2020 Justice Marvic Leonen Case Digests: Jofrey Q. Botor, JR

2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS
JOFREY Q. BOTOR, JR.
/ Criminal Law / 1
/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS /
Project Jurisprudence
Supreme Court E-Library
/ Criminal Law / 2
DOCTRINES
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELMER AVANCENA

G.R. No. 200512 / June 07, 2017
[T]he fact that the victim voluntarily went with the accused [does] not remove the
element of deprivation of liberty [if] the victim went with the accused on a false
inducement without which the victim would not have done so. Rizaldo would not have
gone with the accused-appellants had they not misrepresented themselves as
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency agents who allegedly caught him selling illegal
drugs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SEGFRED L. OROZCO

G.R. No. 211053 / November 29, 2017
Accused-appellant does not dispute being at the scene of the crime. He testified to
taking a knife, giving chase, and stabbing the decedent. There is evidence beyond
reasonable doubt that the victim was subdued by the decedent and his companions.
Thus, they employed means to weaken the victim's defense, constituting treachery.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NADY MAGALLANO, JR.

G.R. No. 220721 / December 10, 2018
"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.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NANCY LASACA RAMIREZ

G.R. No. 217978 / January 30, 2019
In People v. De Dios, the Court held that it did not matter that there was no threat,
force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception or abuse of power that was employed by
De Dios when she involved AAA in her illicit sexual trade. AAA was still a minor when
she was exposed to prostitution by the prodding, promises and acts of De Dios.
Trafficking in persons may be committed also by means of taking advantage of the
persons' vulnerability as minors, a circumstance that applied to AAA, was sufficiently
alleged in the information and proved during the trial. This element was further
/ Criminal Law / 3
achieved through the offer of financial gain for the illicit services that were provided
by AAA to the customers of De Dios.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GAJIR ACUB

G.R. No. 220456 / June 10, 2019
State agents must strictly comply with the legal safeguards established in Section 21
of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, for the custody and disposition of seized illegal
drugs, to ensure that the evidence was not tampered with, substituted, or planted.
For the saving clause in Section 21 to apply, the prosecution must prove beyond
reasonable doubt that noncompliance was justified and that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GLORIA CAIZ

G.R. No. 215340 / July 13, 2016
Failure to prove the preservation of the integrity of the corpus delicti in dangerous
drugs cases will lead to the acquittal of the accused on the ground of reasonable
doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MONIR JAAFAR

G.R. No. 219829 / January 18, 2017
This Court cannot merely gloss over the glaring procedural lapses committed by the
police officers, especially when what had been allegedly seized from accused-
appellant was only 0.0604 grams of shabu. Recent cases have highlighted the need
to ensure the integrity of seized drugs in the chain of custody when only a miniscule
amount of drugs had been allegedly seized from the accused.
In People v. Holgado, this Court held that "[c]ourts must employ heightened scrutiny,
consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating
cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs [as] they can be readily planted and
tampered."
Non-observance of the mandatory requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No.

9165 casts doubt on the integrity of the shabu supposedly seized from accused-
appellant. This creates reasonable doubt in the conviction of accused-appellant for
violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
/ Criminal Law / 4
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LAHMODIN AMERIL

G.R. No. 222192 / March 13, 2019
At the core of every prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs is the constitutional
mandate of the State to adduce proof on the identity and integrity of the seized illegal
drugs. The wisdom behind this burden is to ensure that the items seized were neither
tampered nor contaminated. Failure to overcome such burden calls for the acquittal
of the accused.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. OLIVER A. BUCLAO

G.R. No. 208173 / June 11, 2014
To protect one's daughter is one of the noblest roles of a father. A father who defies
this role is afflicted with a dysfunctional character that borders on moral depravity.
Even if this breach of trust deserves the highest penalties in our legal order, it will
never compensate for the daughter's deepest scars and sorrows.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SHIRLEY A. CASIO

G.R. No. 211465 / December 03, 2014
“Chicks mo dong?”
With this sadly familiar question being used on the streets of many of our cities, the
fate of many desperate women is sealed and their futures vanquished. This case
resulted in the rescue of two minors from this pernicious practice. Hopefully, there
will be more rescues. Trafficking in persons is a deplorable crime. It is committed
even though the minor knew about or consented to the act of trafficking.
NICOLAS VELASQUEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 195021 / March 15, 2017
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. However, he asserts that he is justified in committing the acts. In the process
of proving a justifying circumstance, the accused risks admitting the imputed acts,
which may justify the existence of an offense were it not for the exculpating facts.
Conviction follows if the evidence for the accused fails to prove the existence of
justifying circumstances.
Even if it were to be granted that Jesus was the initial aggressor, the beating dealt
to him by petitioners and their co-accused was still glaringly in excess of what would
have sufficed to neutralize him. It was far from a reasonably necessary means to
/ Criminal Law / 5
repel his supposed aggression. Petitioners thereby fail in satisfying the second
requisite of self-defense and of defense of a relative.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERNESTO SAGANA

G.R. No. 208471 / August 02, 2017
The miniscule quantity of confiscated illicit drugs heightens the importance of a more
stringent conformity to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Similarly, none of the required third-party representatives was present during the
seizure and inventory of the dangerous articles. Their presence in buy-bust
operations and seizure of illicit articles in the place of operation would supposedly
guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame up." In other words, they are
"necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint
of illegitimacy or irregularity."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. KING REX A. AMBATANG

G.R. No. 205855 / March 29, 2017
In fine, the age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of
witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms first-
hand impressions as witnesses testify before it. It is thus no surprise that findings
and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge
of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of
witnesses as they testify. We thoroughly review the records of the case, including the
transcript of stenographic notes and we find no cogent reason to overturn the
probative value given by the trial court on the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. Hence, we sustain the guilty verdict against herein accused-appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JAIME SEGUNDO

