U.P.
LAW BOC lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
RECENT JURISPRUDENCE
2019
CASE FACTS
Ha Datu Tawahig Roderick Sumatra was
v. Lapinid charged with the rape of
Lorraine Igot. He moved to
G.R. No. 221139 quash the information on
March 20, 2019 the ground that, citing
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights
Act (IPRA), the RTC had no
jurisdiction over his person
as the controversy was a
dispute involving indigenous
cultural communities over
which customary laws must
apply.
RTC denied the motion to
quash. Relying on the
IPRA, he petitions for
mandamus to compel
Judge Singco and public
prosecutors of Cebu City to
honor a resolution by the
Dadantulan Tribal Court
absolving him of criminal,
civil, and administrative
liability, and to release him
from jail.
Tupaz v. Office This is a Rule 65, ROC
of the Deputy petition for certiorari against
Ombudsman for the consolidated evaluation
the Visayas report Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Visayas
G.R. Nos. who repeatedly dismissed
212491-92, the petitioner’s complaint
March 6, 2019 against the Registrar of
Page 1 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
HELD DOCTRINE
ISSUE: Whether the Courts of law have
IPRA compels courts of jurisdiction over
law to desist from persons of IPs/ICCs
taking cognizance of where criminal offenses
criminal cases involving are concerned.
indigenous peoples? -
NO
Sec. 15 of the IPRA
provides that
indigenous cultural
communities have the
right to use their own
commonly accepted
justice systems as may
be compatible with the
national legal system
and with internationally
recognized human
rights.
A crime is an offense
against the State, and
basic precepts
underlying crimes make
it improper for the State
to yield disputes
involving criminal
offenses to indigenous
peoples’ customary
laws and practices.
ISSUE: Was there (1) Determination of
grave abuse of probable cause by a
discretion on part of public prosecutor is an
Ombudsman in failing executive function.
to address the charges They cannot be
of graft and corruption? compelled to file a
- YES particular criminal
information. It is
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Deeds of Caterman
Northern Samar and a
private respondent, which
alleged violations of RA No.
3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corruption Practices Act).
The Ombudsman dismissed
the complaint for reasons of
prematurity, arguing that the
petitioner has the " option to
again lodge the same
complaint as long as the
issue on ownership of the
subject property has been
settled by the proper court.”
People v. Royol Royol, a garbage collector,
was charged for violating
G.R. No. 224297 Sec. 5 of RA No. 9165
February 13, 2019 (Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act) for allegedly
selling dried marijuana.
Page 2 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
(1) Probable cause for undisturbed by the
the filing of an court unless if it is
information is "a matter tainted by grave abuse
which rests on of discretion.
likelihood rather than
on certainty. It relies on (2) Elements of Sec. 3
common sense rather (e), RA No. 3019:
than on 'clear and Offender is a public
convincing evidence.'" officer
Determining probable Act was done in the
cause must be made in discharge of the public
reference to the officer’s official,
elements of the crime administrative or
charged. judicial functions
Act was done through
(2) Sec. 3(e) of the patent partiality, evident
Anti-Graft and bad faith, or gross
Corruption Practices inexcusable
can be done though negligence; and
patent partiality, evident Public officer caused
bad faith or gross undue injury to any
inexcusable negligence party or gave
(See: doctrine for unwarranted benefits,
elements) advantage or
preference
IN THIS CASE: The
crime was committed
when the registrar
cancelled the
petitioner’s TCT and
accepted the private
respondent’s mutilated
TCT. Based on the
evidence, Espenesin
acted with
gross inexcusable
negligence for not
complying with the
procedure provided for
by law in the issuance
of condominium
certificates of title and
registration of property.
He also failed to review
the documents required
to be submitted.
ISSUE: Whether (1) Elements to
Royol’s guilt was as to establish illegal sale of
illegal sale of drugs dangerous drugs:
was proven beyond Proof that the
reasonable doubt?- NO transaction took place;
and
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Royol contends that some
policemen were looking for
a man named Saguisag and
after two teenagers pointed
to him as Saguisag, the
men immediately
handcuffed him, took his
money, and compelled him
to board a car. In the car,
he was shown marijuana
and asked if it was his,
which he denied.
He was found guilty by the
RTC, which was affirmed by
the CA.
People v. Nancy Ramirez was
Ramirez charged with qualified
trafficking of persons in
G.R. No. 217978 relation to Sec. 4(e) of RA
January 30, 2019 No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in
Persons Act), which
provides that it is unlawful
for anyone "to maintain or
hire a person to engage in
Page 3 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
Proof beyond Presentation in court of
reasonable doubt corpus delicti
demands moral
certainty. Sec. 21 of RA (2) Sec. 21 of RA No.
No. 9165 provides for 9165 must be complied
the chain of custody with to protect the
requirements. integrity of seized,
Specifically, it requires confiscated, and/or
proper physical surrendered drugs/drug
inventory and paraphernalia. Failure
photographing in the to comply constitutes
presence of at least failure to establish the
three (3) persons: (1) identity of the corpus
the accused or his or delicti. Consequently, it
her counsel; (2) an can lead to the
elected public official; accused's acquittal.
and (3) a Conviction cannot be
representative of the sustained by a mere
National Prosecution presumption of
Service or media. regularity and the
approximation of
IN THIS CASE: There compliance.
is no semblance of
compliance with Sec. (3) Mere marking of
21(1). The only support seized items, instead of
for the prosecution’s a proper physical
assertion of the inventory and
integrity of the photographing done in
marijuana is its bare the presence of the
claim that it was persons specified
marked at the under Sec. 21 will not
Provincial Police Office, justify a conviction:
with a lack of proper
inventory and
photographing. The
prosecution cannot
benefit from a
presumption of
regularity in this case.
Self-serving
assurances cannot
replace reliable
evidence.
ISSUE: Whether (1) The victim's consent
Ramirez’ guilt as to may be rendered
trafficking was meaningless due to the
established beyond coercive, abusive, or
reasonable doubt? - deceptive means
YES employed by
perpetrators of human
This Court in People v. trafficking.
Rodriguez
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
prostitution or
pornography”.
The accused maintained or
hired girls to engage in
prostitution and offered
them for sex or any form of
sexual exploitation to
poseur customers. The
prosecution alleged that
PO1 Nemenzo and 13 other
members of the Regional
Anti-Human Trafficking
Task Force conducted an
entrapment operation
“based on their surveillance
of a widespread sexual
service for sale by young
girls” in the area.
Ramirez was convicted by
the RTC (affirmed by the
CA).
People v. Lita Lita and Malinis, along with
Barangay Chair Benito
G.R. No. 227755 Moncada, Requitud, Piliin,
Page 4 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
acknowledged that as (2) Even without the
with Casio, the use of coercive,
corroborating abusive, or deceptive
testimonies of the means, the crime may
arresting officer and the be committed when the
minor victims were accused takes
sufficient to sustain a advantage of a
conviction under the person’s vulnerability,
law. In People v. such as in the case of
Spouses Ybanez, et al., minors.
this Court likewise
affirmed the conviction (3) The corroborating
of traffickers arrested testimonies of the
based on a surveillance arresting officer and the
report on the minor victims is
prostitution of minors sufficient to sustain a
within the area. conviction under the
RA No. 9208.
IN THIS CASE: The
prosecution established
that accused
approached PO1
Nemenzo and offered
him the sexual services
of four (4) girls, two (2)
of whom were minors.
Both minor victims
testified that this
incident was not the
first time that the
accused pimped them
out to customers, and
that any payment to
them would include the
payment of commission
to the accused.
Moreover, the accused
cannot use as a valid
defense either BBB's
and AAA's consent to
the transaction, or that
BBB received the
payment on her behalf.
When she hired the
children to engage in
prostitution, she took
advantage of their
vulnerability as minors.
ISSUE: Whether Lita (1) It is axiomatic that
and Laminis’ guilt as to slight variations in the
murder was established testimony of a witness
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
August 14, 2019 Obrador, Pondano, Amada,
and Consul were charged
with the murder of Hipolito
thru conspiracy, evident
premeditation, intent to kill,
treachery, and use of
unlicensed firearms after a
barangay Christmas party.
Nonilon, Hopito’s nephew,
witnessed his uncle’s
murder as he followed his
uncle. His uncle’s dying
words revealed the identity
of the assailants. Though
there were minor
inconsistencies in Nonilon’s
testimony as to the number
of shots fired and where
they landed, it was held
sufficient to establish
concerted action of Consul,
Amada, Piliin, Lita, and
Malinis.
Lita and Malinis’ appealed
on the grounds of Nonilon’s
inconsistent testimony, their
alibi, and voluntary
surrender. These were
dismissed.
People v. Comoso was charged for
Comoso selling illegal drugs after
being caught by PO2
G.R. No. 227497 Aquino and PO3 Fernandez
April 10, 2019 in a buy-bust operation
based on information from a
civilian asset, who also
posed as buyer in the
operation.
Page 5 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
beyond reasonable as to minor details or
doubt? - YES. collateral matters do
not affect his or her
(1) The RTC’s credibility as these
assignment of variations are in fact
probative value to indicative of truth and
testimonial evidence show that the witness
will not be disturbed was not coached to
except when significant fabricate or dissemble.
matters were An inconsistency,
overlooked. A reversal which has nothing to do
of its findings becomes with the elements of a
even less likely when crime, is not a ground
affirmed by the Court of to reverse a conviction.
Appeals. [People v. Nelmida,
694 Phil. 529 (2012)]
(2) Regarding the
inconsistency of (2) The essence of
Nonilon’s testimony, it voluntary surrender is
was deemed to be spontaneity and the
credible even with intent of the accused to
minor inconsistencies give himself up and
because it is indicative submit himself
of spontaneity and unconditionally to the
shows that the witness authorities either
was not coached. because he
acknowledges his guilt
ISSUE: Whether the or he wishes to save
mitigating circumstance the authorities the
of voluntary surrender trouble and expense
is present? – NO. that may be incurred for
his search and capture.
The accused did not [People v. Garcia, 577
surrender voluntarily as Phil. 483 (2008)]
they did not give
themselves up to the
authorities and
acknowledged their
guilt. Instead, they
submitted to the
authorities and pleaded
not guilty.
