item
recovered in the buy-bust operation.

FACTS:
 Las Piñas Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAIDSOTF) conducted a
buy-bust operation against accused-appellant based on an information from a certain Joel Taudil
who was apprehended for possession of illegal drugs. At the target area, P02 Luna and Taudil
went to Moner’s (accused-appellant) house.
 Taudil introduced PO2 Luna as his friend to Moner and told him that PO2 Luna was interested to
buy shabu. PO2 Luna asked for the price of five (5) grams of shabu. replied that it cost
₱8,000.00 and asked him if he has the money. When PO2 Luna confirmed that he has the money
with him, Moner asked them to wait and he went inside the house. When he returned after a
few minutes, he handed a plastic sachet containing a substance suspected as shabu to PO2 Luna
who in turn gave him the marked and boodle money. Moner was about to count the money
when PO2 Luna gave the pre-arranged signal to his team and introduced himself as a police
officer.
 Moner resisted arrest and ran inside the house but PO2 Luna was able to catch up with him. The
other members of the team proceeded inside the house and they saw the other accused
gathered around a table re-packing shabu. PO3 Lim confiscated the items from them and placed
the same inside a plastic bag. The specimens were then brought to the police crime laboratory
for testing. After accused-appellant and his co-accused were arrested, the team proceeded to
the Las Piñas City Police Station. The specimens yielded positive to the test for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
 Moner asserts that he should be acquitted of the criminal charges levelled against him
specifically because of the following serious lapses in procedure committed by the apprehending
officers: (a) the physical inventory was not conducted at the place where the seizure was made;
(b) the seized item was not photographed at the place of seizure; and (c) there was no physical
inventory and photograph of the seized item in the presence of the accused, or his
representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and
be given a copy thereof.

ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution was able to discharge its burden of proof to sustain Moner’s
conviction for the charge of sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING: Yes. For a successful prosecution of an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following
essential elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or ·sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti
or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. A perusal
of the records of this case would reveal that the aforementioned elements were established by the
prosecution. The illegal drugs and the marked money were presented and identified in court. Those who
acted as poseur-buyer, positively identified Z as the seller of the shabu to him for a consideration of
₱8,000.00. We have consistently ruled that noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 will not necessarily render the illegal drugs seized or confiscated in a buy-bust
operation inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear
showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs have been preserved, i.e., the
illegal drugs being offered in court as evidence is, without a specter of doubt, the very same item
recovered in the buy-bust operation. To reiterate, noncompliance with the chain of custody rule is
excusable as long as there exist justifiable grounds which prevented those tasked to follow the same
from strictly conforming to the said directive. The preceding discussion clearly show that the
apprehending officers in this case did not totally disregard prescribed procedure but, instead,
demonstrated substantial compliance with what was required. It was likewise explained that the
divergence in procedure was not arbitrary or whimsical but because the buy-bust team decided that
they could not linger at the crime scene as it would unduly expose them to security risks since they were
outside their area of responsibility.
People of the Philippines vs. Resurrecion Juanillo Manzano, Jr. and Rezor Juanillo Manzano
G.R. No. 217974, March 5, 2018
Martires, J.

DOCTRINE: To successfully invoke self-defense, an accused must establish: (1) unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such
aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.

FACTS:

 At about 9:00 p.m. on 19 March 2010, the spouses Lucio and Victoria were inside their store
fronting the accused-appellant's house. Lucio was having his dinner at the kitchen inside the
store while Victoria was watching the store when the accused-appellant and Resurrecion called
out from the gate saying that they would buy cigarettes. Because the gate leading to the store
was already closed, Lucio told the accused-appellant and Resurrecion to come.

 Victoria went to get cigarettes but went back to the kitchen upon checking that they ran out of
stock. That was when she witnessed the accused appellant and Resurrecion stabbing Lucio.
Victoria went out to ask for help and when she went back inside, she saw Lucio ran outside the
store but still within the fenced premises, and the accused-appellant and Resurrecion were
going after him. From where she stood, Victoria saw Resurrecion hold Lucio's hands while the
accused-appellant, who was positioned behind Lucio, held Lucio’s body with one arm while with
his other hand stabbed Lucio’s back. When Resurrecion released his grip on Lucio, the latter fell
face down but the accused-appellant and Resurrecion continued to stab him.

 Accused-appellant’s version of the story provides that Lucio was throwing stones at his house
and when he went out,  Lucio threw a stone at him that hit his knee, hence, it was a valid self-
defense.

 Accused-appellant contends that he merely repelled the unlawful aggression of Lucio, viz: when

Lucio threw a stone at him that hit his knee; and when Lucio rushed towards him to stab him.
Additionally, accusedappellant avers that his testimony was credible that he alone inflicted the
stab wounds on Lucio.

 Accused-appellant was convicted of murder by the RTC and was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether the RTC and CA erred in not appreciating the elements of self-defense as claimed by the
accused-appellant.

RULING: No. Jurisprudence instructs that an accused who pleads a justifying circumstance under Article
11 of the Revised Penal Code admits to the commission of acts, which would otherwise engender
criminal liability. Corollary thereto, the rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the
accused admit that they are the authors of the death of the victim, and their defense is anchored on
self-defense, it becomes incumbent upon them to prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction
of the court.  With this admission, the burden of evidence is shifted to the appellant to prove that all the
essential elements of self-defense are present. Verily, to invoke self-defense effectually, there must have
been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced
to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack. Self-
defense, to be successfully invoked, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence that excludes any
vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. Conviction follows if the evidence for
the accused fails to prove the existence of justifying circumstances.

To successfully invoke self-defense, an accused must establish: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of
the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3)
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.

The absence of unlawful aggression on the part of Lucio in this case unmistakably belies the accused-
appellant’s claim of self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. In view of this, the Court finds no
reason to further discuss the other elements of the justifying circumstance of self-defense and will
proceed to determine the offense committed by the accused-appellant.
People of the Philippines vs. Dennis Manaligod Y Santos
G.R. No. 218584, April 25, 2018
Martires, J.

DOCTRINE: Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age
regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is
unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is
conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12.

FACTS:

 On 24 September 2007, BBB asked her daughter, AAA, to borrow a cellphone charger at the
videoke bar where she worked. When AAA came back, BBB saw that AAA had P20.00 in her
possession. She asked AAA where it came from and the latter answered that accused-appellant
a.k.a. "Kulot" gave it to her. BBB asked why Kulot would give her P20.00 but AAA refused to
answer because Kulot told her not to tell anyone. Upon further questioning by her mother, AAA
narrated that accused-appellant brought her to a room at the videoke bar where he removed
her clothes and underwear, and then undressed himself. Afterwards, he repeatedly inserted his
penis into AAA's vagina. Accused-appellant then told AAA not to tell her mother what had
happened and gave her P20.00.
 BBB called her employer and informed him of what accused-appellant did to AAA. Accompanied
by her employer's wife, BBB reported the incident to the police and was advised to request a
medical examination of AAA and to file a complaint against accused-appellant.
 BBB then brought AAA to the hospital for examination. 8 Dr. Vilma G. Lorenzo (Dr. Lorenzo)
performed the examination and found lacerations in AAA's vagina.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

RULING: Yes. Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age
regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is
unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is
conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. At that age, the law presumes that the
victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.
Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of
proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse
between the accused and the complainant.

As evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth, AAA was only eight (8) years old at the time she was
sexually molested on 24 September 2007. Inside the courtroom, AAA identified accused-appellant as her
rapist. Thus, the remaining element of statutory rape which needed to be established is carnal
knowledge between accused-appellant and AAA. The Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the RTC's
assessment of AAA's credibility, which was affirmed by the CA. Absent any evidence that the trial court's
assessment was tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of a fact of consequence or influence – especially
so when affirmed by the CA – it is entitled to great weight, if not conclusive and binding on the Court.

People Of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Rolando Santos Y Zaragoza, Accused-Appellant

G.R. No. 223142, January 17, 2018
Martires, J

DOCTRINE: For the defense of insanity to prosper, it must be proven that the accused was completely
deprived of intelligence, which must relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous to the
commissiaon of the offense with which he is charged.

FACTS:
 In the morning of 17 June 2008, Imelda Miraña (Imelda) found out that her son, accused-
appellant, had killed the victim.
 Imelda did not know of any personal enmity between accused-appellant and the victim prior to
the incident. She noticed, however, that her son started exhibiting odd behavior after the
latter's nose was bitten by a cousin. Accused-appellant would smile without anyone in front of
him; he would call a chicken late at night; and would keep on saying to himself that the victim
was a witch. After the incident, she observed that accused-appellant just sat inside their house,
staring blankly.
 A few nights before the incident, Mercy Delfino (Mercy), accused-appellant's sister, noticed that
her brother kept smiling and could not sleep, and kept on saying that the victim was a witch. He
even claimed that he saw the witch in their own backyard.
 During trial, accused-appellant claimed not to know or recal1 the events surrounding the
incident, the identity of the victim, and his confinement and treatment at the mental hospital.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT INSANITY COULD BE APPRECIATED IN ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S FAVOR IN

ORDER TO EXCULPATE HIM FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

RULING: The defense of insanity is in the nature of a confession or avoidance because an accused
invoking it admits to have committed the crime but claims that he should not be criminally liable
therefor because of insanity, which is an exempting circumstance. Consequently, the accused is tried on
the issue of sanity alone, and if found to be sane, a judgment of conviction is rendered without any trial
on the issue of guilt.

However, an accused invoking the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it
with clear and convincing evidence because every person is presumed sane.

For the defense of insanity to prosper, it must be proven that the accused was completely deprived of
intelligence, which must relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous to the commission of
the offense with which he is charged.

Taken against the standard of clear and convincing evidence, the proof proffered by the defense fails to
pass muster.
The defense argues that the exempting circumstance of insanity has been sufficiently proven through
the testimonies of Imelda and Mercy, accused-appellant's mother and sister, respectively, as well as the
testimony of Dr. Imelda C. Escuadera (Dr. Escuadera), a psychiatrist.

Imelda and Mercy testified that accused-appellant believed that the victim was a witch and that in the
days prior to the incident, accused-appellant was behaving oddly, such as smiling to himself and calling a
chicken late at night. Their testimonies, however, fail to shed light on accused-appellant's mental
condition immediately before, during, and immediately after he committed the crime.

Moreover, unusual behaviors such as smiling to oneself and calling a chicken late at night are not proof
of a complete absence of intelligence, because not every aberration of the mind or mental deficiency
constitutes insanity.[21] The Court has held that "the prevalent meaning of the word 'crazy' is not
synonymous with the legal terms 'insane,' 'non compos mentis,' 'unsound mind,' 'idiot,' or 'lunatic.' The
popular conception of the word 'crazy' is being used to describe a person or an act unnatural or out of
the ordinary. A man may behave in a crazy manner but it does not necessarily and conclusively prove
that he is legally so." In order to be exempt from criminal liability, the accused must be so insane as to
be incapable of criminal intent.[23]

Vague references to his history of mental illness and subsequent diagnosis of schizophrenia do not
satisfy the quantum of proof required to exempt accused-appellant from criminal liability, especially
since the defense failed to establish that accused-appellant's mental ailments, if such was the case,
related to the time of the commission of the crime.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noel Bejim Y Romero, Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 208835, January 19, 2018
Del Castillo, J.

DOCTRINE: Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman with the use of force, threat or
intimidation or when she is under 12 years of age or is demented. Where the victim is below 12 years
old, the only subject of inquiry is whether "carnal knowledge" took place. 

FACTS:
 Accused-Appellant was charged before the RTC of Manila, with seven counts of statutory rape
under seven separate Informations.
 The RTC rendered a Consolidated Judgment finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
seven counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each
count. The CA affirmed the decision.
 Accused-Appellant claims on appeal that the court a quo gravely erred in finding the him guilty
of the crime of rape despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
and impugns the victims' credibility by capitalizing on the alleged inconsistencies in their open
court testimonies; their failure to shout for help during the alleged incidents; the belated filing
of their complaints; and, the medical finding of no evident injury during their examination.

ISSUE: Whether the lower courts gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of
rape despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING: No. The inconsistency pointed out by appellant as to whether "AAA" was alone or with "BBB"
during the alleged incident on the first week of October 2001 refers merely to inconsequential matter
that will not affect the determination of whether appellant is innocent of the crime charged or not.
"[D]iscrepancies referring only to minor details and not to the central fact of the crime do not affect the
veracity or detract from the credibility of a witness' declaration x x x." Respecting the alleged
inconsistency on whether appellant's penis touched “AAA's" vagina or not, the same has been clarified
by "AAA" herself. "AAA" stated that appellant's penis indeed brushed her vagina. As held in Dizon v.
People, "[i]n rape cases, the testimony of [the] complainant must be considered and calibrated in its
entirety, and not in its truncated portion or isolated passages thereof. The true meaning of answers to
questions propounded to a witness is to be ascertained with due consideration of all the questions and
answers given thereto. The whole impression or effect of what has been said or done must be
considered, and not individual words or phrases alone. Facts imperfectly stated in answer to a question
may be supplied or clarified by one's answer to other questions."

The failure of the victims to shout for help or escape during the incidents does not undermine their
credibility. It is not also fatal to the prosecution's case. “[N]o standard form of behavior can be
anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement, particularly a child who could not be expected to
fully comprehend the ways of an adult. People react differently to emotional stress, and rape victims are
no different from them."
Neither the delay in reporting the incidents to the proper authorities tainted the victims' credibility. For
sure, there was no prompt revelation of what befell the victims. But "long silence and delay in reporting
the crime of rape have not always been construed as indications of a false accusation." "A rape charge
becomes doubtful only when the delay in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained." In
the present case, appellant threatened the victims that he would kill them and their families if they
would tell anyone of what he did to them. To our mind, this is a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Regarding the findings of Dra. Valdez that her physical examination on the victims shows no evident
injury, this Court had already ruled that "a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a
prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the
[accused] of the crime."
People Of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Niño Flor Y Mora, Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 216017, January 19, 2018
Del Castillo, J

DOCTRINE: For an accused to be convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must
establish the following elements: "the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment." Time and again the Court has stressed that,
"[w]hat is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation
before the court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti.

