MARLON BACERRA vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

The identity of the perpetrator of a crime and a finding of guilt may rest solely on the
strength of circumstantial evidence.

2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS

/ 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
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
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
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
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

2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS

/ Criminal Law / 12
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
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.
The accused-appellant is guilty of Rape and Slight Illegal Detention.
CHRISTINE FERNANDEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
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
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.
JESUS APARENTE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
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

2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS

/ Criminal Law / 13
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
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.
As a rule, an accused can only be convicted of the crime with which he or she is
charged. This rule proceeds from the Constitutional guarantee that an accused shall
always be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her. An
exception to this is the rule on variance under Rule 120 of Rules on Criminal
Procedure when there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or
information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily
includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved
which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included
in the offense proved.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ZZZ
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.
If the crime did not really happen, AAA would have made the Affidavit at the earliest
instance—but she did not. Instead, she executed it more than two (2) years after the
crime had been committed. If the crime did not really happen, she would not have
submitted herself to physical examination or hours of questioning—but she did.
Moreover, her recollection on how accused-appellant committed the crime was
detailed; her testimony, consistent.
PEDRO PEREZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
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.

2020 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DIGESTS

/ 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.
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
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
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.
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.