ISSUE: Whether (1) Informant need not
Comoro’s guilt as to testify in all cases;
illegal sale of there is no need to
dangerous drugs was present the confidential
established beyond informant if the
reasonable doubt? - testimony would merely
NO corroborate the
testimonies of those
(1) While the informant/ who actually witnessed
poseur-buyer in this the transaction.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
PO2 Aquino prepared the
inventory of the items
seized upon return to the
police station. 10 days later,
the seized items were sent
to the forensic chemist
where the specimens tested
positive for marijuana.
RTC found Comoso guilty,
as affirmed by the CA.
Comoso argues that the
informant was never
presented as a witness, and
that the identity of the
corpus delicti was not
properly established.
People v. Noah Noah, a Kenyan national,
was charged for violating
G.R. No. 228880 Art. II, Sec. 5 of RA No.
03/06/2019 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act).
Upon Noah’s arrival in the
Philippines, Customs
Examiner Landicho found
that her bag was
suspiciously padded and,
upon examination, found 7
packages that yielded
Page 6 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
case was not presented However, where the
to testify, PO2 Aquino’s informant is also the
testimony that he poseur-buyer, he must
witnessed the testify.
transaction was
sufficient enough to (2) Absence of any
prove the transaction justification as to why
took place. the police officer failed
to comply with the
(2) Prosecution failed to chain of custody
establish every link in requirements of Sec.
the chain of custody. It 21, RA 10640 renders
was unclear (a) if PO2 the search invalid.
Aquino conducted the
inventory before the (3) Links in the chain of
accused, (b) if the custody:
accused signed the Seizure and marking of
inventory, and (c) if the illegal drug
PO2 Aquino turned the Turnover of the illegal
items over to an drug seized by the
investigating officer. apprehending officer to
Also, the forensic the investigating officer
chemist received the Turnover by the
items 10 working days investigating officer to
after the buy-bust, the forensic chemist for
beyond the 24-hour laboratory examination
period required by RA Turnover and
10640. Neither was submission of the
there a showing that an marked illegal drug
elected public official seized from the
and a representative of forensic chemist to the
the National court.
Prosecution Service or
the media were present (4) Submission of the
to sign the inventory, as confiscated drug must
required by RA 10640. be submitted to the
PDEA Forensic
Laboratory for
examination within 24-
hours.
ISSUE: Whether (1) To prove illegal
Noah’s guilt as to illegal transportation of
sale of dangerous dangerous drugs; it
drugs was proven must be established
beyond reasonable that:
doubt? – YES Transportation of illegal
drugs was committed;
It was proven that Noah and
had the illegal drugs in Prohibited drug exists
her possession upon Note: Proof of
her arrival in the ownership is
Philippines. This immaterial.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
positive for
methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.
In her defense, Noah
asserts that the luggage
was only given to her by an
unidentified man while she
was in her employment
recruiter’s office.
The RTC (affirmed by CA)
found her guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
People v. Merando was charged with
Merando a violation of Sec. 5 of RA
No. 9165 (Comprehensive
G.R. No. 232620 Dangerous Drugs Act) for
August 5, 2019 selling marijuana. He was
arrested in a buy-bust
operation. The drugs were
photographed and
inventoried, which were
later signed by barangay
officials. He pled not guilty
to the arraignment.
As the sole witness for the
defense, he alleged that he
was on his way home when
PO1 Reyes apprehended
him without telling him what
crime he had committed
and was accused of selling
marijuana. Reyes brought
out a sachet of marijuana
and made him sign a
document. Thereafter, he
was told that he would be
charged for violating Secs.
5 and 11 of RA No. 9165.
The RTC (affirmed by CA)
found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
Page 7 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
satisfies the elements
of the crime. (2) There must be an
established chain of
This Court is convinced custody, which is the
that the apprehending duly recorded
officers have complied authorized movements
with the requirements and custody of the
under Sec. 21. The seized items at each
chain of custody was stage. The level of
also established, from strictness depends on
the seizure at the the exhibit’s level of
airport to when the susceptibility to
drugs were presented tampering.
in court.
When the identity of the
corpus delicti is
compromised because
of non-compliance with
protocol, the accused’s
acquittal is warranted.
ISSUE: Whether (1) Elements to
Merando’s guilt as to establish illegal sale of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs:
dangerous drugs was Proof that the
proven beyond transaction took place;
reasonable doubt? – and
NO Presentation in court of
corpus delicti
RA No. 9165 (before
amendment) requires (2)Unjustified
strict compliance with noncompliance with the
the chain of custody chain of custody
requirements, which procedure put the
includes the presence identity and integrity of
of representatives from the seized dangerous
the DOJ, the media, drug in doubt. When
and an elected public there is reasonable
official during the doubt, an accused
seizure of evidence, must be acquitted.
inventory, and
photographing. (3) Under the
Implementing Rules
IN THIS CASE: The and Regulations of RA
arresting officers had No. 9165,
19 hours to secure the noncompliance with the
presence of these law's requirements may
witnesses yet failed to be allowed only if the
do so. They also failed arresting officers: (1)
to photograph the items offer a justifiable
at the place of arrest ground; and (2) are
simultaneously with the able to prove that the
inventory. integrity and evidentiary
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. Dela Dela Cruz was convicted for
Cruz violation of Secs. 5 and 11,
Art. II of RA No. 9165
G.R. No. 229053 (Comprehensive Dangerous
July 17, 2019 Drugs Act) for the illegal
sale and possession of
marijuana, respectively.
The police alleged that Dela
Cruz was caught in a buy-
bust operation, whereas the
defendant claimed that he
was picked up by armed
unidentified men in civilian
clothes.
The defendant assails his
conviction on the ground
that the police officers failed
to comply with Sec. 21 of
RA No. 9165 and that there
was no valid justification for
such lapses.
Department of Yambao, a Customs
Finance - Operation Officer, was
Revenue accused of falsification of
Integrity public documents and
Protection perjury, in violation of RA
Services v. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct
Yambao and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and
G.R. Nos. 220632 Employees), and of RA No.
and 220634 1379 (An Act Declaring
November 6, 2019 Forfeiture in Favor of the
State Any Property Found
Page 8 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
Noncompliance with value of the seized
the requirements may items, despite
be allowed if there is a noncompliance, have
justifiable ground for been properly
doing so and if the preserved.
integrity and evidentiary
value of the items is
preserved, but that was
not the case here.
Merando is acquitted.
ISSUE: Whether Dela (1) Elements to
Cruz’ conviction should establish illegal sale of
be upheld? – NO. dangerous drugs:
Proof that the
In the original Sec. 21 transaction took place;
of RA No. 9165, before and
it was amended and Presentation in court of
relaxed by RA No. corpus delicti
10640, the following
should be present (2) Whenever there is
during inventory: (a) an unjustified
media representative, noncompliance with the
(b) DOJ representative, chain of custody
and (c) any elected requirements, the
official. prosecution cannot
invoke the presumption
IN THIS CASE: The of regularity in the
buy-bust was before performance of official
RA No. 10640. Hence, duty to conveniently
all three should have disregard such lapse.
been present. In this
case, none were. (3)Noncompliance
obliterates proof of guilt
Moreover, the police beyond reasonable
and prosecution failed doubt, warranting an
to provide any accused's acquittal.
justifiable grounds for Thus, the constitutional
the lapses in the right to presumption of
procedural innocence prevails.
requirements.
ISSUE: Whether the (1) The Court does not
Office of the interfere with the
Ombudsman erred in exercise of the Office of
ruling that no probable the Ombudsman’s
cause exists to charge discretion in
Yambao with any of the determining the
offenses charged existence of probable
against her? – NO cause when there is no
showing of grave abuse
IN THIS CASE: of discretion.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
to Have Been Unlawfully
Acquired by any Public
Officer or Employee).
An investigation into her
lifestyle, assets, and
properties acquired during
her tenure at the Bureau of
Customs showed that: (1)
she did not file her SALN in
2000 and 2003; (2) she
amassed wealth grossly
disproportionate to her
income as she was the sole
breadwinner of their family;
and (3) she made false
statements in her SALN.
The Office of the
Ombudsman dismissed the
charges against Yambao for
lack of proof. On appeal,
petitioner said that the
Office of the Ombudsman
disregarded evidence that
established a prima facie
presumption of ill-gotten
wealth.
Lapi y Mahipus Simeon Lapi Mahipus (15
v. People years old) was convicted for
violation of Sec. 15, Art. II of
G.R. No. 210731 R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive
February 13, 2019 Dangerous Drugs Act) for
use of shabu.
The accused and others
were caught in flagrante
delicto when a police officer
conducting a stake-out
operation peeped into the
accused’s window. After
being subjected to tests, the
accused yielded positive
results.
The accused disputes the
prosecution’s narration of
events. He stated that, in
his way to deliver a
mahjong set, two persons
apprehended him, took his
money, and boarder him in
Page 9 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
Records show that she (2) The laws requiring
filed her SALNs in 2000 public officers to submit
and 20003. declarations of their
Records show that her assets, liabilities, net
husband was gainfully worth and financial an
employed in the custom business interests
brokerage business. recognize that defects
Errors in the statement may occur despite the
of SALN may occur reporting individual’s
despite good faith. She lack of intent to conceal
should have been wealth. In such case,
directed to correct this the reporting individual
first. should first be alerted
of the issues to give
There was no showing them an opportunity to
of any grave abuse of rectify them.
discretion.
ISSUE: Whether the (1) The right to
warrantless arrest question the validity of
preceded by the police an arrest may be
officer “peeping” into waived if the accused,
the accused’s window assisted by counsel,
is valid? - YES fails to object to its
validity before
Though the arraignment.
Constitutional
guarantees against (2) Any defects in the
unreasonable arrest are deemed
warrantless arrests and cured when he
seizures, this voluntarily submits to
presupposes that the the jurisdiction of the
state may still commit trial court.
warrantless arrests and
seizures as long as (3) An illegal arrest of
they are reasonable. an accused is not a
sufficient cause for
IN THIS CASE: Even if setting aside a valid
the arrest was initially judgment rendered
invalid, petitioner has upon a sufficient
already waived the right complaint after a trial
to question the validity free from error.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
a tricycle with four (4) other
persons. In the Police HQ,
he and others were
subjected to a drug test and
escorted to a cell without
being informed the results.