FACTS:

 Accused-Appellant was apprehended of selling one (1) piece of heat-sealed plastic sachet
containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug weighing more or less 0.1 gram
including its plastic wrapper to a police officer who acted as a poseur buyer in a buy bust
operation using four pieces of One Hundred Peso Bill.
 The RTC rendered judgment finding appellant guilty as charged, the CA affirmed the RTC's
Judgment.
 According to Accused-Appellant, the RTC erroneously convicted him considering that the
prosecution: (1) tailed to establish all the essential elements of the offense charged; (2) failed to
establish the chain of custody over the seized sachet of shabu; and (3) failed to prove the
identity of the corpus delicti with moral certainty.

ISSUE: Whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu.

RULING: Yes. For an accused to be convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must
establish the following elements: "the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment." Time and again the Court has stressed that,
"[w]hat is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation
before the court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti."

In this case, the prosecution was able to show that the appellant was positively identified by PO1 Coldas
as the seller of a sachet containing 0.1 gram of shabu and the person who received the P400.00 marked
money from the police asset who acted as the buyer. PO1 Coldas testified that the asset
bought shabu from the appellant during a buy-bust operation.

With regard to the alleged failure of the police officers to comply with the procedure required in seizure
of drugs, the records show that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody over
the seized drugs - from the seizure and confiscation of the shabu up to the delivery of the same to the
crime laboratory and presentation in Court. Thus while the ideal scenario in the prosecution of
Dangerous Drugs Act violations is that the chain of custody must be unbroken, the law likewise admits of
substantial compliance thereto, The Court has consistently upheld the procedure adopted by the police
in handling seized illegal drugs as long as it is shown that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items was preserved.
The failure of the police officers to immediately take an inventory of the seized shabu is not fatal to the
prosecution of the case. It did not render the arrest of the appellant who was caught in flagrante
delicto illegal nor did the omission render the seized drugs inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs. In this case, despite the
circumstances that prevented the police officers from immediately taking an inventory of the seized
drugs, we agree and uphold the findings of the CA that the shabu presented in court was duly preserved
with its integrity and evidentiary value uncompromised.
People Of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Jesus Empuesto Y Socatre, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 218245, January 17, 2018
Martires, J.;

DOCTRINE: It must be stressed that the settled rule in our jurisprudence is that inconsistencies in the
testimony of witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the
substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony.

FACTS:
 Accused appellant was charged of rape with criminal intent, that is, carnal lecherous desire, with
force, threat, and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have
carnal knowledge with victim AAA by inserting his penis into the vagina of the said victim against
her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice
 Accused appellant however, as an alibi countered that he was with his brother Basilio during the
time the alleged crime took place.
 The RTC found that the testimony of AAA was straightforward and believable because it was not
shown that there was a reason for her to falsely charge accused-appellant with rape if this was
not true and found the alibi of accused-appellant very weak viewed against the positive
testimony of AAA. The RTC held that it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant to be
at the house of AAA since Bautista's house was just within the neighbourhood.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN PRONOUNCING THE GUILT OF JESUS EMPUESTO DESPITE
THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

RULING: No. The three principles that had consistently guided  the Court in reviewing rape cases, viz:

(a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility, and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is
even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove;
(b) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons being usually involved, the testimony
of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and
(c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw
strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense; and arrived at the unyielding conclusion
that the prosecution was able to efficaciously discharge its burden of proving the guilt of accused-
appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

For a charge of rape under Article 266-A(1) of Republic Act 8353 to prosper, it must be proved that (1)
the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or
intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12
years of age or was demented. The gravamen of rape under Article 266-A (1) is carnal knowledge of a
woman against her will or without her consent. Moreover, what is decisive in a charge of rape is the
complainant's positive identification of the accused as the malefactor.

Accused-appellant's position that there was inconsistency on AAA's testimony as to when he entered
her house. He claimed that AAA testified during the direct examination that somebody was making his
way inside her house before he (accused-appellant) had come in; but during cross examination she
claimed that she noticed somebody was inside the house only upon seeing him standing beside the
mosquito net.29

It must be remembered that "(I)n rape cases, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single
most important issue. If the testimony of the victim passes the test of credibility, which means it is
credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, the
accused may be convicted solely on that basis." 30 The Court notes that the testimony of AAA was
credible and straightforward and replete with details which can only be known to her because these
were the truth.

Contrary to the claim of accused-appellant, there was actually no inconsistency in AAA's testimony. AAA
stated during direct examination that she noticed that somebody had entered her house when she
heard sounds coming through the bamboo slats floor; that thereafter she saw the accused-appellant
with the bolo; and that accused-appellant then turned off the light and entered the mosquito
net. During cross-examination, AAA merely reiterated her earlier testimony.

Granting for the sake of argument that there was inconsistency in AAA's testimony as to when she
noticed that accused-appellant had come into her house, it must be stressed that the settled rule in our
jurisprudence is that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses with respect to minor details and
collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of
their testimony.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yolando B. Panerio alias John "Yolly" Labor and Alex (Jojo)
F. Orteza, Accused, Yolando B. Panerio, Accused-Appellant, G.R. No. 205440, January 15, 2018
Martires, J.

DOCTRINE: To bring about a result favorable to the accused in the form of exculpation from criminal
liability, jurisprudence teaches that the accused must establish the essential requisites of self-defense,
namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means used to
prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.31 The accused has the burden to prove these requisites by clear and convincing
evidence. In doing so, he must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of that of
the prosecution because it could no longer be denied that he admitted to be the author of the victim's
death or injuries.

FACTS:
 The accused was charged of murder by conspiring, confederating and helping one another did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and with treachery and
evident premeditation, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of ELESIO
UNG by then and there stabbing him on the different parts of his body with the use of a fan-
knife (balisong) and ice pick, thereby inflicting upon the said Elesio Ung mortal wounds which
were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.
 Accused narrated that the deceased Elesio Ung was drinking with his friends when he asked
accused to join them. As he refused, deceased felt disrespected and boxed the accused. When
the accused fell to the ground, the deceased tried to stab him with a knife twice, accused picked
up the knife off the ground and stabbed the deceased three times, After stabbing Elesio, he felt
guilt and surrendered. He claims that he only acted in self defense.
 However, the post-mortem findings revealed that Q sustained a total of eleven (11) stab and
puncture wounds. The cause of death was hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds.

ISSUE: Whether the accused can validly invoke self-defense.

RULING: The plea of self-defense is as much a confession as it is avoidance. By invoking self-defense, the
accused admits having killed or having deliberately inflicted injuries on the victim, but asserts that he
has not committed any felony and is not criminally liable therefor. Thus, the plea of self-defense can be
described as a double-edged sword which can either bring favorable or unfavourable consequences to
the accused.
To bring about a result favorable to the accused in the form of exculpation from criminal liability,
jurisprudence teaches that the accused must establish the essential requisites of self-defense, namely:
(a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent
or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself. The accused has the burden to prove these requisites by clear and convincing
evidence. In doing so, he must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of that of
the prosecution because it could no longer be denied that he admitted to be the author of the victim's
death or injuries.
Most important among the requisites of self-defense is unlawful aggression which is the condition sine
qua non for upholding self-defense as justifying circumstance. Unless the victim commits unlawful
aggression against the accused, self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated,
for the two other essential elements of self-defense would have no factual and legal bases without any
unlawful aggression to prevent or repel.
The accused’s uncorroborated testimony regarding the incident is unclear and unconvincing. His
assertion that the deceased, then drunk, boxed him and attempted to stab him is unsubstantiated by
any convincing proof. Moreover, accused’s account on how many times he stabbed the victim is
miserably inconsistent with the post-mortem findings on the deceased.
AAA, petitioner, V. BBB, respondent
G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018
Tijam, J;

DOCTRINE: The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but
is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by
courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients
should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. 