G.R. No. 205614 / July 26, 2017
Although the miniscule quantity of confiscated illicit drugs is solely by itself not a
reason for acquittal, this instance accentuates the importance of conformity to
Section 21 that the law enforcers in this case miserably failed to do so. If initially
there were already significant lapses on the marking, inventory, and photographing
of the alleged seized items, a doubt on the integrity of the corpus
delicti concomitantly exists. For this reason, this Court acquits Segundo as his guilt
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
/ Criminal Law / 6
Moreover, the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties "will never
be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a
mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused
to be presumed innocent."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAMON FRANCICA

G.R. No. 208625 / September 06, 2017
No amount, especially not the P50.00 paid by the accused for sexually abusing his
11-year-old victim, will ever compensate for her trauma. The depravity of a grown
man in taking advantage of a child's trust and innocence and her family's poverty to
repeatedly rape her rightfully deserves condemnation and the most severe
punishment that can be meted out under the law.
The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not
necessarily negate the commission of rape, hymenal laceration not being, to repeat,
an element of the crime of rape. A healed or fresh laceration would of course be a
compelling proof of defloration. What is more, the foremost consideration in the
prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal
officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a
prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PEDRITO ORDONA

G.R. No. 227863 / September 20, 2017
To qualify the killing of a person to the crime of murder, evident premeditation must
be proven with reasonable certainty. Facts regarding "how and when the plan to kill
was hatched" are indispensable. The requirement of deliberate planning should not
be based merely on inferences and presumptions but on clear evidence.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDGARDO ROYOL

G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019
Complete and utter noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements of

Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act), inescapably leads to an accused's acquittal.
Conviction cannot be sustained by a mere presumption of regularity and the
approximation of compliance.
/ Criminal Law / 7
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLANDO TERNIDA

G.R. No. 212626 / June 03, 2019
The failure of law enforcers in buy-bust operations to photograph seized drugs in

accordance with Article II, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, combined with the
prosecution's failure to address this omission, raises doubt on the identity of the
drugs seized, especially when the amount of dangerous drugs allegedly taken from
the accused is minuscule.
ARIEL LOPEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 212186 / June 29, 2016
To sustain a conviction for cattle-rustling, the identity of the stolen cattle must be
proven with certainty. Otherwise, the accused must be acquitted on the ground of
reasonable doubt.
Further, a "request for appearance" issued by law enforcers to a person identified as

a suspect is akin to an "invitation." Thus, the suspect is covered by the rights of an
accused while under custodial investigation. Any admission obtained from the
"request for appearance" without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in
evidence.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PABLO LUAD ARMODIA

G.R. No. 210654 / June 07, 2017
The rape of a minor constitutes moral depravity of the highest order.
Testimonies of child victims may not always be the absolute truth. Nevertheless, the
testimonies of child rape victims are generally entitled to full faith and credence. A
girl who would willingly cause the examination of her private parts, allow the invasion
of her privacy via an open trial, and recall the harrowing experiences she suffered in
the hands of her own father must have been impelled by the desire to have the
perpetrator caught and punished. More significantly, she must have been motivated
by the need to be physically and psychologically protected from her assailant.
The crime of qualified rape under Article 266-B(1) of the Revised Penal Code consists
of the twin circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship to the
perpetrator, both of which must concur and must be alleged in the information. It is
immaterial whether the relationship was proven during trial if that was not specifically
pleaded for in the information.
/ Criminal Law / 8
ANTONIETA LUCIDO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 217764 / August 07, 2017
Strangulating, severely pinching, and beating an eight (8)-year-old child to cause her
to limp are intrinsically cruel and excessive. These acts of abuse impair the child's
dignity and worth as a human being and infringe upon her right to grow up in a safe,
wholesome, and harmonious place. It is not difficult to perceive that this experience
of repeated physical abuse from petitioner would prejudice the child's social, moral,
and emotional development.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JULITO DIVINAGRACIA, SR.

G.R. No. 207765 / July 26, 2017
"Pa, don't do that[,] Pa."
Child victims of rape by their very own fathers usually continue to live in an
environment where the perpetrators consistently underscore the weakness and
worthlessness of their victims. In addition to the continued economic dependence of
the child victims, this ensures enormous difficulty to find a safe space for them to
reveal their ordeal and ensure protection. The animosity and intolerable indignity that
child victims experience often lead them to find the courage to seek succor from
someone who appears to have moral ascendancy over their perpetrator. This is often
their mother, although at times, it may also be a relative.
Discrepancies, not being elements of the crime of rape, do not diminish the credibility
of AAA's declarations. Jurisprudence has held "youth and immaturity [to be] badges
of truth and sincerity" and has generally given leeway to minor witnesses when
relating traumatic incidents of the past.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ABUNDIO M. SARAGENA

G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017
When the quantity of the confiscated substance is miniscule, the requirements of

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, must be strictly complied with.
The prosecution's failure to present the police officer who acted as the poseur-buyer
in the buy-bust operation, which allegedly involved 0.03 grams of shabu, coupled
with the improbability that the two (2) apprehending police officers witnessed the
transaction at night time, engenders reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.
/ Criminal Law / 9
The prosecution's failure to sufficiently establish the chain of custody in accordance

with the law further amplifies the doubt on accused's guilt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SIEGFRED CABELLON CABAÑERO

G.R. No. 207229 / September 20, 2017
The marking and identification of the seized dangerous drug is an essential part of
the chain of custody. Absent this step, a gap is created which casts a shadow of doubt
on the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug presented as evidence, creating
reasonable doubt, which must be resolved in favor of the accused.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EMMA BOFILL PANGAN

G.R. No. 206965 / November 29, 2017
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, cannot be utilized to frustrate legitimate efforts of law
enforcers. Minor deviations from the mandated procedure in handling the corpus
delicti must not absolve a guilty defendant.
The arresting officers' non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal, provided that that
there is a justifiable reason for their deviation and that the evidentiary worth of the
seized drugs or articles was preserved. Non-conformity with the mandated
procedures will not make the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized
inadmissible as evidence. What matters most is that the integrity and evidentiary
worth of the seized articles were maintained since these will be used in resolving the
guilt or innocence of the accused.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LINA ACHIENG NOAH