Lapi’s testimony was
corroborated by a barbeque
vendor.
Regalado y According to the
Laylay v. People prosecution, a team of five
(5) police officers conducted
G.R. No. 216632 a buy-bust operation
March 13, 2019 wherein Regalado was
arrested. More contraband
was confiscated as
evidence when Regalado
turned over the items to
PO1 Pedrigal. Accordingly,
two (2) Informations were
filed against Regalado for
violation of Art. II, Sec. 11 of
RA No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act).
The RTC convicted
Regalado for illegal
possession but only as to
Criminal Case No. 08-03.
He was acquitted in
Criminal Case No. 09-03,
on the ground that one
cannot be convicted twice
for the same act. This was
affirmed by the CA.
Regalado contends that the
lower courts erred when it
appreciated the evidence
despite the apprehending
team's failure to prove the
integrity and identity of the
seized items under Sec. 21.
Page 10 of 94
lustre5159
of his arrest.
Admittedly, he failed to
question the validity of
his arrest (i.e. the
“peeping.”) before
arraignment thereby
waiving that right. He
also failed to move that
Information against him
be quashed before
entering his plea. In
making his plea, he
was assisted by
counsel and was
likewise able to present
his evidence.
ISSUE: Whether the
conviction of Regalado
should be upheld? –
YES.
IN THIS CASE: None
of the three (3) people
required by Sec. 21(1),
as originally worded,
was present during the
physical inventory of
the seized items.
Moreover, the
prosecution failed to
establish that earnest
efforts were employed
in securing the
presence of the
required witnesses; it
did not even bother to
offer any justification for
the law enforcers'
deviation from the law's
requirements.
HOWEVER, what
sustains petitioner's
conviction is his
damning admission in
open court that the
police officers had
found the three (3)
plastic sachets and four
(4) sticks of marijuana
in his possession
CRIMINAL LAW
(1) Elements for illegal
possession of
dangerous drugs:
Accused was in
possession of an item
or an object identified
to be a prohibited or
regulated drug;
Such possession is not
authorized by law; and
Accused was freely and
consciously aware of
being in possession of
the drug
(2) RA No. 10640
relaxed the
requirements under
Sec. 21(1), which uses
the disjunctive "or" i.e.,
"with an elected public
official and a
representative of the
National Prosecution
Service or the media."
Thus, a representative
from the media and a
representative from the
National Prosecution
Service are now
alternatives to each
other.
(3) The prosecution has
the positive duty to
establish that earnest
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. Ameril Ameril was charged with
y Abdul violation of Art II, Sec. 5 of
RA 9165 for selling
G.R. No. 222192 Php30,000 worth of shabu,
March 13, 2019 in a buy-bust operation. The
3 sachets of shabu were
marked before the media
and then submitted to the
NBI for testing.
However, when the sachets
were presented in court,
they were labelled “LLA-1,”
“LLA-2,” and “LLA”; different
from the officers’
testimonies that they
labelled the sachets “LLA-
1,” “LLA-2,” and “LLA-3.”
Ameril was convicted by the
RTC, and this decision was
upheld by the CA.
Republic v. Relying on the report of the
Ombudsman Committee on Behest
Loans to Pres. Ramos,
Page 11 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
during his arrest. He efforts were employed
admitted telling the law in contacting the
enforcers where he had representatives
hidden the rest of the enumerated under Sec.
marijuana because he 21 (1) or that there was
was scared. a justifiable ground for
failing to do so.
Ultimately, petitioner's
free and conscious (4) Regardless of the
possession of the procedural lapses,
dangerous drug has admission of accused
been established, may be found sufficient
warranting his to establish his
conviction. conviction.
ISSUE: Whether the (1) Elements to
conviction of Ameril establish illegal sale of
should be upheld? – dangerous drugs:
NO. Proof that the
transaction took place;
The severe lapses in and
complying with the Presentation in court of
requirements under corpus delicti
Sec. 21 defeats the
presumption of (2) Discrepancy in the
regularity of markings of the seized
performance of duty. items raised doubts if
the items presented in
(1) The integrity of the court were the same
seized illegal drugs was ones taken from the
not preserved. The accused upon arrest.
sachets presented as
evidence were marked (3) Presumption
differently from how regularity in the
they were marked in performance of duty
the Information. This only stands when there
raises doubts if the is no reason in the
items presented in records to doubt it.
court were the exact Even then, this
ones taken from Ameril. presumption is not
stronger than the
(2) There was a gap in presumption of
the chain of custody. innocence in favor of
The investigator only the accused.
said that he submitted
the evidence to the NBI
but could not identify
the person to whom he
gave the seized illegal
drugs.
ISSUE: Whether SC (1) The SC may only
may interfere with the interfere with the Office
Office of the of the Ombudsman’s
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
G.R. No. 198366 PCGG filed a complaint
June 26, 2019 before the Office of the
Ombudsman against
officers of ALFA and DB for
violation of RA No. 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act).
However, the Office of the
Ombudsman dismissed the
complaint for lack of
probable cause. It noted
that the Committee itself
stated in another report that
the loans granted by DB
were not behest. Moreover,
the PCGG failed to
establish that the loans and
the sale of assets were
grossly disadvantageous to
the government to be
considered behest.
Santiago, Jr. y Informations were filed
Santos v. People against Santiago, Castillo,
and Legazpi for violating
G.R. No. 213760 Sec. 4 (c) of RA No. 9208
July 1, 2019 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act). The police conducted
an entrapment operation
with a confidential
informant, David, acting as
a customer. The accused
was arrested and AAA, the
trafficked person, was taken
into custody. AAA
confirmed that Santiago
was the pimp who offered
her to David but only saw
the other two for the first
time.
Santiago alleged that he
was selling coffee when he
was approached by David,
who he ignored, and was
later invited by AAA to a
Page 12 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
Ombudsman’s finding finding on the existence
of lack of probable of probable cause
cause? - NO when there is a clear
showing of grave abuse
PCGG was unable to of discretion by the
prove grave abuse of petitioner.
discretion on the part of
the Office of the (2) Disagreement with
Ombudsman in its findings is not enough
finding of lack of to constitute grave
probable cause. It did abuse of discretion.
not even point to any
specific act or omission
on the part of the Office
of the Ombudsman that
shows grave abuse of
discretion. Neither did
PCGG explain why the
Committee made
contradictory findings
on the nature of the
loans, nor did it prove
how the sale of assets
to Cape Industries was
grossly
disadvantageous to the
government.
ISSUE: Whether the (1) Sec. 4 (a) provides
lower courts erred in that no person is
holding Santiago guilty allowed to “recruit,
of violating Sec. 4(a) of transport, transfer,
the Anti-Trafficking in harbor, provide, or
Persons Act instead of receive a person by
Sec. 4(c) – as was any means, including
charged in the those done under the
information? – NO. pretext of domestic or
overseas employment
What controls is not the or training or
designation of the apprenticeship, for the
offense but its purpose of prostitution,
description in the pornography, sexual
complaint or exploitation, forced
information labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or
IN THIS CASE: debt bondage”
Although Santiago was
charged in the (2) Sec. 4(c) punishes
information with a the act of "offering or
violation of Sec. 4(c) of contracting marriage,
the law, a perusal of real or simulated, for
the allegations in the the purpose of
Information reveals that acquiring, buying,
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
hotel, but was then arrested
upon approaching the hotel.
The RTC (affirmed by CA)
convicted Santiago for
violating Sec. 4(a) of RA
No. 9208 but acquitted
Castillo and Legazpi.
Santiago argues the lack of
testimony from the
confidential informant raises
doubts on whether
petitioner truly offered AAA
to him. Moreover, he points
out that the witnesses were
inconsistent on David's
identity.
People v. Ternida was charged for
Ternida y Munar violating RA No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous
G.R. No. 212626 Drugs Act) for selling
June 3, 2019 0.0402 grams of shabu.
According to the
Page 13 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
he was sufficiently offering, selling, or
charged with violating trading them to engage
Sec. 4(a) for offering in prostitution,
AAA to David. The pornography, sexual
information sufficiently exploitation, forced
averred that: (1) labor or slavery,
petitioner committed an involuntary servitude or
act of qualified debt bondage”
trafficking in persons by
offering AAA to David (3) Accused may not
for sex or exploitation; use the trafficked
(2) the act was done for person's consent as a
a fee; and (3) for valid defense. What is
prostitution, sexual material to the case of
exploitation, forced the prosecution is the
labor, slavery, trafficked victim’s
involuntary servitude, testimony that she had
or debt bondage. been sexually
exploited.
ISSUE: Whether the
informant’s testimony is (4) In the prosecution of
indispensable? – NO. the crime of trafficking
in persons, the
What is material to the confidential asset or the
case is the trafficked informant's testimony is
victim’s testimony that not indispensable. It is
she had been sexually enough that there is
exploited. proof that the accused
lured, enticed, or
IN THIS CASE: The engaged its victims or
confidential informant’s transported them for
testimony is not the established
indispensable and purpose of exploitation.
neither is his identity
important. AAA
recounted clearly how
Santiago offered to split
the money with her for
having sex with another
man. This was
corroborated by the
police officers who
conducted the
operation, and by
David, the confidential
informant.
ISSUE: Whether (1) To convict an
Ternida’s conviction accused of the illegal
should be upheld? – sale of dangerous
NO drugs, the prosecution
must not only prove
that the sale took place,
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
prosecution, a confidential
informant tipped the police
regarding a drug transaction
involving Ternida, and that
he was arrested in a buy-
bust operation. After which,
a Certificate of Inventory
was prepared.
On the other hand, Ternida
denied the buy-bust
operation. He claimed that
he was arrested and frisked
while crossing the street
and was photographed with
a sachet of shabu.
The RTC (affirmed by CA)
found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
Ternida now claims that the
prosecution: (1) failed to
preserve the identity and
integrity of the corpus
delicti; and (2) failed to
establish the chain of
custody of the seized item.
People v. Acub y Acub was convicted for
Arakani violation of Sec. 5 of RA No.
9165 (Comprehensive
G.R. No. 220456 Dangerous Drugs Act), for
June 10, 2019 sale of illegal drugs.