FACTS:

 Petitioner AAA and BBB were married on August 1, 2006 in Quezon City. Their union produced
two children: CCC was born on March 4, 2007 and DDD on October 1, 2009.
 In May of 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a chef, where he acquired permanent
resident status in September of 2008. This petition nonetheless indicates his address to be in
Quezon City where his parents reside and where AAA also resided from the time they were
married until March of 2010, when AAA and their children moved back to her parents' house in
Pasig City.
 AAA claimed, albeit not reflected in the Information, that BBB sent little to no financial support,
and only sporadically. This allegedly compelled her to fly extra hours and take on additional jobs
to augment her income as a flight attendant. There were also allegations of virtual
abandonment, mistreatment of her and their son CCC, and physical and sexual violence. To
make matters worse, BBB supposedly started having an affair with a Singaporean woman named
Lisel Mok with whom he allegedly has been living in Singapore.
 Things came to a head on April 19, 2011 when AAA and BBB had a violent altercation at a hotel
room in Singapore during her visit with their kids. As can be gathered from the earlier cited
Information, despite the claims of varied forms of abuses, the investigating prosecutor found
sufficient basis to charge BBB with causing AAA mental and emotional anguish through his
alleged marital infidelity.
ISSUE: Whether the Philippine court has jurisdiction over the case considering that the violent
altercation occurred in Singapore.
RULING: What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is that the law contemplates that acts of
violence against women and their children may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes; meaning
that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one
municipality or territory, while some occur in another. In such cases, the court wherein any of the
crime's essential and material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being
understood that the first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Thus, a person
charged with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where
the offense was in part committed.

It is necessary, for Philippine courts to have jurisdiction when the abusive conduct or act of violence
under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 in relation to Section 3(a), Paragraph (C) was committed outside
Philippine territory, that the victim be a resident of the place where the complaint is filed in view of the
anguish suffered being a material element of the offense. In the present scenario, the offended wife and
children of respondent husband are residents of Pasig City since March of 2010. Hence, the RTC of Pasig
City may exercise jurisdiction over the case.

Certainly, the act causing psychological violence which under the information relates to BBB's marital
infidelity must be proven by probable cause for the purpose of formally charging the husband, and to
establish the same beyond reasonable doubt for purposes of conviction. It likewise remains imperative
to acquire jurisdiction over the husband. What this case concerns itself is simply whether or not a
complaint for psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262 may even be filed within the Philippines if the
illicit relationship is conducted abroad. We say that even if the alleged extra marital affair causing the
offended wife mental and emotional anguish is committed abroad, the same does not place a
prosecution under R.A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.
People of the Philippines vs Augusto Gonzales, Esmenio Pader, Jr., and Marcelo Antonio
GR No. 223113, February 19, 2018
Del Castillo, J.

DOCTRINE: It is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit,
because when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all
that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth
and sincerity.

FACTS:
 On or about the 13th day of December 1999, at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, Province of
Zambales, Philippines, X, Y and Z, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one
another, with lewd design and by means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one "AAA," a minor of 15 years
old, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the latter. The Regional Trial
Court found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and such decision was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.

 On appeal to the Supreme Court, appellant argued that "AAA's" testimony had serious flaws and
loopholes. In her narration of the incident, "AAA" did not show resistance to the alleged attack
and thus militated against her assertion that the sexual intercourse with the accused was not
consensual. Then, Barangay Kagawad Eduardo testified that he did not see "AAA" at the place of
incident when he arrived.

ISSUE: Whether the victim “AAA” (minor) a credible witness despite the fact of inconsistencies and
variations with the testimony of other witnesses.

RULING: Yes. "It is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit,
because when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all
that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth
and sincerity."12 Both the trial court and the CA held that "AAA" was a credible witness. The CA further
held that there was greater reason to believe the veracity of "AAA's" statements since her testimony
was corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Fabunan, who examined her after the commission of the rape,
and the Medico-Legal Certificate she issued which showed that "AAA" sustained hymenal lacerations
and bleeding and the presence of spermatozoa in her genitals. There is no cogent reason to depart from
these uniform findings. "Jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Court ruled that questions on the
credibility of witnesses should best be addressed to the trial court because of its unique position to
observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while
testifying which is denied to the appellate courts."
Appellant’s argument that AAA’s failure to resist the sexual assault militated against her claim that she
was raped deserves scant consideration. It has been held that the failure of a victim to shout for help
does not negate rape. There is no specific behavior that can be expected of a person being raped.
Physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the
lust of an accused; it is not an essential element of rape.
The Court, however, finds that the discrepancies involved minor matters that do not constitute material
facts. As already mentioned, the trial court and the CA both held that "AAA's" testimony passed the test
of credibility. Appellant may even be convicted based solely on the testimony of the victim.
Eden Etino vs People of the Philippines
GR No. 206632, February 14, 2018
Del Castillo, J.

DOCTRINE: It is settled that "where there is nothing in the evidence to show that the wound would be
fatal if not medically attended to, the character of the wound is doubtful," and such doubt should be
resolved in favor of the accused.

FACTS:
 On or about the 5th day of November 2001, in the Municipality of Maasin, Province of Iloilo,
Philippines, Eden Etino, armed with an unlicensed firearm of unknown caliber, with deliberate
intent and decided purpose to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and shoot Jessierel Leyble with said unlicensed firearm he was then provided at the
time, hitting and inflicting upon the victim gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body.
The timely medical attendance rendered to the said Jessierel Leyble prevented his death. The
Regional Trial Court found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated
homicide.

 On appeal, the accused argues that the prosecution failed to present evidence to prove that the
victim would have died from his wound without timely medical assistance, as his Medical
Certificate alone, absent the testimony of the physician who diagnosed and treated him, or any
physician for that matter, is insufficient proof of the nature and extent of his injury. The said
Medical Certificate merely stated the victim's period of confinement at the hospital, the location
of the gunshot wounds, the treatments he received, and his period of healing. Also, there was
simply no other evidence on record that tended to prove that petitioner had animus interficendi
or intent to kill the victim. Furthermore, none of the prosecution's witnesses testified that
petitioner had indeed aimed and fired the shotgun to kill the victim.

ISSUE: Whether the conviction of frustrated homicide proper?

Answer: No. In order to determine whether the crime committed is attempted or frustrated parricide,
murder or homicide, or only lesiones (physical injuries), the crucial points to consider are: (a) whether
the injury sustained by the victim was fatal, and (b) whether there was intent to kill on the part of the
accused.

It is settled that "where there is nothing in the evidence to show that the wound would be fatal if not
medically attended to, the character of the wound is doubtful," and such doubt should be resolved in
favor of the accused.