G.R. No. 228880 / March 06, 2019
This Court is convinced that the apprehending officers have complied with the
requirements under Section 21. Based on the records, there was an unbroken chain
of custody of the seized shabu from the time of its discovery up to its presentation in
court. The prosecution established that in the exclusion room, Landicho continued
inspecting the luggage before airport officers, government agents, and accused-
appellant herself. There were even pictures showing that accused-appellant was
present during the field test, marking, and inventory of the seized items.
/ Criminal Law / 10
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DIOSCORO COMOSO TUREMUTSA

G.R. No. 227497 / April 10, 2019
Failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements in drugs cases will result in
an accused's acquittal.
In People vs. Andaya, the accused recognized that not presenting the informant was
different from not presenting the poseur-buyer. As held in prior cases, there was no
need to present the confidential informant since the testimony would merely
corroborate the testimonies of those who actually witnessed the transaction. The case
is different, however, if the confidential informant and the poseur-buyer were one
and the same person:
The presentation of the confidential informants as witnesses for the

Prosecution in those instances could be excused because there were poseur
buyers who directly incriminated the accused. In this case, however, it was
different, because the poseur buyer and the confidential informant were one
and the same. Without the poseur buyer's testimony, the State did not credibly
incriminate Andaya.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUANITO ENTRAMPAS

G.R. No. 212161 / March 29, 2017
This is a tragic story resulting from an act of depravity: an 11-year old girl gave birth
to a child after she was repeatedly raped by the common-law husband of her
biological mother.
"While [accused-appellant] was not the biological father of AAA [she] considered him
as her father since she was a child." Moral influence or ascendancy added to the
intimidation of AAA. It enhanced the fear that cowed the victim into silence. Accused-
appellant's physical superiority and moral influence depleted AAAs resolve to stand
up against her foster father. The threats to her and her mother's lives, as well as the
knife within accused-appellant's reach, further prevented her from resisting her
assailant. As accused-appellant sexually assaulted AAA, she cried and pleaded him
to stop. Her failure to shout or tenaciously repel accused-appellant does not mean
that she voluntarily submitted to his dastardly act.
MARLON BACERRA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 204544 / July 03, 2017
The identity of the perpetrator of a crime and a finding of guilt may rest solely on the
strength of circumstantial evidence.
/ Criminal Law / 11
A number of circumstantial evidence may be so credible to establish a fact from which

it may be inferred, beyond reasonable doubt, that the elements of a crime exist and
that the accused is its perpetrator. There is no requirement in our jurisdiction that
only direct evidence may convict. After all, evidence is always a matter of reasonable
inference from any fact that may be proven by the prosecution provided the inference
is logical and beyond reasonable doubt.
RYAN MARIANO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 224102 / July 26, 2017
The state of mind of the accused during an alleged act of self-defense, defense of a
relative, or defense of a stranger must be considered in determining whether his or her
means of repelling an aggressor were reasonable.
The Court explained in one case that the rule of reasonable necessity is not ironclad
in its application; it depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. One who
is assaulted does not have the time nor sufficient tranquility of mind to think,
calculate and choose the weapon to be used. The reason is obvious, in emergencies
of this kind, human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in
obedience to the instinct of self-preservation; and when it is apparent that a person
has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the
act and to hold the actor irresponsible in law for the consequences.
The reasonable necessity of the means employed in the defense, according to the
jurisprudence of courts, does not de[p]end upon the harm done, but rests upon the
imminent danger of such injury.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JULIETO BORJA

G.R. No. 199710 / August 02, 2017
Extortion done by police themselves amounting to kidnapping with ransom

undermines the government efforts to establish the rule of law in general and the
proper prosecution against drug traffickers in particular. Even the subsequent
prosecution of the victim of extortion does not negate the criminal liability of the
accused for the crime the latter committed against the former.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DELIA SAUNAR

G.R. No. 207396 / August 09, 2017
A miniscule amount of dangerous drugs alleged to have been taken from the accused
is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration. In these cases, "law
/ Criminal Law / 12
enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain
of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia."
While it may be true that the seized items were marked and inventoried in the
presence of a media representative, an elected barangay official, and a representative
from the Department of Justice, there is no evidence showing that these procedures
were done in the presence of accused-appellant or her authorized representative or
counsel. Moreover, none of the witnesses to the marking and inventory of the seized
items was presented in court to testify.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BERNIE CONCEPCION

G.R. No. 214886 / April 04, 2018
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 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.
CHRISTINE FERNANDEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 217542 / November 21, 2018
Courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a

harrowing experience, especially when the details are too painful to recall. Such
inconsistencies only prove that the child victim was unrehearsed, especially when the
discrepancies are minor details irrelevant to the elements of the crime, and thus,
cannot be considered as grounds for acquittal.
AUGUSTO REGALADO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G. R. No. 216632 / March 13, 2019
Yet, not only did the prosecution fail to establish that earnest efforts were employed
in securing the presence of the three (3) witnesses; it did not even bother to offer
any justification for the law enforcers' deviation from the law's requirements. Since
preliminaries do not appear on record, this Court cannot speculate why the law
enforcers neglected the simple rules in the conduct of a buy-bust operation.
Nonetheless, police officers are reminded that lapses like this—absent any justifiable
ground—cast doubt on the integrity of the seized items and can be fatal to the
prosecution's cause.
/ Criminal Law / 13
JESUS APARENTE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 205695 / September 27, 2017
Where the amount of narcotics seized is miniscule, a stricter adherence to the

requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is required to preserve the
evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
This Court stresses that where miniscule amounts of drugs are involved, trial courts
should require more exacting compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165. Consequently, the trial court and the Court of Appeals should
have considered the failure of the apprehending team to mark the seized drugs
immediately after seizure and confiscation. They should also have considered that it
was the investigating officer at the police station who marked the same and not the
arresting officers. The failure of the prosecution to address this issue and to provide
a justifiable reason for this are enough to cast a shadow of doubt on the integrity of
the operation.
MARIA C. OSORIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 207711 / July 02, 2018
Persons who receive money for investment in a particular company but divert the
same to another without the investor's consent may be held criminally liable for other
deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 318 of the Revised Penal
Code is broad in scope intended to cover all other kinds of deceit not falling under
Articles 315, 316, and 317 of the Revised Penal Code.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ZZZ