In deciding the case, both
the RTC and the CA upheld
the presumption of
regularity in the police
officers’ actions, brushing
aside the lack of an
Page 14 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
Conviction of the but also present the
accused in the sale of corpus delicti in
illegal drugs requires evidence. In doing this,
presentation of the the prosecution must
corpus delicti in establish the chain of
evidence and the custody of the seized
establishment of the items to prove with
chain of custody of the moral certainty the
items seized. identity of the
Photographing and dangerous drug seized.
inventory must be done
immediately in the (2) Before courts may
place of seizure to consider the seized
minimize planting of drugs as evidence
evidence. despite noncompliance
with the legal
IN THIS CASE: The requirements:
failure of law enforcers justifiable grounds must
in buy-bust operations be identified and
to photograph seized proved; and
drugs in accordance integrity and evidentiary
with Art. II Sec. 21 of value of the seized
RA No. 9165, items must have been
combined with the properly preserved
prosecution's failure to despite non-
address this omission, compliance.
raises doubt on the
identity of the drugs
seized, especially when
the amount of
dangerous drugs
allegedly taken from
the accused is
minuscule.
There were also no
justifiable grounds for
allowing conviction
despite noncompliance
with the requirements.
ISSUE: Whether (1) The saving clause
Acub’s guilt was proven provided in RA No.
beyond reasonable 9165 as to not render
doubt despite non- seizures void despite
compliance with the noncompliance is not a
required procedure talisman that the
under Sec. 21 of RA prosecution may invoke
No. 9165?- NO. at will.
IN THIS CASE: Both (2) For the saving
the RTC and the CA clause to apply, it is
acknowledged that the necessary that:
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
inventory, holding that the
chain of custody remained
unbroken and that the
evidence was properly
identified in court.
Acub argues that
prosecution failed to show
strict compliance of the
police officers with chain of
custody requirements. Acub
alleged that the officers
failed to mark, inventory,
and photograph the sachet
of shabu recovered in the
presence of the accused,
an elected public official,
and representatives from
the National Prosecution
Service or the media.
People v. ZZZ ZZZ was charged with the
rape of AAA, his live-in
G.R. No. 229862 partner’s 14-year-old
June 19, 2019 daughter. The evidence
included testimonies from
AAA’s mother AAA herself.
Later, AAA submitted an
affidavit asking that the
case be dismissed. She
claims that her statements
were made under duress.
However, on cross-
examination, contrary to her
affidavit of desistance, AAA
testified that she was not
under duress and that she
was not compelled by the
prosecution to testify.
Page 15 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
prosecution failed to justifiable grounds were
prove strict compliance be identified and
with Sec. 21. However, proved; and
the Court cannot integrity and evidentiary
uphold their ruling that value of the seized
the integrity and items were properly
evidentiary value of the preserved despite non-
shabu was compliance.
nevertheless
preserved. Worth
noting is that the seized
sachet contained only
0.0188 g, which is just
about a tiny grain of
rice. This magnifies the
danger of tampering
with or planting
evidence.
Moreover, the
prosecution failed to
provide any justifiable
grounds for the failure
to inventory and
photograph the seized
sachet in the presence
of accused, an elected
public official, and
representatives from
the National
Prosecution Service or
the media.
ISSUE: Whether ZZZ (1) The gravamen of
can be charged with the offense of statutory
statutory rape? – NO. rape in Art. 266-A (1)
(d) of the PRC is the
It was erroneous for the carnal knowledge of a
judge to include the woman below 12 years
word “statutory” in the old. To convict an
dispositive portion of accused of the crime of
the decision. The statutory rape, the
Information did not prosecution must
allege AAA to be below prove:
12 years old, but 14 Age of the complainant;
years old when the Identity of the accused;
crime was committed and
upon her. Nonetheless, Carnal knowledge
the penalty imposed on between the accused
accused is correct as it and the complainant.
is the penalty for
offenders who were (2) The observance of
found guilty beyond the witnesses'
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
The RTC found ZZZ guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of
simple statutory rape. In
appeal, the CA declared
that the RTC erroneously
used the word “statutory”
since it was not established
that AAA was below 12
years old, but claimed that
this was harmless as the
penalty was the same for
simple rape. The CA did not
give merit to AAA’s
recantation.
Accused now maintains that
the element of force,
intimidation, threat, fraud, or
grave abuse of authority in
the crime of rape was not
established, and that the
element of the victim's
minority in the crime of
statutory rape was not
proven.
Page 16 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
reasonable doubt of demeanor during an
simple rape under Art. oral direct examination,
266-B. cross-examination, and
during the entire period
ISSUE: Whether ZZZ’s that he or she is
guilt for the crime of present during trial is
rape was proven indispensable
beyond reasonable especially in rape
doubt? – YES. cases because it helps
establish the moral
(1) Medical evidence conviction that an
supports AAA’s accused is guilty
testimony. As to AAA’s beyond reasonable
demeanor during oral doubt of the crime
direct examination, charged.
cross-examination, and
the entire period she (3) The abuse of moral
was present at the trial influence is the
- this is best observed intimidation required in
by the trial court and is rape committed by the
left to their discretion. common-law father of a
Accordingly, the Court minor.
finds no reason to
disturb the trial court’s (4) Affidavits of
ruling that AAA's desistance are viewed
testimony was credible with skepticism and are
and supported by weighed against the
evidence. victim’s testimonies and
other evidence.
(2) That AAA was a
minor at that time
means that there was
intimidation – the abuse
of moral influence is the
intimidation required in
rape.
ISSUE: Whether AAA’s
Affidavit of Desistance
should be given
weight? – NO.
Based on the
circumstances, the
Court cannot give any
weight to AAA's
Affidavit of Desistance.
If the crime did not
happen, AAA would
have made the Affidavit
at the earliest instance
— but she did not.
Instead, she executed it
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. Palema Palema, Saldua, Grengia,
y Vargas Ladra, Manzanero, and
Marqueses , were charged
G.R. No. 228000 with the crime of robbery
July 10, 2019 with homicide. The accused
took a Nokia N70 cellular
phone worth Php 13,000
belonging to Enicasio. On
the occasion of the robbery,
Eniasco was stabbed and
later on died.
The RTC (affirmed by CA)
found all the accused
(except Marqueses), guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Robbery with
Homicide. Marqueses was
acquitted for the
prosecution's failure to
present evidence that he
participated in committing
the crime.
Page 17 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
more than two (2) years
after the crime had
been committed. s
ISSUE: Whether the (1) In the prosecution of
accused-appellants are robbery with homicide,
guilty for the crime of the State must prove
robbery with homicide? that the offender's
- YES. original intent was to
commit the crime of
In robbery with robbery. The killing of
homicide, the offender's the victim must only be
original intent must be incidental.
the commission of
robbery. The killing is (2) The act of taking the
merely incidental and victim's life may occur
subsidiary. before, during, or even
after the robbery. So
IN THIS CASE: It is long as the homicide
clear that the primary was committed by
objective of the reason of or on the
accused-appellants occasion of the
was to rob Enicasio but robbery, the offense
by reason or on the committed is the
occasion of the special complex crime
robbery, Enicasio was of robbery with
stabbed and died as a homicide
result.
(3) When the original
ISSUE: Whether the criminal design does
acquittal of accused not clearly comprehend
Marvin Marqueses is robbery but robbery
proper? -NO. follows the homicide as
an afterthought or as a
The RTC acquitted minor incident of the
Marqueses after having homicide, the criminal
found no evidence of acts should be viewed
his participation in the as constitutive of two
crime charged. But offenses.
records show that
Marqueses was never (3) The purpose of an
arraigned. Even during arraignment is to notify
the pre-trial, Marqueses the accused of "the
was absent. reason for his
indictment, the specific
Without evidence of charges he is bound to
Marqueses' face, and the
arraignment, the RTC corresponding penalty
had no authority to that could be possibly
order his acquittal. All meted against him." It
proceedings against is not an idle ceremony
him before the RTC are that can be brushed
deemed void. aside peremptorily, but
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. Sultan Sultan was charged for
y Almada violation of Sec. 5 of RA No.
9165 (Comprehensive
G.R. No. 225210 Dangerous Drugs Act) for
August 7, 2019 the illegal sale of shabu
after a buy-bust operation in
a hotel.
Sultan defended himself
and denied the
prosecution’s narration of
events. He claimed that he
received a call from his
friend, Elibaldo, allegedly
expressed his desire to pay
his debt so Sultan arranged
for their meeting in the
hotel. A few minutes later,
Elibaldo arrived with two (2)
police officers who
approached him, took his
sling bag, and arrested him.
The RTC (affirmed by CA)
convicted Sultan for illegal
sale of dangerous drugs.
Sultan contends that the CA
erred in affirming his
conviction despite the
prosecution's failure to
prove an unbroken chain of
custody. He assails the
police officer's unjustified
marking of the seized items
at the barangay hall instead
of at the place of
confiscation and argues that
the non-presentation of the
police officer who allegedly
received the specimen for
examination casts doubt on
the identity and integrity of
the seized items.
Page 18 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
an indispensable
requirement of due
process, the absence
of which renders the
proceedings against
the accused void.
ISSUE: Whether (1) Unless an unbroken
Sultan’s guilt was chain of custody over
proven beyond items allegedly seized
reasonable doubt? - during drug operations
NO. is established, the
constitutional right to be
(1) The chain of presumed innocent
custody was broken prevails.
when it was found that
only PO2 Hechanova (2) Doubt in the corpus
(arresting officer) had delicti — the drugs and
sole custody of the drug paraphernalia that
confiscated items. An were the alleged
officer's act of objects of a drug
personally and bodily offense — impels the
keeping allegedly acquittal of an accused.
seized items, without
any clear indication of (3) The chain of
safeguards other than custody rule removes
his or her mere unnecessary doubts on
possession, has been the identity of the
viewed as prejudicial to dangerous drugs
the integrity of the presented in court.
items. Officers who come into
possession of seized
(2) The buy-bust drugs must show how
operation occurred they handled and
before the RA No. preserved the integrity
10640’s amendment of of the seized drugs
Sec. 21. However, while in their custody.
even operating under There are four (4) links
the amended version, in the chain of custody:
the Court still finds that The seizure and
the prosecution failed marking, if practicable,
to show compliance of the illegal drug
with Sec. 21. Only two recovered from the
(2) barangay officials accused by the
witnessed the marking, apprehending officer;
inventorying, and The turnover of the
photographing of the illegal drug seized by
seized items. Beyond the apprehending
that, no representatives officer to the
from both the media investigating officer;
and the Department of The turnover by the
Justice were present. investigating officer of
the illegal drug to the
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Reynes v. Office Reynes (a beach resort
of the manager) alleged that
Ombudsman Barangay Captain Amores
(Visayas) collected increased monthly
garbage collection fees
G.R. No. 223405 without any ordinance,
Feb. 20, 2019 statute, or any other
regulation authorizing its
collection. Reynes and
Amores’ relationship
soured, resulting to Amores,
ordering the non-collection
of the beach resorts’
garbage. Amores justified
this by stating that Reynes’
garbage could not be
collected because it was
“bulky” and did not comply
the city’s regulations.