Although it was sufficiently shown that petitioner fired a 12 gauge shotgun at the victim, there was
simply no other evidence on record that tended to prove that petitioner had animus interficendi or
intent to kill the victim. On the contrary, none of the prosecution's witnesses testified that petitioner
had indeed aimed and fired the shotgun to kill the victim. It is to be noted, likewise, that petitioner only
fired a single shot at closerange, but did not hit any vital part of the victims body - the victim's wounds,
based on his Medical Certificate, were located at the right deltoid (through and through) and the left
shoulder - and he immediately fled the scene right after the shooting. These acts certainly do not
suggest that petitioner had intended to kill the victim; for if he did, he could have fired multiple shots to
ensure the latter's demise.

This is not to say that petitioner is without any criminal liability. When the intent to kill is lacking, but
wounds are shown to have been inflicted upon the victim, as in this case, the crime is not frustrated or
attempted homicide but physical injuries only.
People of the Philippines vs Ramil Garcia Y Chavez
GR No. 218402, February 14, 2018
Del Castillo, J.;

DOCTRINE: For an accused to be convicted of maintenance of a drug den, the prosecution must establish
with proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is maintaining a den where any dangerous drug is
administered, used, or sold. It must be established that the alleged drug den is a place where dangerous
drugs are regularly sold to and/or used by customers of the maintainer the den.

FACTS:

On or about February 10, 2006, in the City of Pasig, Philippines, Ramil Garcia, without any lawful
authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously maintain a drug den located at the
compound along F. Soriano Street, Barangay Palatiw, Pasig City, where dangerous drugs and/or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals are administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes,
distributed, sold, or used in any form, in violation of RA 9165.

In convicting the accused, the evidence relied upon by the RTC to convict the appellant of maintenance
of a drug den consists of the following: (1) existence of drug paraphernalia inside the shanty known as
Target No. 8; (2) the appellant's driver's license allegedly found in the living room; and (3) appellant's
picture found inside the shanty.

ISSUE: Whether conviction for maintaining a drug den under Section 3(1) of RA 9165 proper?

RULING: No. For an accused to be convicted of maintenance of a drug den, the prosecution must
establish with proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is maintaining a den where any
dangerous drug is administered, used, or sold. It must be established that the alleged drug den is a place
where dangerous drugs are regularly sold to and/or used by customers of the maintainer the den. As
correctly pointed out by the appellate court: To convict an accused under this Section (Section 3(1), RA
9165), the prosecution must show that the place he is maintaining is a den, dive, or resort where
dangerous drug is used or sold in any form. Hence, two thing must be established, thus: (a) that the
place is a den – a place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential [chemical]
is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in any form; (b) that the
accused maintains the said place. Hence, it is not enough that the dangerous drug or drug paraphernalia
were found in the place. More than a finding that a dangerous drug is being used thereat, there must
also be a clear showing that the accused is the maintainer or operator or the owner of the place where
the dangerous drug is used or sold.
People of the Philippines vs Gil Ramirez Y Suyu
GR No. 218701, February 14, 2018
Del Castillo, J.

DOCTRINE: The circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and
reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.
From all the circumstances, there should be a combination of evidence which in the ordinary and natural
course of things, leaves no room for reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

FACTS:
 Sometime in the year 1989 in the Province of Cagayan, Gil Ramirez, father of the private
complainant "AAA," held and let the private complainant inhale a substance causing her to lose
her consciousness and that thereafter, the accused, with lewd design, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie, and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the
private complainant "AAA," who was then a minor being only a seven-year old girl. This
repeated several times, though accused was not successful in having sexual intercourse on some
attempts. RTC found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of RA 7610.

 The CA noted that in Criminal Case No. 11767, there was no direct evidence of penile
penetration. However, it found several pieces of circumstantial evidence which constituted
evidence of guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt for rape, to wit: "(1) "AAA" was sleeping
in their house; (2) "AAA" was awakened when [appellant] forced [her] to smell a substance that
caused her to lose consciousness; (3) "AAA" positively identified [appellant] as the only person
she saw before she lost consciousness; (4) upon regaining consciousness, there was blood on
"AAA's" shorts; (5) "AAA's" panty was also reversed; and, (6) "AAA" felt pain in her vagina."

 The RTC found the accused GUILTY of the crime of RAPE and was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether the lower court erred in convicting the accused the crime of rape.

RULING: Yes. Indeed "direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis from which a
court may draw its finding of guilt.''15 "[R]esort to circumstantial evidence is sanctioned by Rule 133,
Section [4]16 of the [Rules of Court].17 "Circumstantial evidence is defined as that which indirectly proves
a fact in issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established." 18 The
requisites for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction are:

(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.19
As extensively discussed in People v. Modesto20 -

the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. From all the
circumstances, there should be a combination of evidence which in the ordinary and natural course of
things, leaves no room for reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Stated in another way, where the inculpatory
facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with
innocence and the other with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not
sufficient to convict the accused.

As reflected in the assailed CA Decision, the conclusion finding appellant's guilt for rape was anchored
on the following circumstantial evidence: "(l) "AAA" was sleeping in their house; (2) "AAA" was
awakened when [appellant] forced [her] to smell a substance that caused her to lose consciousness; (3)
"AAA" positively identified [appellant] as the only person she saw before she lost consciousness; ( 4)
upon regaining consciousness, there was blood on "AAA's" shorts; (5) "AAA's" panty was also reversed;
and, (6) "AAA" felt pain in her vagina."21

To the mind of the Court, these circumstances did not establish with certainty the guilt of appellant as to
convince beyond reasonable doubt that the crime of rape was in fact committed or that he was the
perpetrator of the offense charged. Significantly, the testimonial account of "AAA" even created a
glaring doubt as to whether rape was indeed committed and as regards the real identity of the culprit.
We have carefully scrutinized the testimony of "AAA" and found the essential facts insufficient to sustain
appellant's conviction.

The foregoing assertion indubitably casts doubt on the credibility of ''AAA" and the veracity of her
narration of the incident considering that she was already 27 years old when she testified. There was no
allegation that appellant was actually seen inside the house before the alleged incident and the only
occupant before she went to sleep. The circumstances relied upon by the CA in its assailed Decision
failed to sufficiently link appellant to the crime. What is extant on record is that the allegation of sexual
molestation on "AAA" by appellant was anchored principally on presumption. But in criminal cases,
''speculation and probabilities cannot take the place of proof required to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, no matter how strong, must not sway judgment." 23

In fine, the prosecution failed to discharge the onus of prima facie proving appellant's guilt of the crime
of rape beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, to still consider appellant's defense would be an exercise in
futility.
People of the Philippines vs Carlos Bauit y Delos Santos
GR No. 223102, February 14, 2018
Del Castillo, J.

DOCTRINE: Jurisprudence teaches us that 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.

FACTS:
 "AAA," a 12-year old high school student, born on September 21, 1998, is the daughter of
accused-appellant. In the early morning of July 20, 2011, while she was on her way to the
bathroom, accused-appellant suddenly held her and forced her to lie down in their room.
Accused appellant pulled down her short pants and underwear. After removing his own pants,
he placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. "AAA" felt pain in the
process. She resisted but her effort was in vain. After taking her bath, "AAA" went to school as if
nothing happened. Upon the arrival of her mother "BBB" from Cagayan, "AAA" confided to her
the incident. With the help of her aunts, the matter was reported to a barangay kagawad and
then to the police station wherein "AAA" gave her statement. After an investigation, “AAA” was
sent in Camp Crame for genital examination.