G.R. No. 229862 / June 19, 2019
Recantations are viewed unfavorably especially in rape cases. Circumstances in which

the recantation was made are thoroughly examined before the evidence of retraction
can be given any weight.
PEDRO PEREZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 201414 / April 18, 2018
Inserting a finger in a 12-year-old girl's vagina and mashing her breasts are not only
acts of lasciviousness but also amount to child abuse punished under Republic Act
No. 7610.
/ Criminal Law / 14
The aggressive expression of infatuation from a 12-year-old girl is never an invitation

for sexual indignities. Certainly, it does not deserve the accused's mashing of her
breasts or the insertion of his finger into her vagina.
Also in one case, children who are likewise coerced in lascivious conduct are "deemed
to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse." When petitioner
inserted his finger into the vagina of AAA, a minor, with the use of threat and
coercion, he is already liable for sexual abuse.
STEVEN R. PAVLOW vs. CHERRY L. MENDENILLA

G.R. No. 181489 / April 19, 2017
The mother of a victim of acts of violence against women and their children is
expressly given personality by Section 9(b) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise
known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (the Anti-
VAWC Law), to file a civil action petitioning for the issuance of a protection order for
her child. In filing such a petition, she avails of a remedy that is distinct from the
criminal action under Section 5 of the same law. The mere filing of such a criminal
complaint, without the subsequent filing of an information in court, does not
occasion litis pendentia or res judicata that precludes the filing of a petition for the
issuance of a protection order.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GEORGE GACUSAN

G.R. No. 207776 / April 26, 2017
The abuse of moral influence is the intimidation required in rape committed by the
common-law father of a minor.
"[D]ifferent people react differently to a given type of situation, and there is no

standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange,
startling or frightful experience." One person may react aggressively, while another
may show cold indifference. Also, it is improper to judge the actions of children who
are victims of traumatic experiences "by the norms of behavior expected under the
circumstances from mature people." From AAA's view, it appeared that the danger of
losing a family was more excruciating than physical pain.
Furthermore, a victim should never be blemished for her lack of resistance to any
crime especially as heinous as rape. Neither the failure to shout nor the failure to
resist the act equate to a victim's voluntary submission to the appellant's lust.
/ Criminal Law / 15
MARIA THERESA G. GUTIERREZ vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

G.R. No. 200628 / January 13, 2015
A cashier who is found to have been negligent in keeping the funds in his or her
custody cannot be relieved from his or her accountability for amounts lost through
robbery.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CHAVEZ

G.R. No. 207950 / September 22, 2014
Every conviction for any crime must be accompanied by the required moral certainty
that the accused has committed the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution must prove "the offender's intent to take personal property before the
killing, regardless of the time when the homicide [was] actually carried out" in order
to convict for the crime of robbery with homicide. The accused may nevertheless be
convicted of the separate crime of homicide once the prosecution establishes beyond
reasonable doubt the accused's culpability for the victim's death.
RUEL TUANO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 205871 / June 27, 2016
Non-compliance with the requirements under Section 21 creates uncertainty on the

identity and integrity of the confiscated substance. It casts doubt on the guilt of the
accused. Sweeping statements on lack of significant lapse of time from apprehension
of the accused to submission of the confiscated sachet for testing should not be
considered sufficient to secure a conviction. Neither should prosecution rely on the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. This Court has held
that "[m]arking of the seized drugs alone by the law enforcers is not enough to
comply with the clear and unequivocal procedures prescribed in Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ABENIR BRUSOLA

G.R. No. 210615 / July 26, 2017
There is never any justification for a husband to hit his wife with a maso (mallet).
The promise of forever is not an authority for the other to own one's spouse. If
anything, it is an obligation to love and cherish despite his or her imperfections. To
be driven to anger, rage, or murder due to jealousy is not a manifestation of this
sacred understanding. One who professes love should act better than this. The
accused-appellant was never entitled to hurt, maim, or kill his spouse, no matter the
reasons. He committed a crime. He must suffer its consequences.
/ Criminal Law / 16
CAPISTRANO DAAYATA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 205745 / March 08, 2017
Pride, when unchecked, can waste our youth and cause the forfeiture of all meaning
in life, even in the most inconsequential things: in this case, a basketball game.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt charges the prosecution with the immense
responsibility of establishing moral certainty. The prosecution's case must rise on its
own merits, not merely on relative strength as against that of the defense. Should
the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, acquittal must follow as a matter of
course.
VAN CLIFFORD TORRES vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 206627 / January 18, 2017
Petitioner's act of whipping AAA on the neck with a wet t-shirt is an act that debases,
degrades, and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child. It is a form of
cruelty. Being smacked several times in a public place is a humiliating and
traumatizing experience for all persons regardless of age. Petitioner, as an adult,
should have exercised restraint and self-control rather than retaliate against a 14-
year-old child.
MONICO LIGTAS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 200751 / August 17, 2015
The uncontested declaration of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication

Board that Monico Ligtas was a tenant negates a finding of theft beyond reasonable
doubt. Tenants having rights to the harvest cannot be deemed to have taken their
own produce.
ANTHONY DE SILVA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 210266 / June 07, 2017
The possession and use of a counterfeit credit card is considered access device fraud
and is punishable by law. To successfully sustain a conviction for possession and use
of a counterfeit access device, the prosecution must present not only the access
device but also any evidence that proves that the access device is counterfeit.
/ Criminal Law / 17
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDILBERTO PUSING

G.R. No. 208009 / July 11, 2016
When a female minor alleges rape, "she says in effect all that is necessary to mean
that she has been raped.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSHUA QUE