Reynes eventually filed a
complaint in the
Ombudsman against
Amores for Illegal Exactions
(Art. 213[2], RPC), and a
violation of Sec. 48 of RA
No. 9003 (Ecological Solid
Waste Management Act of
2000)
The Ombudsman dismissed
the complaint because:
The alleged acts do not fall
under the 16 prohibited acts
under Section 48; and
Complainant failed to
present the Ordinance on
garbage fees, thus there is
Page 19 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
(3) The prosecution has forensic chemist for
never bothered to laboratory examination;
prove, let alone plead, and
or to excuse the police The turnover and
enforcers' deviation submission of the
from the law's simple marked illegal drug
requirements. This seized from the
casts doubt on the forensic chemist to the
integrity of the items court.
supposedly seized and,
ultimately, on the
commission of the
crimes.
ISSUE: Whether there Article 213(2) elements:
was probable cause to Offender is a public
the criminal charge of officer who is
illegal exaction filed "entrusted with the
against Amores? – collection of taxes,
YES. licenses, fees and other
As the Barangay imposts."; and
Captain (chief He/she engages in any
executive of the LGU), of the specified acts or
she was tasked with its omissions under Art.
administration, 213(2):
enforcement of laws, Demanding, directly or
maintenance of public indirectly, the payment
order, and promotion of of sums different from
the barangay’s general or larger than those
welfare. Accordingly, authorized by law;
her functions were Failing voluntarily to
sufficiently broad as to issue a receipt, as
encompass facilitating provided by law, for any
the levying of charges sum of money collected
for services rendered by him officially; or
by the Barangay. It is Collecting or receiving,
then not difficult to see directly or indirectly, by
how Amores could way of payment or
have used her office as otherwise, things or
an artifice for objects of a nature
"demanding the different from that
payment of sums provided by law.
different from or larger
than those authorized Note that Art. 213 (2)(a)
by law." Thus, there – demanding a
may be probable cause payment different from
to believe that the or larger than that
potential liability for authorized, is different
illegal exactions of from Art. 213 (2)(c) –
Amores may be collecting or receiving
present. things or object of a
nature different from
that provided by law.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
no proof of any act of illegal
exaction
People v. ZZZ ZZZ (15 years old at the
time of the filing of the
G.R. No. 228828 information) was charged
July 24, 2019 with the crime of rape with
homicide, for killing and
raping AAA (11 years old at
the time of her death). ZZZ
went at large, but he was
arrested 7 years later.
The RTC (affirmed by CA)
found ZZZ guilty of the
crime charged. Additionally,
the CA
retroactively applied RA No.
9344 (Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006), which
states that a child above 15
years old but below 18
years old is not exempt
from criminal liability when
the child acted with
discernment, ZZZ was
already above 30 years old
when he was convicted, the
CA held that the automatic
suspension of the penalty
as provided under Sections
38 and 40 of Republic Act
No. 9344 was no longer
applicable.
 even if the child in
Page 20 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
Moreover, to demand Art. 213 (2)(c) admits of
that the complaint situations when no
present an ordinance is payment is ever
futile considering that permitted or no
petitioner’s entire cause collection of any object
was anchored on the is ever allowed.
assertion that since
there was no
ordinance, law, or
regulation permitting
Amores to receive
anything, her mere act
of demanding payment
is violative of Article
213 (2).
ISSUE: Whether ZZZ (1) Under Section 6 of
acted with discernment, the RA 9344, a child
thus is not exempt from above 15 years old but
criminal liability - YES below 18 years old is
(1) ZZZ acted with not exempt from
discernment, thus criminal liability when
criminally liable. (1) he the child acted with
perpetrated the crime in discernment.
a dark and isolated (2) Suspension of
place, (2) after knowing sentence under RA
that he had been 9344 still applies even
tagged as the suspect if the child in conflict
he evaded authorities with the law is already
by fleeing to Tarlac and of the age of majority at
concealed his identity. the time his conviction
was rendered, the
(2) Considering that suspension applies
accused-appellant is only until the minor
already over 30 years reaches the maximum
old when he was age of 21
convicted, the
automatic suspension
of the sentence
provided under Section
38 of Republic Act No.
9344, in relation to
Section 40, may no
longer be applied.
While the suspension
of sentence still applies
conflict with the law is
already of the age of
majority at the time his
conviction was
rendered, the
suspension applies
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. After a buy bust operation,
Asaytuno, Jr. Martin and Renato
(Offenders) were charged of
G.R. No. 245972 illegal sale of dangerous
December 2, 2019 drugs. Martin, in another
information, was charged
with illegal possession of
drugs.
Both the RTC and CA found
the offenders guilty in the
illegal sale of drugs and
Martin in the illegal
possession of drugs. The
CA noting that even though
the chain of custody
requirements were not
strictly complied, deviations
were made with justifiable
reasons, the deviations
were namely:
Marking of the evidence
(sachet) was only made
after the sale, pocketing of
the police officer and the
transfer of the accused and
the police officers to the
barangay hall for inventory.
There were no third-party
witnesses present during
the apprehension
Page 21 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
only until the minor
reaches the maximum
age of 21.
ISSUE: Whether the (1) Marking is a
chain of custody separate and distinct
requirements were step from inventory and
strictly met? – NO photographing, Marking
must be made
IN THIS CASE: “immediately upon
(1) The prosecution confiscation”. Failure to
must establish that the mark upon confiscation
drugs presented as is a fatal gap in the
evidence are the exact chain of custody
same drugs seized requirement.
from the accused and
examined but the (2) Sec. 21 of RA
officers in this case 10640, Requires two
failed to mark the (2) third-party
evidence upon witnesses:
confiscation. Thus, Elective official;
there is no strict Media or National
compliance with the Prosecution Service
chain of custody rule. Representative
(2) The prosecution Three-Witness Rule
admits that the police The following must
officers did not bother witness the seizure and
to secure the presence confiscation of drugs:
of any of the required Accused or counsel or
third-party witness representative; and
during the actual buy- Two (2) third-party
bust and apprehension. representatives:
Elective official; and
(3) There was no Media or NPS
justifiable reason for Representative
the non-compliance
with the above-stated (3) Non-compliance
requirements: with Sec. 21 may be
They only waited for 1 excused if there is:
minute for a third party Justifiable reasons; and
witness and did not Proof that the integrity
wait any longer; and and evidentiary value of
Gathering of people in the evidence were
the area of seizure did maintained
not equate to danger
Both of the accused are
acquitted.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
2018
CASE FACTS
Aquino v. People Maria Aquino allegedly
submitted fraudulent
G.R. No. 217349 documents (passports, birth
November 7, 2018 certificates, etc.) to the US
Embassy. Accordingly, 7
separate cases were filed
against her for violating
Sec. 19 b(1) [Making False
Statements] and c(2)
[Forging travel documents]
under RA No. 8239 (1996
Passport Law).
The RTC found Aquino
guilty of all charges but the
CA modified the RTC’s
decision and dismissed 3
out of the 7 cases for lack of
jurisdiction. It averred that
the 3 cases (in violation of
Sec. 19b(1)) should have
been filed before the RTC
of Pasay, and not of Manila
since said violations were
committed in Pasay City,
the place where the
passport applications were
filed. The CA further noted
that there was an error in
the designation of the
offense charged. Aquino
should have been charged
under par. c(2) [Use of
Forged Documents],
instead of par. (c)1, as
Aquino used rather than
forged fraudulent
documents.
Degamo v. Office Degamo filed a case (Art.
of the 177, RPC - Usurpation of
Ombudsman Authority or Official
Functions) against DBM
G.R. No. 212416 Usec Relampagos, claiming
December 5, 2018 that he was illegally
withdrawing the Special
Allotment Release Order
(SARO) supposedly for the
calamity fund of Negros
Oriental due to typhoon
Sedong. It was alleged that
Page 22 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
HELD DOCTRINE
ISSUE: Whether the Elements of Sec. 19,
CA erred in finding (c)1 are:
Aquino guilty of Accused forged,
violating Sec. 19, (c)2 counterfeited,
of RA 8239, instead of mutilated, or altered
(c)1? – YES any passport or travel
RTC correctly found document or any
petitioner guilty of 4 passport validly issued,
counts of violation of which has become void
Sec. 19, (c)1; all the by the occurrence of
elements under Sec. 19 any condition
c(1) are present in this prescribed by law; and
case. Accused used, uses, or
attempts to use, or
Aquino submitted false furnishes to another for
supporting documents use such false, forged,
in her passport counterfeited, mutilated
application and then or altered passport or
used the fraudulently travel document or any
obtained passports and passport validly issued
false supporting which has become void
documents to apply for by the occurrence of
their United States any condition
visas, thus the RTC prescribed by law.
was correct in its ruling.
ISSUE 1: Whether the (1) This Court has
Ombudsman abused its adopted a policy of
discretion in dismissing non-interference with
Degamo’s complaint? – the Ombudman’s
NO. determination of
probable cause. The
Without proof of grave Office of the
abuse of discretion, this Ombudsman is armed
Court shall not interfere with the power to
with public the investigate, therefore,
Ombudsman’s is in a position to
assess the evidence on
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Relampagos falsely posed
himself to have been
authorized by President
Aquino.