 Accused countered that the testimony of "AAA" was incredible considering the relative distance
(about 16 meters away) between the bathroom and the room they shared. "AAA" could have
simply used a nearby bathroom. He likewise claims that the rooms were adjacent to each other
and separated by thin plywoods and their occupants could easily be awakened if indeed there
was resistance from "AAA." 

 The RTC found the accused appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape which
was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether the conviction was proper.

RULING: Yes. The fact that the rooms were adjacent and divided merely by plywood and any adjacent
noise could be heard such that it was unlikely for accused-appellant to commit the rape is of no
moment. As the appellate court correctly noted: "Jurisprudence teaches us that 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."

To further complement the attack on the credibility of "AAA," accused-appellant gives emphasis to the
medico-legal finding that the deep healed lacerations were caused by sexual contact more than one
week before the general examination of "AAA" on July 22, 2011. He posits that since the alleged rape
occurred on July 20, 2011, or less than three days before "AAA" was examined, the lacerations were not
caused by him but somebody else.As held in People v. Rubio, "a medical examination of the victim is not
indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient
to convict the accused of the crime. In fact, a doctor's certificate is merely corroborative in character
and not an indispensable requirement in proving the commission of rape. The presence of healed or
fresh hymenal laceration is not an element of rape." "In the crime of rape, the testimony of the victim,
and not the findings of the medico-legal officer, is the most important element to prove that the felony
had been committed." "Moreover, the absence of external injuries does not negate rape. In tact, even
the [presence] of spermatozoa is not an essential element of rape."

The fact that "AAA" was a rebellious and a problem child or that it was her mother's siblings who
instigated the filing of the charge, is not a viable defense for accused-appellant. As the Court held
in People v. Venturina, "[n]ot even the most ungrateful and resentful daughter would push her own
father to the wall as the fall guy in any crime unless the accusation against him is true." Moreover, the
reason ascribed by accused-appellant to accuse him of rape i.e., that the siblings of "BBB" disliked him
was unconvincing. "[M]otives such as resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from
giving full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim. Further, ill motives become inconsequential
if the rape victim gave an affirmative and credible declaration, which clearly established the liability of
the accused."

From the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are convinced that the elements of
rape under Article 226-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (RA)
No. 8353, were sufficiently established.
People of the Philippines vs Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, Mark Valderama y Rupisan, Roberto Cortez y
Badilla, Luis Padua y Mitra and Adonis Motil y Golondrina
GR No. 226494, February 14, 2018
Peralta, J.

DOCTRINE: The determination of the credibility of the offended party's testimony is a most basic
consideration in every prosecution for rape, for the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient
to sustain the verdict of conviction. 

FACTS:
 Around 11 o'clock in the evening of that same day, AAA was about to go home when she passed
by the basketball court. She saw a group of the accused-appellants. Thereafter, AAA told the
group that she wanted to go home, but the latter asked her to stay longer as they were about to
have a drinking spree. Shortly, the group opened a second bottle of Emperador Brandy and
resumed drinking. AAA had a shot of the liquor that was poured by Ranil and was given to her by
Jomar. After five to ten minutes from drinking the liquor, AAA felt her legs and body turning
numb, her vision turning blurry and she started feeling dizzy. AAA was familiar with the voice of
Jomar and it was the latter who said, "Dito na, dito na." AAA was then placed in a "papag" where
Jomar proceeded to lower her shorts. After successfully lowering AAA's shorts, Jomar went on
top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina causing her pain. After performing the deed,
Jomar invited the others to take their turns by saying, "Sino ang susunod?" A person of heavier
weight went on top of AAA and it was then that the latter lost her consciousness. When AAA
regained her consciousness, she felt that somebody was putting on her dress and heard shouts
that he was coming ("Si BBB, si BBB andyan na?"). She then heard footsteps and a commotion
ensuing. When she awakened, AAA was already inside a mobile unit with her brother and her
mother on their way to a clinic in Camp Crame. From Camp Crame, they proceeded to the
Municipal Hall of Rizal and were brought to the Office of the Prosecutor at around 1 o'clock of
March 1, 2004. Thereafter, BBB was told to identify the suspects and pointed at five (5) persons,
namely, appellants Adonis, Jomar, Luis, Mark and Roberto.

 It is the contention of the appellants that there are no concrete evidence to show that AAA has
been sexually abused by them, hence, it is wrong for the trial court to rely merely on the
testimony of AAA in convicting them with the crime charged in the Informations. They also claim
that based on the testimony of AAA, there was no proof of the identity of the appellants as the
perpetrators of the crime.

ISSUE: Whether the contention of the accused-appellants holds water.

RULING: No Through the testimony of AAA, it was clearly proven that the appellants committed the
crime and, as such, an attack on her credibility is futile. In People v. Malana,6 this Court ruled that when
the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the
trial court, thus:
In reviewing rape cases, we are guided by the following wellentrenched principles: (1) an accusation for
rape can be made with facility: it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though
innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons
are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and
(3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw
strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
The determination of the credibility of the offended party's testimony is a most basic consideration in
every prosecution for rape, for the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain the
verdict of conviction. As in most rape cases, the ultimate issue in this case is credibility. In this regard,
when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings
of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question as it heard the
witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. The
exceptions to the rule are when such evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstance of weight and substance which
could affect the result of the case. None of these circumstances are present in the case at bar to warrant
its exception from the coverage of this rule.

It is well-established that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is
necessary to show that she has indeed been raped. A victim of rape would not come out in the open if
her motive were anything other than to obtain justice. Her testimony as to who abused her is credible
where she has absolutely no motive to incriminate and testify against the accused, as in this case where
the accusations were raised by private complainant against her own father. 7

Again, based on AAA's testimony, the summation of the circumstances that led to the commission of the
crime prove beyond reasonable doubt that some of the appellants raped her and that all of them
conspired in the commission of the said crime. Furthermore, positive identification need not only mean
the identification by the use of the visual sense. It also includes other human senses with which one
could perceive. In this case, AAA, was able to positively identify appellant Jomar as the first person who
raped her by recognizing the latter's voice.
Manuel Venezuela vs People of the Philippines
GR No. 205693, February 14, 2018
Reyes, Jr., J.

DOCTRINE: Verily, in the crime of malversation of public funds, all that is necessary for conviction is
proof that the accountable officer had received the public funds and that he failed to account for the
said funds upon demand without offering a justifiable explanation for the shortage.

FACTS:

 Venezuela was the Municipal Mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan from 1986 to June 30, 1998. In
the course of the investigation, the Audit Team discovered a shortage of Php 2,872,808.00 on
the joint accounts of Costes and Venezuela. Likewise, it noticed that the 17 cash advances made
by Venezuela were illegal, due to the absence of the following essential requirements:
(i)             a public or official purpose indicated in the disbursement vouchers;
(ii)           required supporting documents;
(iii)         request for obligation of allotment;
(iv)         accomplishment or purchase request;
(v)           order or delivery made;
(vi)         charge invoice;
(vii)        approved Sangguniang Bayan resolution; and
(viii)      Certification issued by the Municipal Accountant.