G.R. No. 212994 / January 31, 2018
The chain of custody requirements in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act are
cast in precise, mandatory language. They are not stringent for stringency's own
sake. Rather, they are calibrated to preserve the even greater interest of due process
and the constitutional rights of those who stand to suffer from the State's legitimate
use of force, and therefore, stand to be deprived of liberty, property, and, should
capital punishment be imposed, life. This calibration balances the need for effective
prosecution of those involved in illegal drugs and the preservation of the most basic
liberties that typify our democratic order.
/ Criminal Law / 18
CASE DIGESTS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ABENIR BRUSOLA

G.R. No. 210615 / July 26, 2017
By: Atom
FACTS: In the Information, appellant Abenir was charged with the killing of his wife,
Delia Brusola as follows, that accused, being the husband of DELIA BRUSOLA, with
intent to kill and with the use of ball hammer, feloniously hit his said wife, with the
said ball hammer on her head, thereby causing fatal injury to the latter which directly
caused her death.
For his defense, appellant claimed that on the night of the incident, Abenir came
home. While he was preparing things, Delia went outside. She appeared to be waiting
for somebody. After taking a bath, she fixed her face. When Abenir asked if Delia was
going somewhere, she said it was none of his business. Abenir went to the bathroom
for his personal effects. While inside, he heard people talking outside and looked out
through a crack in the plywood wall. He saw a man and a woman kiss and identified
the woman as Delia, who told the man, "Huwag muna ngayon, nandiyan pa siya."
The man embraced her, and groped her breast and private parts. Abenir picked up
the maso, went outside, and approached them, who were surprised to see him.
Abenir attacked the man who used Delia as a shield and pushed her toward Abenir.
He asserted that he planned to attack the man whom he saw was with his wife but
accidentally hit Delia instead.
ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of parricide.
HELD: Yes. Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate
or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty
of parricide.
Here, there was no dispute as to the relationship between the accused-appellant and
the victim. As for the act of killing, their daughter Joanne clearly testified that she
suddenly saw her father hit the head of her mother with a small mallet. Joanne's
straightforward and candid narration of the incident is regarded as positive and
credible evidence, sufficient to convict the accused.
/ Criminal Law / 19
CAPISTRANO DAAYATA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 205745 / March 08, 2017
By: LegRes Lounge
FACTS: On December 17, 1995, Rolando O. Bahian alleged that Capistano Daataya
et al, conspiring mutually, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, assaulted,
box, kick and struck Bahian. This incident happen a day after a commotion incident
between the parties in the basketball court. Bahian Farther alleged that a stone was
thrown to his head by petitioners that causes depress frontal fracture, open frontal
bone, left, and advice for surgery. The petitioners pleaded not guilty.
The defense, apart from the three petitioners, offered the testimonies of Delfin Yafiez
(Delfin), Rodolfo Yafiez (Rodolfo), Danzon Daayata (Danzon) and Rosemarie Daayata
(Rosemarie ). Petitioners Salisi and Malacat claimed that they were having coffee at
the house of Vicente Daayata (Vicente), in the morning of December 17, 1995.
Bahian arrived with Kagawad Abalde, and called for Salisi to come out. When Salisi
acceded, Bahian challenged him to a fight and threw the first punch that started a
scuffle. In the course of the melee, Bahian took a swing for Salisi, who ducked,
causing Bahian to lose his balance. Bahian then fell on the pavement and hit his head.
Kagawad Abalde then drew a gun, poked it at Salisi, and threatened to kill him. For
his part, petitioner Daayata claimed that he was in his house, some 50 meters away
from Vicente's house when the incident recalled by petitioners Salisi and Malacat
transpired. He rushed to Vicente's house upon hearing a commotion. Farther said the
Barangay Captain Yafiez arrived after an hour. They added however, that in the
evening of December 16, while they were on their way home, Bahian waited for them
to pass by his house, where he challenged them to a fight. Defense witness Rodolfo
allegedly pacified Bahian.
Frustrated murder case was file against petitioners, the petitioners ordered guilty by
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City. The
petitioners appealed in the court of appeals but affirmed guilty. However, Bahian
Medical Certificates showed no injury other than that on fore head. Bahian during the
questioning admitted that the injury on the forehead was cause by accidentally he
hit the edge of the concrete pavement.
ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of petitioners
beyond reasonable doubt, a ground for acquittal of the petitioners?
HELD: Yes, the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of petitioners beyond
reasonable doubt, a ground for acquittal of the petitioners.
/ Criminal Law / 20
The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is guaranteed
under Section 14(2), Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
This fundamental right of the accused is also embodied under Section 2, Rule 133 of
the Rules of Court, which specifically states that "in a criminal case, the accused is
entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility
of error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or that degree
of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind."
/ Criminal Law / 21
VAN CLIFFORD TORRES vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 206627 / January 18, 2017
By: LegRes Lounge
FACTS: On November 3, 2003, CCC and AAA were at the barangay hall of Clarin,
Bohol waiting for the conciliation proceedings to begin when they chanced upon
Torres who had just arrived from fishing. CCC's wife, who was also with them at the
barangay hall, persuaded Torres to attend the conciliation proceedings to answer for
his liability. Torres vehemently denied damaging CCC's multicab. In the middle of the
brewing argument, AAA suddenly interjected that Torres damaged CCC's multicab
and accused him of stealing CCC's fish nets. Torres told AAA not to pry in the affairs
of adults. He warned AAA that he would whip him if he did not stop. However, AAA
refused to keep silent and continued to accuse Torres of damaging his uncle's
multicab. Infuriated with AAA's meddling, Torres whipped AAA on the neck using a
wet t-shirt. Torres continued to hit AAA causing the latter to fall down from the stairs.
CCC came to his nephew's defense and punched Torres. They engaged in a fistfight
until they were separated by Barangay Captain Hermilando Miano. Torres hit AAA
with a wet t-shirt three (3) times. Based on the physical examination conducted by
Dr. Vicente Manalo, Jr., AAA sustain a contusion.
After the prosecution rested its case, the defense presented the following version of
the incident: Torres testified that he had just arrived tired from fishing when CCC
badgered him to answer for the damage he had allegedly caused to CCC's multicab.