The Ombudsman dismissed
the Complaint, for lack of
probable cause. Hence,
Degamo filed a petition for
certiorari stating that
releasing funds to the
implementing agency
requires the approval of the
President with favorable
recommendation of the
Council, thus Relampagos
acted without proper
authority.
People v. Mejares was a household
Mejares y helper of the complainant
Valencia and was charged with the
crime of qualified theft of
G.R. No. 225735 cash and jewelry. The RTC
January 10, 2018 found her guilty of qualified
theft amounting to
P1,056,308, sentencing her
to Reclusion Perpetua and
ordered her to pay the sum
to the complainant as actual
Page 23 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
determination of hand needed to make a
probable cause. finding of probable
cause.
ISSUE 2: Whether
Respondent is guilty of (2) Elements of Art.
Usurpation of 177, RPC (Usurpation
Authority? – NO of Authority or Official
Functions). When a
The punishable act in person:
usurpation of authority Performs any act
is false and knowing pertaining to any
representation. person in authority or
public officer of the
IN THIS CASE: Being a Philippine Government
public official himself, or any foreign
respondent did not government, or any
maliciously agency thereof;
misrepresent himself as Acts under pretense of
an agent, officer, or official position; and
representative of the Acts without being
government. He did not lawfully entitled to do
claim to write for and so.
on behalf of the
President in the letter.
In fact, respondent
signed the letter in his
own name as the
Undersecretary for
Operations, and under
the words, "By
Authority of the
Secretary."
Moreover, a scrutiny of
the DO confirms that
respondent was
designated to sign
documents on the
Secretary’s behalf. It
explicitly includes
SARO.
ISSUE 1: Whether (1) Intent to gain is
Mejares had intent to presumed from
gain? - YES unlawful taking. The
burden is on the
Intent to gain is defense to prove that
presumed from the such intent to gain was
unlawful taking by the absent.
offender of the thing
subject of asportation. (2) Penal laws shall
The burden is on the have retroactive effect
defense to prove that in so far as it benefits
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
damages. The CA affirmed
this decision in toto.
Mejares argues that she is
not guilty as she had no
intent to gain and was
victim to the dugo-dugo
gang. The CA refuted these
claims saying that her
following conduct suggests
that there was, in fact, intent
to gain:
Refusing to heed the
warnings of her co-
employees; and
Her refusal to have the
security guard talk to her
employer first before
allowing her to leave the
condo with the valuables
Page 24 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
there was no such the person guilty of a
intent. felony.
IN THIS CASE: The (3) The penalty for the
actions of Mejares belie crime of theft is
her argument that she dependent on the value
had no intent to gain. of the thing taken. Such
value must have
ISSUE 2: Whether the evidentiary proof. In the
penalty should be absence of
modified – YES independent and
reliable corroboration of
(1) RA 10951 (Act the value, the courts
adjusting the on which may either apply the
the penalty is based), minimum penalty under
which adjusted the Art 309 or fix the value
value of the property of the property based
and damage on which on the attendant
penalties are based, circumstances of the
came into effect during case.
the pendency of the
case. Aside from the
fact that the law
expressly provided for
its retroactive
application, the SC also
that emphasized Art. 22
of the RPC states that
penal laws shall have
retroactive effect in so
far as it benefits the
person guilty of a
felony.
(2) The RTC’s
determination of the
value was merely
based from the
complainant’s social
standing and was
devoid of evidentiary
basis (e.g., receipts,
descriptions, etc). In
the absence of an
independent and
reliable corroboration of
such estimate, the
courts may either apply
the minimum penalty
under Art. 309 or fix the
value of the property
based on the attendant
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. Que y Que was charged with
Utuanis violations of Sections 5 and
11 of RA No. 9165 for illegal
G.R. No. 212994 sale and possession of
January 31, 2018 dangerous drugs. No one
but police officers witnessed
the supposed marking of
the sachets obtained.
Que filed a Motion to Quash
the Information and Warrant
of Arrest and Admission to
Bail. Que was arrested in a
buy-bust operation.
The RTC found Que guilty
as charged and sentenced
him to life imprisonment.
The CA affirmed this
decision in toto.
Page 25 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
circumstances of the
case.
ISSUE 1: Whether the (1) When the identity
corpus delicti has been of corpus delicti is
properly identified? – jeopardized by non-
NO compliance with
Section 21, critical
Sec 21 Art II of RA No. elements of the offense
9165 lays down the of illegal sale and illegal
requisites for possession of
establishing the chain dangerous drugs
of custody. Compliance remain wanting. Non-
with such ensures the compliance with the
integrity of the seized chain of custody
items while non- justifies an accused's
compliance leads to a acquittal.
failure in establishing
the identity of the (2) The presence of the
corpus delicti. required witnesses is
required not only during
IN THIS CASE: There the physical inventory
were grave violations of and taking of pictures,
Sec 21(1): but also during the
There is no showing actual seizure or
that proper inventory confiscation of items.
and taking of pictures
was done. (3) There are 2
The marking of the requisites for
sachets of shabu was “conscionable non-
conducted at a police compliance” with the
station without the chain of custody:
required witnesses “Justifiable grounds”
(e.g., accused or any must be specifically
person representing alleged, identified, and
him, third person) proven by the
prosecution; and
ISSUE 2: Whether non- It must be established
compliance with Sec 21 that despite non-
should lead to compliance, the
acquittal? – YES integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized
IN THIS CASE: The drugs and/or drug
requisites for paraphernalia were
“conscionable non- properly preserved.
compliance” were not
complied with [See:
doctrine].
Having failed to
establish the integrity of
the corpus delicti,
reasonable doubt is left
as to Que’s guilt.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Osorio v. People Osorio, introducing herself
as an insurance agent,
G.R. No. 207711 offered an insurance
July 2, 2018 coverage to Gabriel. Gabriel
availed of the insurance.
Osorio then offered Gabriel
an investment opportunity
and informed her that the
proceeds of the investment
may be channeled to pay
for her insurance premiums.
Gabriel tendered P200,000;
Osorio, in turn, issued
Philam Life receipts.
Later Gabriel discovered
that her insurance policies
had lapsed due to non-
payment of premiums.
Osorio assured Gabriel that
she would take
responsibility for said
failure. Later, Gabriel
received a letter from
Philippine Money
Investment Asset
Management (PMIAM),
thanking her for investing in
the company. Gabriel
confronted Osorio on why
her investment was diverted
to PMIAM and thereafter
asked for a refund of her
initial investment.
The RTC (affirmed by CA)
found Osorio guilty of
estafa. Osorio appealed to
the CA arguing good faith in
investing the money with
PMIAM and that the
elements of estafa under
Art 315(2)(a) were not
established because there
was no deceit.
Page 26 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
ISSUE: Whether Osorio "Other similar deceits"
is guilty of estafa under under Art. 315(2)(a) of
Art. 315(2)(a) of the the RPC is strictly
RPC – NO, Osorio is limited to deceits
liable under Ar.t 318 of similar to the other
the RPC (Other enumerated:
Deceits). Using fictitious name,
Falsely pretending to
The false possess:
representations power,
committed by Osorio do influence,
not fall within "other qualification,
similar deceits" under property,
Art. 315(2)(a) of the credit,
RPC as this is strictly agency
limited to deceits business, or
similar to the other imaginary transactions
enumerated (e.g., false
pretense or If the deceit is not
representation as to similar to any of those
name, power, and is not covered by
influence, etc.). Arts 315, 316, and 317,
one may be held liable
Instead, Osorio may be for “other deceits”
held criminally liable under Art 318 which
under Art. 318 as the has a broader
same is broad in application.
application. It is a
catch-all provision to For an accused to be
cover all other kinds of held criminally liable
deceit not found in the under Art. 318 of the
other provisions. RPC, the following
elements must exist:
All the elements of Art. False pretense,
318 are present in this fraudulent act or
case. Osorio, in pretense other than
soliciting Gabriel’s those in Arts. 315, 316,
money falsely and 317;
represented that it Such was made prior to
would be invested in or simultaneously with
Philam Life and that its the commission of the
proceeds would be fraud; and
used to pay for Offended party suffered
insurance premiums. damage or prejudice.
This false
representation is what
induced Gabriel to part
with her funds and
disregard the payment
of her insurance
premiums and it is due
to Osorio’s fault that
Gabriel insurance
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Garcia-Diaz v. Garcia-Diaz filed an
Sandiganbayan application for registration
of a certain property in
G.R. No. 193236 Nueva Ecija before the CFI
September 17, but this was opposed to by
2018 the Republic on the ground
that the property formed a
part of Fort Magsaysay.
NAMRIA was authorized to
conduct a final preliminary
evaluation survey to
determine which portion of
the property actually fell
within Fort Magsaysay.
Solis, NAMRIA’s
administrator wrote a letter
that: to the Solicitor General
saying that:
Actual ground location of
Fort Magsaysay did not
match the technical
description in Proclamation
237; and
A portion of the subject
property was actually
outside Fort Magsaysay.
Based on this finding, a
compromise agreement
was reached. Garcia-Diaz
agreed to withdraw her
application to register the
portion within Fort
Magsaysay. In turn, the
Republic will withdraw its
opposition for the portion
outside the same.
However, a subsequent
investigation conducted
revealed that Solis’
statement “that a portion of
the property was outside
Fort Magsaysay” was
inaccurate. From the
foregoing, two Informations
were filed: (1) Information
Page 27 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
policies lapsed (money
given by Gabriel was
deviated from what was
originally agreed upon).
ISSUE 1: Whether a (1) A private individual
private person may be may be charged with
charged and convicted and convicted of a
of violating the violation of a provision
provisions of RA No. of the Anti-Graft and
3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act if
Corrupt Practices Act_? he is in conspiracy with
– YES a public official.