 Moreover, the Audit Team found out that Venezuela was neither bonded nor authorized to
receive cash advances. Finally, the Audit Team noted that most of the vouchers were paid in
cash, notwithstanding the fact that the amounts covered by such vouchers were in excess of
Php 1,000.00, in violation of the rules of the Commission on Audit (COA) which mandate
payment in checks for amounts over Php l,000.00.

 Venezuela avers that he had fully liquidated his cash advances to Costes. In fact, he presented
receipts proving his payments. In this regard, Venezuela bewails that the Sandiganbayan
erroneously discredited his receipts, adopting the prosecution's version. He points out that his
receipts were issued in 1999, whereas those presented by the prosecution were issued in the
year 2007. Moreover, Venezuela alleges that the charge of conspiracy with Costes was not
sufficiently proven. In particular, Venezuela assails that the amount of Php 2,872,808.00, as
charged in the Information was alleged to be his joint accountability with Costes. As such,
pending the arrest of the latter, the case should have first been provisionally dismissed. It was
unfair for him to solely bear the charge, while Costes was "absolved" from liability. Finally,
Venezuela points out that the COA auditors sent the demand letters ordering the liquidation of
his cash advances at a time when he was no longer the Mayor of Pozorrubio.

ISSUE: Whether Venezuela is guilty of the crime of Malversation.

RULING:
Yes. Parenthetically, the elements of malversation are:
(i)             that the offender is a public officer,
(ii)            that he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office,
(iii)          that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable,
and
(iv)          that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take them.

Verily, in the crime of malversation of public funds, all that is necessary for conviction is proof that the
accountable officer had received the public funds and that he failed to account for the said funds upon
demand without offering a justifiable explanation for the shortage.

In the case at bar, all the elements for the crime were sufficiently proven by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt.

Venezuela was a public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan from 1997 to
1998, the period relevant to the time of the crime charged. Notably, he falls within the definition of a
public officer, stated in the RPC as "any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election, or
appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the
Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches
public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or class." Likewise, during
Venezuela's tenure as the municipal mayor, he incurred unliquidated cash advances amounting to Php
2,872,808.00. These unliquidated cash advances constituted funds belonging to the Municipality of
Pozorrubio, and earmarked for use by the said municipality. Finally, anent the last element for the crime
of malversation of public funds, Venezuela failed to return the amount of Php 2,572,808.00, upon
demand. His failure or inability to return the shortage upon demand created a prima facie evidence that
the funds were put to his personal use, which Venezuela failed to overturn.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNIE CONCEPCION,  Accused-Appellant.
G.R No. 214886, April 4, 2018
Leonen J.

DOCTRINE: the felony of slight illegal detention has four (4) elements: (1)That the offender is a private ;
individual; (2) That he kidnaps or detains another, or m any other manner deprives him of his liberty; (3)
That the act of kidnapping or detention is illegal; and (4) That the crime is committed without the
attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in Art. 267.

FACTS:
 AAA and her common-law husband lived rent-free in a house owned by accused-appellant. In
return, they helped maintain the house and contributed to utility bills.

 AAA arrived at the house when accused-appellant intercepted her at the garage area. He held a
knife to her back and dragged her to his room. Then he locked his room and blocked its door
using his bed. Accused-appellant then pulled AAA to the bed and told her to undress. Accused-
appellant inserted his penis into her vagina.
 Accused-appellant then inserted his penis in AAA's vagina again, holding a knife to her neck.
Then, to electrocute those who might enter the room, Accused-appellant installed electric wires
on the door.
 Thereafter, Accused-appellant was arrested and brought to the police station. AAA was brought
to the hospital where Dr. Q examined her. Q testified that there were abrasions and lacerations
in her genital area, caused by the forceful entry of an object or organ.
 Information were filed with the Regional Trial Court, against accused, charging him with serious
illegal detention and two (2) counts of rape. Upon arraignment in the consolidated criminal
cases, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and trial ensued.

ISSUE: Whether the crime of serious illegal detention was committed.

RULING:
No. The SC finds accused-appellant guilty of the crime of SLIGHT illegal detention. The elements of slight
illegal detention are all present here.
The felony of slight illegal detention has four (4) elements:

1.    That the offender is a private individual.

2.    That he kidnaps or detains another, or m any other manner deprives him of his liberty.
3.    That the act of kidnapping or detention is illegal.
4.    That the crime is committed without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in Art.
267.
Accused-appellant is a private individual. The Court of Appeals found that after raping AAA, accused-
appellant continued to detain her and to deprive her of her liberty. It also appreciated AAA's testimony
that the accused-appellant placed electrical wires around the room to electrocute anyone who might
attempt to enter it. He refused to release AAA even after his supposed demands were met. The
detention was illegal and not attended by the circumstances that would render it serious illegal
detention

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUNIE (OR DIONEY) SALVADOR, SR. Y MASAYANG,
Accused-Appellant.
G.R No 223566, June 27, 2018
Martires J.;

DOCTRINE: An inquiry into the mental state of an accused should relate to the period immediately
before or at the very moment the felony is committed.

FACTS:

 Eusebio was charged with 5 counts of murder. The Prosecution narrated that Eusebio and her
live in partner, Eunice, went to the barangay hall to attend he Pantawid Pamilya Program.
Eusebio told his live in partner that he would go home since he did not appear in the program’s
list. The daughter of Eunice, Lara, was also in the barangay hall with his husband, Lirio. Lara told
Lirio to go home to feed their children. He did not saw his children so he went outside to look
for them but instead, he saw Eusebio with blood on his arms and shirt and bolo in his arms. That
same morning, Joy was on her way to the house of Eunice to look for Mariz and Jannes when
she saw Eusebio chasing Eunice in the street. Joy was about two-arm-lengths away from Eunice
when Eusebio, using a bolo, hacked Miraflor four times in the back and in the nape.
 The Defense stated that Eusebio was given medicine for depression and later for psychosis.
According to Dr. Villanueva, it was possible for Eusebio to have a relapse if he was not given his
medicines. RTC ruled against Eusebio. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.

ISSUE: Whether Eusebio was mentally insane when he committed the crime thus exempting him from
liability?

RULING: No. Eusebio failed to prove his defense of insanity. Jurisprudence dictates that every individual
is presumed to have acted with a complete grasp of one's mental faculties. "It is improper to assume the
contrary, i.e., that acts were done unconsciously, for the moral and legal presumption is that every
person is presumed to be of sound mind, or that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal
condition of a person. Thus, the presumption under Article ( Art.) 800 of the Civil Code is that everyone is
sane."

The Court takes note of the fact that based on Dr. Dinglasan's certification, 33 she first evaluated and
examined accused-appellant only on 22 March 2011, or more than a month from the 11 February 2011
incident. The records of these cases however, are bereft of any showing as to Dr. Dinglasan's diagnosis
of accused-appellant on 22 March 2011; hence, it cannot be validly asserted that as of that day, or even
earlier than that date, accused-appellant already had the disorder. Additionally, the certification merely
evinces that it was on 6 June 2012 that Dr. Dinglasan diagnosed accused-appellant to be suffering from
the disorder.