AAA abruptly interrupted the heated discussion between the two men. Angered by
what AAA had done, Torres told AAA to stop making unfounded accusations or he
would be forced to whip him. AAA called Torres' bluff, which further provoked Torres.
Torres attempted to hit AAA but was thwarted by the timely intervention of CCC, who
suddenly attacked. Torres claimed that CCC filed this case to preempt him from filing
a complaint for physical injuries against CCC. He also claimed that he tried to settle
the matter with CCC and CCC's wife. However, the parties failed to reach an
agreement due to the unreasonable demands of the spouses.
ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining his conviction
on a judgment premised on a misapprehension of facts; and
(2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction despite the
failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD: This Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court. The
trial court neither disregarded nor overlooked any material fact or circumstance that
would substantially alter the case. The presence or absence of one person during the
/ Criminal Law / 22
incident is not substantial enough to overturn the finding that petitioner whipped AAA
three (3) times with a wet t-shirt. Assuming, without admitting, that petitioner did
whip AAA, petitioner argues that it should not be considered as child abuse because
the law requires intent to abuse. Petitioner maintains that he whipped AAA merely to
discipline and restrain the child "from further intensifying the situation." He also
maintains that his act was justified because AAA harassed and vexed him. Thus,
petitioner claims that there could not have been any intent to abuse on his part.
Petitioner contends that the injuries sustained by AAA will not affect the latter's
physical growth or development and mental capacity. He argues that he could not be
convicted of child abuse without proof that the victim's development had been
prejudiced.
He begs the indulgence of this Court and claims that his conviction would only serve
as a "precedent to all children to act recklessly, errantly and disobediently" and would
then create a society ruled by juvenile delinquency and errant behavior. If at all,
petitioner claims that he could only be convicted of slight physical injuries under the
Revised Penal Code for the contusion sustained by AAA. Respondent maintains that
the act of whipping AAA is an act of child abuse. Respondent argues that the act
complained of need not be prejudicial to the development of the child for it to
constitute a violation of Republic Act No. 7610. Respondent, citing Sanchez v. People,
argues that Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 defines and punishes four distinct
acts. We reject petitioner's contention that his act of whipping AAA is not child abuse
but merely slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code. The victim, AAA,
was a child when the incident occurred. Therefore, AAA is entitled to protection under
Republic Act No. 7610, the primary purpose of which has been defined in Araneta v.
People thus:
Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the implementation of a national
comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable members of the
population, the Filipino children, in keeping with the Constitutional mandate under
Article XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that "The State shall defend the right of the
children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection
from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial
to their development."
/ Criminal Law / 23
MONICO LIGTAS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 200751 / August 17, 2015
By: Christiaan Castillo
FACTS: Ligtas was charged with the crime of theft under Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code. Ligtas pleaded not guilty. According to the prosecution witnesses, Anecita
Pacate was the owner of an abaca plantation.
On June 29, 2000, Cabero, the plantation's administrator, and several men, including
Cipres, went to the plantation to harvest abaca upon Anecita Pacate's instructions.
At about 10:00 a.m., Cabero and his men were surprised to find Ligtas harvesting
abaca at the plantation. Ligtas was accompanied by three (3) unidentified men.
Allegedly, Ligtas threatened that there would be loss of life if they persisted in
harvesting the abaca. Cabero reported the incident to Anecita Pacate and the police.
On July 3, 2000, Ligtas and Anecita Pacate confronted each other before the Sogod
Police Station. Ligtas admitted to harvesting the abaca but claimed that he was the
plantation owner.
According to Ligtas, he had been a tenant of Anecita Pacate and her late husband,
Andres Pacate since 1993. Andres Pacate installed him as tenant of the 1.5 to two
hectares of land involved in the criminal case.
Ligtas filed a Complaint before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) of Sogod, Southern Leyte for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession on
November 21, 2000. On January 22, 2002, the DARAB rendered the Decision ruling
that Ligtas was a bona fide tenant of the land.
While records are bereft as to when the DARAB Decision was formally offered as
evidence before the trial court, records are clear that the DARAB Decision was
considered by both the trial court and Court of Appeals and without any objection on
the part of the People of the Philippines.
In the Decision dated August 16, 2006, the Regional Trial Court held that "the
prosecution was able to prove the elements of theft[.]" Ligtas' "defense of tenancy
was not supported by concrete and substantial evidence nor was his claim of harvest
sharing between him and [Anecita Pacate] duly corroborated by any witness. "His
"defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by prosecution
witnesses."
/ Criminal Law / 24
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court. According to it, "the burden
to prove the existence of the tenancy relationship" belonged to Ligtas. He was not
able to establish all the essential elements of a tenancy agreement.
The Court of Appeals declared that Ligtas' reliance on the DARAB Decision "declaring
him as a bonafide tenant of the land is irrelevant in the case at bar."
ISSUE: Whether the DARAB Decision, finding petitioner Monico Ligtas as tenant of
the land owned by private complainant Anecita Pacate is conclusive or can be taken
judicial notice of in a criminal case for theft.
HELD: The issue of tenancy, in that whether a person is an agricultural tenant or not,
is generally a question of fact. To be precise, however, the existence of a tenancy
relationship is a legal conclusion based on facts presented corresponding to the
statutory elements of tenancy.
The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in its assailed Decision when it held
that all the essential elements of the crime of theft were duly proven by the
prosecution despite petitioner having been pronounced a bona fide tenant of the land
from which he allegedly stole. A review of the records of the case is, thus, proper to
arrive at a just and equitable resolution.
We hold that a DARAB decision on the existence of a tenancy relationship is conclusive

and binding on courts if supported by substantial evidence.
Generally, decisions in administrative cases are not binding on criminal proceedings.