A private person may (2) Elements of Art. 171
be charged with a (4) “Making untruthful
violation of RA 3019 if statements in a
he is in conspiracy with narration of facts”:
public officials. Offender makes in a
[public] document
IN THIS CASE: The untruthful statements in
information charged the a narration of facts
public officials with Offender "has a legal
“conspiring, obligation to disclose
confederating and the truth of the facts
mutually helping one narrated by him [or
another, together with her]";
Garcia-Diaz, a private Facts narrated are
person…”. The alleged absolutely false.
conspiracy can actually
be found in the (3) Although Arias
Compromise doctrine provides that
Agreement: "all heads of offices
Garcia-Diaz being the have to rely to a
first party to the reasonable extent on
compromise their subordinates and
agreement; and on the good faith of
Solis made a statement those who . . . enter
in his letter stating that into negotiations.",
a portion of the when there is no proof
property was actually that a subordinate
alienable, disposable, prepared the letter and
and may be subject of when the head testified
a compromise. on direct examination
that he examined it and
The common scheme its attachments, then it
was to make it appear must be presumed that
that a part of the said head prepared the
property was outside letter and not the
Fort Magsaysay. The subordinate.
compromise agreement Accordingly, Arias
is grossly and doctrine will not apply.
manifestly
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
for violation of Sec 3(g) of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act against Sol
Gen Galvez, Solis other
NAMRIA officials, and
private individual Garcia-
Diaz; and (2) Information for
falsification of public
documents against the
NAMRIA officials.
Sandiganbayan convicted
Garcia-Diaz and Solis for
violation of Sec 3(g) of RA
No. 3019 and Solis was
also convicted of
falsification of public
documents (Art. 171, RPC).
People v. Magallano and Tapar were
Magallano, Jr. y charged with murder.
Flores Batongbakal (victim) died
due to a skull fracture
G.R. No. 220721 caused by a heavy blow to
December 10, the head and multiple stab
2018 wounds.
The RTC found Magallano
and Tapar guilty of murder,
attended by treachery and
conspiracy (Art. 248, RPC).
The CA affirmed the ruling
and found that treachery
attended the killing. That
they continued to pelt him
1
465 Phil. 368 (2004)
Page 28 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
disadvantageous to the
government.
ISSUE 2: Whether
Solis is liable for
falsification of public
document by failing to
disclose the truth in his
letter? – YES
Solis was not merely
stating an opinion in his
letter. Moreover, it is
ridiculous to say that
Solis had no legal
obligation to disclose
the truth of the facts as
he narrated in his
Letter. On the contrary,
the very purpose of the
document is to disclose
the truth of the facts
and NAMRIA is the
agency responsible for
geophysical surveys.
Inherent in the very
nature and purpose of
the document was
petitioner Solis'
obligation, as NAMRIA
Administrator, to
disclose the truth of the
facts as he narrated.
ISSUE: Whether the (1) Essence of
guilt of Magallano and Treachery - Swift and
Tapar has been proven unexpected attack on
beyond reasonable the unarmed victim
doubt? – NO, the without the slightest
prosecution only provocation on his part.
proved homicide and
not murder. (2) Two (2) conditions
that must be
1
People v. Tigle states established for a killing
treachery must exist at to be Murder qualified
the inception of the by treachery:
attack and if absent That at the time of the
and the attack attack, the victim was
continues, even if not in a position to
present at the defend himself; and
subsequent stage,
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
with stones although
Batongbakal was already
crawling, defenseless, and
unable to strike back,
shows that they deliberately
employed that mode to
ensure the accomplishment
of their criminal intent
without risk to themselves.
Fernandez Y Fernandez, BBB’s (11-year
Medina v. People old girl) stepmother,
eventually cohabited with
G.R. No. 217542 BBB, her younger brother,
October 21, 2018 AAA, and their father.
BBB’s teacher noticed that
the children were being
abused; thus, she reported
the matter to the principal
the DSWD.
Fernandez claims that
prosecution failed to prove
her guilt, and that AAA and
BBB’s testimonies were
inconsistent and “coached”
since it is unthinkable for a
woman to employ violent
acts against children. She
further claims that the
children inflicted the injuries
on each other.
The accused was found
guilty by the RTC and CA of
2 counts of child abuse
(Violation of RA 7610[10a] -
Special Protection of
Children against Child
Page 29 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
treachery is not a Offender consciously
qualifying adopted the particular
circumstance. means, method, or
form of attacked
IN THIS CASE: The employed by him.
prosecution failed to
show the presence of
treachery; the 2
conditions [See:
doctrine] were not
present. The witness’
testimony began when
the accused were in the
middle of mauling the
victim. There was no
testimony to prove that
the victim did not
provoke the attack.
Given this, the accused
are only guilty of
homicide.
ISSUE: Whether Art. I, Sec. 3
Fernandez is guilty for enumerates means
2 counts of violation of through which child
Sec. 10(a) of RA No. abuse may be
7610? – YES. committed.
The prosecution proved SEC 3. Definition of
beyond reasonable Terms:
doubt that petitioner (b) "Child abuse" refers
violated RA No. 7610. to the maltreatment,
A pursual of the whether habitual or not,
records show that the of the child which
minors suffered includes any of the
physical injuries in following:
petitioner's hands and Psychological and
that there is actually no physical abuse,
clear reason to disturb neglect, cruelty, sexual
the factual findings of abuse and emotional
the RTC. AAA's and maltreatment;
BBB's testimonies were Any act by deeds or
clear, positive, and words which debases,
direct. degrades or demeans
the intrinsic worth and
AAA and BBB validated dignity of a child as a
their testimonies with human being;
properly identified Unreasonable
photos depicting the deprivation of his basic
injuries they had needs for survival, such
suffered from petitioner, as food and shelter; or
further corroborated by
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act).
The acts allegedly
committed were: scalding
her with hot rice, piercing
her stomach with a bamboo
stick, hitting her eyes with
slippers, among other acts.
People v. Udang, Udang was charged with 2
Sr. Y Sevilla counts of sexual abuse
punished under Sec. 5(b) of
G.R. No. 210161 RA No. 7610 (Special
January 10, 2018 Protection of Children
against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and
Discrimination Act).
It was alleged that AAA
(then 12 years old) was
raped by Udang while AAA
was intoxicated. On the
other hand, Udang and his
daughter claims that AAA
only wanted to get back at
Udang for having AAA
arrested after she was
caught grappling with the
grandmother because the
latter tried to stop AAA from
sniffing rugby.
The lower courts convicted
the accused was for 2
counts of rape defined
under Art. 266-A(1),
although he was charged in
the Informations for having
committed 2 counts of
Page 30 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
their medical Failure to immediately
certificates. give medical treatment
to an injured child
resulting in serious
impairment of his
growth and
development or in his
permanent incapacity
or death
(2) 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.
ISSUE: Whether Udang (1) Elements of sexual
was correctly convicted abuse:
of rape punished under Accused commits the
Art. 266-A par. 1? - NO act of sexual
intercourse or
Based on the lascivious conduct"
Informations, Udang Said act is performed
was charged with two with a child exploited in
(2) counts of sexual prostitution"; and
abuse punished under The child, whether
Sec. 5(b) of RA No. male or female, is
7610 and not rape. below 18 years of age.
Hence, he could only
be convicted of sexual Unlike rape, consent is
abuse under the immaterial in cases
Informations filed in this involving violation of
case. All the elements Sec. 5, Art. III of RA
of sexual abuse are 7610.
present here.
(2) The provisions
Accordingly, the SC show that rape and
modified the CA sexual abuse are two
decision and held that (2) separate crimes
Udang is guilty of two with distinct elements.
(2) counts of sexual The "force, threat, or
abuse. intimidation" or
deprivation of reason or
ISSUE: Whether unconsciousness
charging Udang with required in Art. 266-
both rape under the A(1) of the RPC is not
RPC and sexual abuse the same as the
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
sexual abuse punished
under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610.
People v. A buy-bust operation was
Sanchez y Salvo conducted based on a tip.
Officer Diocampo paid
G.R. No. 216014 Sanchez the marked money
March 14, 2018 and the latter handed him a
heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing a
white crystalline substance.
After conducting a body
search, the police obtained
another plastic sachet from
the accused.
2 Informations were filed
against the accused for
allegedly violating Sec. 5
(illegal sale) and Sec. 11
(possession) of RA No.
9165 (Dangerous Drugs
Act).
Sanchez argues that the
prosecution failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. He avers that they
failed to establish the first
link in the chain of custody
in view of the alleged
inconsistencies in the
testimonies of IO1
Diocampo and IO Riñopa,
since Diocampo claimed
that the sachets were
Page 31 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
under RA 7610 violates "coercion or influence"
his right against double required in Sec. 5(b) of
jeopardy? – NO RA No. 7610.
The provisions show
that rape and sexual
abuse are two (2)
separate crimes with
distinct elements. The
"force, threat, or
intimidation" or
deprivation of reason or
unconsciousness
required in Art. 266-
A(1) of the RPC is not
the same as the
"coercion or influence"
required in Sec. 5(b) of
RA No. 7610.
ISSUE: Whether (1) Elements sale of
prosecution was able to dangerous drugs:
prove guilt beyond Identity[ies] of the
reasonable doubt? – buyer and the seller,
YES, prosecution the object and the
established the consideration; and
elements of both Delivery of the thing
possession and illegal sold and the payment
sale of drugs. therefor.
(1) As for the sale of (2) Elements of
dangerous drugs, possession of
Officer Diocampo dangerous drugs:
recounted how she Actual possession of an
posed as "Kat-Kat" and item or object which is
bought a sachet of identified to be a
shabu from Sanchez in prohibited drug;
exchange for P1,000. That possession is not
Thus, her testimony authorized by law; and
establishes the Accused freely or
elements of: consciously possessed
Identities of the buyer, the said drug.
the seller the object
and consideration; and
Delivery of the shabu
and payment for it.
(2) As for the
possession of
dangerous drugs,
Diocampo further
testified that apart from
the sachet sold to her,
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
marked at the barangay hall
while Rinopa recalled
marking the sachets at the
place of arrest.
The accused was convicted
by the lower courts RTC for
illegal sale and possession
of dangerous under RA No.
9165.
People v. AAA and her common-law
Concepcion husband lived in a house
owned by the accused for
G.R. No. 214886 free in exchange for
April 4, 2018 maintaining the house and
paying utility bills. When
AAA arrived home, the
accused was drunk. He
held a knife to her back in
the garage area and
dragged her to his room. He
undressed her, cut her
underwear using his knife,
and proceeded to rape her.
Shortly thereafter after, the
Chief of Police arrived and
called on the accused to
release AAA. Concepcion
made certain demands with
the police and proceed to
rape AAA again, while
holding a knife to her neck.
Mayor Ostrea’s arrival
interrupted the rape.