Dr. Villanueva personally examined accused-appellant on 27 September 2012, 34 or one (1) year and
seven (7) months from the incident, and found him to be suffering from the disorder. However, no
documentary proof was presented by the defense to show how Dr. Villanueva was able to arrive at his
diagnosis. Indeed, the records only show a single medical certificate from Dr. Villanueva indicating that
accused-appellant was diagnosed with the disorder on 27 September 2012. Moreover, a review of Dr.
Villanueva's testimony will confirm that he never stated how he arrived at his diagnosis of accused-
appellant. The probability that there was but this single instance on 27 September 2012 that Dr.
Villanueva attended to accused-appellant was easily confirmed by his testimony before the RTC which
basically dwelt on his giving opinion as to what a person with the disorder would normally do; or
whether the disorder would cause a person to be violent; or whether a person with the disorder would
know what he was doing; but not as to his specific observations with regard to accused appellant's
condition.35 The defense never even tried to propound questions to Dr. Villanueva that would elicit
certain and categorical answers relative to accused-appellant's demeanor or disposition in relation to
the disorder he was suffering from.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL DELIMA, ALLAN DELIMA, JOHN DOE, PAUL
DOE AND PETER DOE ACCUSED, MICHAEL DELIMA AND ALLAN DELIMA, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 222645, June 27, 2018
Martires J.

DOCTRINE: Where there is no proof of the circumstances surrounding the manner in which the
aggression commenced, appellant should be given the benefit of the doubt and treachery cannot be
considered.

FACTS:

 On 13 June 2009, Anthony invited Jose to his home to celebrate the barangay fiesta.  At around
4:00 A.M. the following day, Jose decided to go home. As he came out from Anthony's house, he
saw five individuals ganging up on Ramel — the scuffle was around eight meters from Anthony's
house. When they saw him, three of the five assailants scampered away while the two left
continued to beat Ramel, whom they stabbed while they held and pulled him back by his pants.
Scared of what he saw, Jose rushed back inside Anthony's house.
 Anthony was surprised that Jose was back because he had already asked permission to go
home. When he asked why, Jose told him about the stabbing incident and asked Anthony to
accompany him to where it happened. There, Jose pointed to the two persons whom he saw
holding and stabbing Ramel and asked Anthony who they were. Anthony said Allan was the one
Jose saw stab Ramel while Michael held the victim by his pants; and that after the incident, he
saw Michael and Allan just walk away from the crime scene.
 On 16 June 2009, Josefina's sister-in-law called her to say her that her son Ramel had died from
a stabbing incident. She travelled to Cebu and viewed Ramel's remains at the funeral parlor
where she noticed that her son had several stab wounds on various parts of his body.

ISSUE: Whether Michael and Allen are guilty of the crime of murder?

RULING: No. In People v. De Leon,29 the Court explained that the commencement of the attack is crucial
in determining the presence of treachery, to wit:

Inevitably, where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven. Without any particulars as
to the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act that resulted in the victim's death
unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated. It is not sufficient that the victim was unarmed and that the
means employed by the malefactor brought about the desired result. The prosecution must prove that
appellant deliberately and consciously adopted such means, method or manner of attack as would
deprive the victim of an opportunity for self-defense or retaliation.
In the case at bar, the prosecution's principal witness testified that he had actually witnessed the
stabbing, but not the commencement of the attack. In fact, he himself declared that the commotion had
begun outside the establishment he was in.

Where, as in this case, there is no proof of the circumstances surrounding the manner in which the
aggression commenced, appellant should be given the benefit of the doubt and treachery cannot be
considered.30 (emphases supplied)

Similarly, when Jose came out of Anthony's house, Allan and Michael, together with the other unknown
assailants, were already assaulting Ramel. The aggression continued until ultimately Allan stabbed
Ramel. Jose never saw how the commotion commenced. As a result, there is doubt whether accused-
appellants consciously and deliberately adopted the means employed to kill Ramel. It is doctrinal that all
doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused. 31 Consequently, treachery could not be appreciated as
a qualifying circumstance.

In view of the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation, Allan and
Michael should be found guilty only of homicide for Ramel's killing.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUDIVICO PATRIMONIO BANDOJO, JR. AND KENNY
JOY VILLACORTA ILETO, Accused-Appellants
G.R. No. 234161, October 17, 2018
A. Reyes, Jr., J.

DOCTRINE: Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor's consent is not
given out of his or her own free will.

FACTS:
 Sometime on 2012, AAA, a 17-year old girl, received a text message from Kenny Joy asking if she
needed a “raket”. She was told that she will have sex with some foreigners. AAA agreed and was
booked to a British National.
 Few months later, AAA received another text message from Kenny Joy giving her another
“raket”. This time, Kenny Joy introduced AAA to her new customer who was also a police officer.
 The following month, AAA received another “raket”. Unknowingly, it was an entrapment
operation by the NBI and Kenny Joy was arrested. He was charged with violation of the Anti-
Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003. During the trial, Kenny Joy denied having offered the sexual
services of AAA for a fee and that she does not know that AAA was a minor. RTC convicted
accused of crime charged. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.

ISSUE: Whether the consent of the minor is not a defense under R.A. No. 920.

RULING:

No. Contrary to the accused-appellants' submission, the fact that AAA had asked Kenny Joy for
a raket and that she visited the said accused-appellant in prison does not negate their criminal liability.

As previously cited, Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208 clearly states that trafficking in persons may be
committed with or without the victim's consent or knowledge.

Furthermore, in Casio,41 the Court ruled that the victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to the
coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the
use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor's consent is not given out of his or her own free
will.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL A. BELLUDO AND JOHN DOE, Accused.;
MICHAEL A. BELLUDO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 219884, October 17, 2018
A. Reyes, Jr., J.

DOCTRINE: Well-settled is the rule that treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as
conclusively as the killing itself.

FACTS:

 At around 3AM, Ladia and his son, Albert were collecting scraps near BBS radio station when
they suddenly heard a gunshot. Ladia immediately looked up and saw a man, approximately
fifteen to twenty meters away, tucking a gun on his waist. The man then boarded a motorcycle
being driven by another person wearing a helmet. Ladia saw the victim lying on the side of the
road near an acacia tree.
 During a police line-up, Ladia positively identified Belludo as the perpetrator of the crime. A
separate police line-up was viewed by Ladia's son who also pointed to Belludo as the culprit.
 RTC found Belludo guilty of the crime charged and that the killing was attended by the qualifying
circumstance of treachery because the gunshot wound was located at the back of his head. CA
affirmed RTC’s decision.
ISSUE: Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was sufficiently proved by the prosecution?
RULING: No. Well-settled is the rule that treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as
conclusively as the killing itself. For treachery to be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, it must be
shown to have been present at the inception of the attack. Two elements must concur: (1) the
employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or
to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted.
In the case at bar, no circumstantial evidence has been shown to prove that the attack on the victim
came without warning, and that he had absolutely no opportunity to defend himself or to escape. The
lower court failed to consider that Ladia had no knowledge of how the attack had been initiated or
carried out. The crime was already a fait accompli when he saw Belludo tucking a gun to his waist.
Furthermore, evidence on record does not prove that there was any conscious or deliberate effort on
the part of Belludo to adopt any particular means, method or form of attack to ensure the commission
of the crime without affording the victim any means to defend himself. The fact that a gun was fired
does not mean that the mode of attack was consciously and deliberately employed. The use of a gun, by
itself, does not necessarily imply treachery.