This court has ruled in a number of cases that:
It is indeed a fundamental principle of administrative law that administrative cases

are independent from criminal actions for the same act or omission. Thus, an
absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution, or
vice versa.
One thing is administrative liability; quite another thing is the criminal liability for the
same act.
Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure
followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the
findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other.
Notably, the evidence presented in the administrative case may not necessarily be
the same evidence to be presented in the criminal cases.
/ Criminal Law / 25
However, this case does not involve an administrative charge stemming from the
same set of facts involved in a criminal proceeding. This is not a case where one act
results in both criminal and administrative liability. DARAB Case No. VIII-319-SL-
2000 involves a determination of whether there exists a tenancy relationship between
petitioner and private complainant, while Criminal Case No. R-225 involves
determination of whether petitioner committed theft. However, the tenancy
relationship is a factor in determining whether all the elements of theft were... proven
by the prosecution.
Private complainant did not appeal the DARAB's findings.
Findings of fact of administrative agencies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial

powers are entitled to respect if supported by substantial evidence. This court is not
tasked to weigh again "the evidence submitted before the administrative body and...
to substitute its own judgment [as to] the sufficiency of evidence."
The DARAB is the quasi-judicial tribunal that has the primary jurisdiction to determine
whether there is a tenancy relationship between adverse parties. This court has held
that "judicial determinations [of the a DARAB] have the same binding effect as
judgments and orders of a regular judicial body."
The DARAB, in DARAB Case No. VIII-319-SL-2000, held that all the essential
elements of a tenancy relationship were proven by petitioner. It found that there was
substantial evidence to support petitioner's claim as tenant of the land. In rendering
the Decision, the DARAB examined pleadings and affidavits of both petitioner and
private complainant. It was convinced by petitioner's evidence, which consisted of
sworn statements of petitioner's witnesses that petitioner was installed as tenant by
Andres Pacate sometime in 1993. Petitioner and Andres Pacate had an agreement to
share the produce after harvest. However, Andres Pacate had died before the first
harvest.
Petitioner then gave the landowner's share to private complainant, and had done so
every harvest until he was disturbed in his cultivation of the land on June 29, 2000.
We emphasize that after filing her Answer before the DARAB, private complainant
failed to heed the Notices sent to her and refused to attend the scheduled hearings.
It is true that trial courts are not mandated to take judicial notice of decisions of other
courts or even records of other cases that have been tried or are pending in the same
court or before the same judge.
In declaring that the DARAB's findings on the tenancy relationship between petitioner
and private complainant are immaterial to the criminal case for theft, the Court of
/ Criminal Law / 26
Appeals relied on Rollo, et al. v. Leal Realty Centrum Co., Inc., et al. in Rollo, this
court did not categorically hold that the DARAB's findings were merely provisional
and, thus, not binding on courts.
In this case, records are bereft as to whether private complainant appealed the
DARAB Decision. Thus, it is presumed that the Decision has long lapsed into finality.
It is also established that private complainant participated in the initial stages of the
DARAB proceedings. Therefore, the issue of the existence of a tenancy relationship
is final as between the parties. We cannot collaterally review the DARAB's findings at
this stage. The existence of the final Decision that tenancy exists creates serious
doubts as to the guilt of the accused.
/ Criminal Law / 27
ANTHONY DE SILVA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 210266 / June 07, 2017
By: LegRes Lounge
FACTS: This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision dated
July 4, 2013 and Resolution dated November 26, 2013 of the Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the conviction of petitioner Anthony De Silva Cruz (Cruz) by the Regional
Trial Court for violation of Republic Act No. 8484, otherwise known as the Access
Devices Regulation Act of 1998. Cruz was charged with violation of Section 9 (a) and
(e) of Republic Act No. 8484, which provide the Section 9.
Prohibited Acts. - The following acts shall constitute access device fraud and are
hereby declared to be unlawful: (a) producing, using, trafficking in one or more
counterfeit access devices; and (e) possessing one or more counterfeit access devices
or access devices fraudulently applied for. He was charged with Criminal Case No.
06-0479, Criminal Case No. 06-0480 and Criminal Case No. 06-0481. Cruz was
arraigned on October 17, 2006, where he pleaded not guilty for each charge.
According to the prosecution, on April 18, 2006, at around 7:30 p.m., Cruz allegedly
tried to purchase two (2) bottles of Calvin Klein perfume worth US$96.00 from Duty
Free Philippines Fiesta Mall. Danilo Wong (Wong), the cashier at the Perfume Section,
testified that Cruz paid for the purchase using a Citibank Visa credit card. The
transaction was approved, although Wong doubted the validity of the credit card since
the number at the back was not aligned. At around 8:00 p.m., Cruz allegedly tried to
purchase a pair of Ferragamo shoes worth US$363.00. Ana Margarita Lim (Lim), the
cashier on duty, facilitated the sales transaction. Cruz paid for the purchase using a
Citibank Visa credit card bearing the name "Gerry Santos," with credit card number
4539 7207 8677 7008. When Lim asked for Cruz's Duty Free shopping card, Cruz
presented a shopping card with the name of "Rodolfo Garcia." Lim asked for another
identification card, and Cruz gave her a driver's license bearing the name "Gerry
Santos."
Lim proceeded to the mall's Electronic Section to swipe the credit card for approval.
The card was approved, but she noticed that the last four (4) digits of the card were
not properly embossed and its validity date started in November 2006. She called
Citibank to verify the credit card. Upon verification, Citibank informed Lim that the
credit card was counterfeit and that the real Gerry Santos was the Head of Citibank's
Fraud Risk Management Division. Lim was advised to transfer the matter to the
Security Department. Redentor Quejada, Security Supervisor of Duty Free
Philippines, testified that he and two (2) other guards held Cruz and his companion,
/ Criminal Law / 28
Rodolfo De Silva Cruz, at the security office until the representative from Citibank
arrived.
At around 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Gerardo T. Santos, Head of Citibank's Fraud Risk
Management Division, arrived with members of the Philippine National Police -
Criminal Investigation Detective Group, together with a certain Atty. Abad Santos,
who was allegedly Cruz's lawyer. Before Redentor Quejada could turn Cruz over to
the police, Cruz tried to escape with the help of Atty. Abad Santos. The security
officers, however, were able to close the mall's main gate, which prevented their
escape. Cruz and Rodolfo De Silva Cruz were turned over to the Criminal Investigation
Detective Group and brought to Camp Crame for questioning. Citibank Visa credit
card number 4539 7207 8677 7008 was also turned over to the Criminal Investigation
Detective Group. Gerardo T. Santos testified that he first heard of Cruz's name in
May 2004. Cruz and his wife Aileen were then managing Antonely's Fabric Warehouse
and were involved in incidents related to credit card fraud.
Santos did not file a case against them for lack of basis. He came across Cruz's name
again in 2005, with regard to a fraudulent transaction with a Thai restaurant in
Shoemart Megamall. He also testified that the credit card number was validly issued
to a certain Jessamine Bongat, and that the counterfeit credit card had been
previously used on several fraudulent occasions.
ISSUE: Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
petitioner was guilty of violating Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484.
Corollary to this is whether the counterfeit access device can still be presented in trial
despite not having been presented and marked during pre-trial.
HELD: Yes. Petitioner was found in possession of Citibank Visa credit card number
4539 7207 8677 7008, which bore the name "Gerry Santos."
He used the same credit card to purchase Ferragamo shoes worth US$363.00 at Duty
Free Fiesta Mall. Citibank Visa credit card number 4539 7207 8677 7008 was later
proven to be a counterfeit access device. Republic Act No. 8484, otherwise known as
the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998, defines an access device as: any card,
plate, code, account number, electronic serial number, personal identification
number, or other telecommunications service, equipment, or instrumental identifier,
or other means of account access that can be used to obtain money, good, services,
or any other thing of value or to initiate a transfer of funds (other than a transfer
originated solely by paper instrument). Since a credit card is "any card, plate, coupon
book, or other credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, goods,
property, labor or services or anything of value on credit," it is considered an access
device.
/ Criminal Law / 29
Section 9(a) and (e) make the possession and use of a counterfeit access device as
"access device fraud" that is punishable by law: SECTION 9. Prohibited Acts. - The
following acts shall constitute access device fraud and are hereby declared to be
unlawful: (a) producing, using, trafficking in one or more counterfeit access devices;
(e) possessing one or more counterfeit access devices or access devices fraudulently
applied for. A counterfeit access device is "any access device that is counterfeit,
fictitious, altered, or forged, or an identifiable component of an access device or
counterfeit access device." Under Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484, the
possession and use of an access device is not illegal. Rather, what is prohibited is the
possession and use of a counterfeit access device.
Therefore, the corpus delicti of the crime is not merely the access device, but also
any evidence that proves that it is counterfeit. Possession of a counterfeit access
device is punishable by imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and not more
than 10 years and a fine of ₱l0,000.00 or twice the value obtained by the offense,
whichever is higher. On the other hand, use of a counterfeit access device is
punishable by imprisonment of not less 10 years but not more than 12 years and a
fine of ₱l0,000.00 or twice the value obtained by the offense, whichever is higher.
/ Criminal Law / 30
Case Digests for Bar Exams
/ Criminal Law / 31

2020 Justice Marvic Leonen Case Digests: Jofrey Q. Botor, JR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 Justice Marvic Leonen Case Digests: Jofrey Q. Botor, JR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS

JOFREY Q. BOTOR, JR.

Supreme Court E-Library

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELMER AVANCENA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SEGFRED L. OROZCO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NADY MAGALLANO, JR.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NANCY LASACA RAMIREZ

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GAJIR ACUB

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GLORIA CAIZ

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MONIR JAAFAR

Non-observance of the mandatory requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LAHMODIN AMERIL

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. OLIVER A. BUCLAO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SHIRLEY A. CASIO

NICOLAS VELASQUEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERNESTO SAGANA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. KING REX A. AMBATANG

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JAIME SEGUNDO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAMON FRANCICA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PEDRITO ORDONA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDGARDO ROYOL

Complete and utter noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements of

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLANDO TERNIDA

The failure of law enforcers in buy-bust operations to photograph seized drugs in

ARIEL LOPEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Further, a "request for appearance" issued by law enforcers to a person identified as

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PABLO LUAD ARMODIA

The rape of a minor constitutes moral depravity of the highest order.

ANTONIETA LUCIDO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JULITO DIVINAGRACIA, SR.

"Pa, don't do that[,] Pa."

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ABUNDIO M. SARAGENA

When the quantity of the confiscated substance is miniscule, the requirements of

The prosecution's failure to sufficiently establish the chain of custody in accordance

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SIEGFRED CABELLON CABAÑERO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EMMA BOFILL PANGAN

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LINA ACHIENG NOAH

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DIOSCORO COMOSO TUREMUTSA

The presentation of the confidential informants as witnesses for the

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUANITO ENTRAMPAS

MARLON BACERRA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

A number of circumstantial evidence may be so credible to establish a fact from which

RYAN MARIANO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JULIETO BORJA

Extortion done by police themselves amounting to kidnapping with ransom

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DELIA SAUNAR

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BERNIE CONCEPCION

CHRISTINE FERNANDEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Courts expect minor inconsistencies when a child-victim narrates the details of a

AUGUSTO REGALADO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

JESUS APARENTE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Where the amount of narcotics seized is miniscule, a stricter adherence to the

MARIA C. OSORIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ZZZ

Recantations are viewed unfavorably especially in rape cases. Circumstances in which

PEDRO PEREZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

The aggressive expression of infatuation from a 12-year-old girl is never an invitation

STEVEN R. PAVLOW vs. CHERRY L. MENDENILLA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GEORGE GACUSAN

"[D]ifferent people react differently to a given type of situation, and there is no

MARIA THERESA G. GUTIERREZ vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CHAVEZ