Concepcion then installed
electric wires to the door to
electrocute those who
Page 32 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
another sachet
containing 0.211 grams
of methamphetamine
hydrochloride was
obtained.
(3) As to the
inconsistent
testimonies regarding
where the seized items
were marked, the
prosecution has
sufficiently
demonstrated that this
discrepancy did not
affect the integrity or
evidentiary value of the
corpus delicti.
Diocampo’s testimony
that she marked the
items in the presence
of accused was
corroborated by
another police officer.
ISSUE: Whether (1) In rape cases, the
Concepcion is liable for primordial
nd
the 2 instance of consideration is given
rape? – YES to the credibility of a
victim's testimony
Upon review of the
records of the case, (2) If the detention
this Court finds that continued after the rape
AAA's testimony was had been completed, it
sufficient to establish cannot be deemed a
beyond reasonable necessary means for
doubt that there was a the crime of rape.
second incident of
rape. AAA's testimonies (3) Elements of Art. 268
on both incidents of (Slight Illegal
rape are equally Detention):
credible. Offender is a private
individual. 

ISSUE: Whether the He kidnaps or detains
forcible abduction was another, or m any other
absorbed in the crime manner deprives him of
of rape? – NO. his liberty. 

The act of kidnapping
(2) The facts found by or detention is illegal. 

the lower courts show The crime is committed
that after raping AAA, without the attendance
accused continued to of any of the
detain her and refused circumstances
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
enter, but the police
eventually arrested
Concepcion.
Informations were filed
against him charging him
with serious illegal detention
and 2 counts of rape.
The RTC (affirmed by CA)
convicted the accused of
the complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape
but dismissed the other 1
charge of rape. The lower
courts concluded that the
forcible abduction was
absorbed in the crime of
rape.
Perez v. People An information was filed
against Perez for violating
G.R. No. 201414 Sec. 5(b) of RA No. 7610
April 18, 2018 (Special Protection of
Children against Child
Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act) for
allegedly sexually abusing a
minor (12 years of age) , by
inserting his finger into her
vagina while mashing her
breasts without her consent.
Perez denied abusing her
and claimed that even
assuming a crime was
consummated, it should
only be acts of
lasciviousness under Art.
Page 33 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
to release her even enumerated in Art.
after raping her. Thus, 267. 

although the initial
abduction of AAA may
have been absorbed by
the crime of rape, the
continued detention of
AAA after the rape
cannot be deemed
absorb it.
(2) Elements of slight
illegal detention are all
present (not attended
by circumstances that
would render it serious
illegal detention):
Accused is a private
individual.
After raping AAA, the
accused continued to
detain her and to
deprive her of her
liberty.
Accused placed
electrical wires around
the room to electrocute
anyone who might
attempt to enter it.
Accused refused to
release AAA even after
his demands were met.
ISSUE: Whether the (1) Although the victim
accused is guilty of is not the fictitious and
sexual abuse under RA generalized demure girl
No. 7610? – YES (Maria Clara), it does
not make her testimony
The presence of the less credible especially
first and third elements when supported by
is already established – other pieces of
(1) acts of sexual evidence presented.
intercourse of
lascivious conduct were (2) Inserting a finger in
committed – petitioner a 12-year-old girl's
himself conceded vagina and mashing
conceded that if ever her breasts are not only
he is liable, he is liable acts of lasciviousness
only for acts of but also amount to child
lasciviousness; and (2) abuse punished under
act is committed RA No. 7610.
against a child below
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
336 of the RPC since
prosecution failed to prove
the elements of child abuse
– specifically, that AAA was
exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual
abuse.
The RTC (affirmed by CA)
found Perez guilty of
violating of Sec. 5(b) of RA
No. 7610, in relation to Art.
336 of the RPC.
Page 34 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
18 years of age – AAA (3) Elements of Sexual
was only 12 years old Abuse under Sec. 5(b)
when the crime was of RA No. 7610:

committed. Accused commits the
act of sexual
However, petitioner intercourse or
claims that the second lascivious conduct;
element is wanting. For Said act is performed
petitioner, the with a child exploited in
prosecution must show prostitution or
that AAA was subjected to other
"exploited in prostitution sexual abuse; and
or subjected to other The child, whether
sexual abuse." male or female, is
below 18 years of age
As to the second
element, the same is (4) As to the second
also present in this element, that the act is
case. Children who are performed with a child
coerced in lascivious exploited in prostitution
conduct are "deemed to or subjected to other
be children exploited in sexual abuse – the
prostitution and other Court held that the fact
sexual abuse." Hence, that a child is under the
when petitioner coercion and influence
inserted his finger into of an adult is sufficient
the vagina of AAA, a to satisfy the second
minor, with the use of element and will
threat and coercion, he classify the child victim
is already liable for as one subjected to
sexual abuse. other sexual abuse.
(5) Sec. 5 (b) covers
not only a situation
where a child is abused
for profit but also one in
which a child, through
coercion, intimidation or
influence, engages in
sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
2017
CASE FACTS
People of the Rene Boy Dimipilit, Pastor
Philippines v. Dimipilit, Junel Dimilipit, and
Rene Boy Joel Dimilipit were charged
Dimapilit for the murder of Diego
G.R. No. 210802 Garcia. Magdalena Apasan,
Garcia’s live-in partner,
August 9, 2017 testified about Garcia’s
Leonen, J. death. On direct-
examination, she narrated
that the victim’s brother
Simeon asked Rene Boy to
stop beating the victim. She
further testified that she saw
Rene Boy beat Diego as
there was no obstruction to
her view. However, she did
not bring this up in her
sworn statement because
she was allegedly afraid
and confused.
She admitted saying in her
sworn statement that she
saw Junnel box Diego's
jaw. Diego tried to escape
but Joel caught him and
boxed him. In her direct
examination, she said that it
was Junnel and not Joel
who ran after Diego.
However, it was really Joel
who pursued Diego. Diego's
unexpected demise and the
similarity in the names
allegedly confused her.
On appeal, Rene Boy
underscored the material
inconsistencies in
Magdalena's testimony and
argued that they cannot
serve as a basis for finding
him guilty. He further
claimed that a common-law
wife is not a detached
witness.
People of the Ordona was charged with
Philippines v. the murder of Ireneo Hubay.
Pedrito Ordona On the day of the incident,
Page 35 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
HELD DOCTRINE
The appeal lacks merit. The RTC explicitly
It is already established stated that Magdalena's
that the assignment of testimony was
values to the testimony categorical and
of a witness is virtually consistent. Based on
left, almost entirely, to the evidence presented
the trial court which has before it, the RTC
the opportunity to sustained the
observe the demeanor prosecution's stand.
of the witness on the Given that the RTC
stand. The trial court ruling on the credibility
explicitly stated that of Magdalena's
Magdalena's testimony testimony was also
was categorical and affirmed by the CA, the
consistent. Based on Court did not see any
the evidence presented reason to deviate from
before it, the trial court the general rule.
sustained the Hence, the Court was
prosecution's stand. persuaded that Rene
Boy participated in the
killing since Magdalena
had given a detailed
account of the incident
and has positively
identified him as 1 of
the assailants.
A witness'
inconsistency on minor
details does not affect
his or her credibility as
long as there are no
material contradictions
in his or her absolute
and clear narration on
the central incident and
positive identification of
the accused as 1 of the
main assailants. Any
inconsistency, which is
not relevant to the
elements of the crime,
is not a ground to
reverse a conviction.
The Court affirmed To qualify the killing of
Ordona’s conviction. a person to the crime of
While the killing was murder, evident
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Prosecution Samuel
G.R. No. 227863 Cartagenas and his wife
September 20, were talking at the doorway
2017 of their house. The spouses
Leonen, J. saw Ordona loitering by the
corner of the house, waiting
for someone. Ordona briefly
left but then later returned.
When Hubay emerged from
the house, Ordona
approached him with a
stainless knife, called his
attention, and stabbed him
in the left shoulder. Hubay
managed to run away but
Ordona gave chase and
caught up with him. Ordona
stabbed him in the left
torso. Hubay’s wounds
proved to be fatal as he
died immediately when he
was brought to the hospital.
Ordona argued that,
assuming he may be held
criminally liable, the trial
court erred in appreciating
the qualifying
circumstances of evident
premeditation and
treachery. Evident
premeditation cannot be
appreciated as a qualifying
circumstance because the
prosecution failed to
establish an overt act
indicating his resolution to
kill Hubay.
People of the Two informations for
Philippines v. violation of Article II,
Ernesto Sagana sections 5 and 11 of R.A.
No. 9165 were filed against
G.R. No. 208471 Sagana. The first charged
August 2, 2017 him with the sale and
Leonen, J. delivery of
Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (Shabu)
contained in 1 heat-sealed
plastic sachet, weighing
more or less 0.12 grams.
The second charged him
with the possession,
custody and control of
Page 36 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
not attended by evident premeditation must be
premeditation, it was proven with reasonable
attended with the certainty. Facts
qualifying circumstance regarding "how and
of treachery. 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.
The prosecution failed
to establish the time
when Ordona resolved
to kill Hubay. There is
no evidence on record
to show the moment
Ordona hatched his
plan. Ordona's act of
lurking outside the
house can hardly be
considered as an overt
act indicating his
resolution to kill Hubay.
Sagana’s guilt was not It is of paramount
proven beyond importance that the
reasonable doubt.The existence of the drug,
miniscule quantity of the corpus delicti of the
confiscated illicit drugs crime, be established
heightened the beyond doubt. Its
importance of a more identity and integrity
stringent conformity must be proven to have
with Section 21, which been safeguarded.
the police officers in Aside from proving the
this case miserably elements of the
failed to do. The charges, "the fact that
significant lapses the substance illegally
committed, as well as possessed and sold
their failure to explain was the same
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Shabu contained in 5 heat-
sealed plastic sachets,
weighing more or less 0.59
grams. Sagana was caught
as a result of a buy-bust
operation in his residence.
The RTC found Sagana
guilty of the charges. On
appeal, Sagana asserted
that the police officers failed
to comply with the chain of
custody rule under Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165. The
CA affirmed the RTC. It
held that failure to comply
with Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 did not render
Sagana's arrest illegal or
the evidence confiscated
inadmissible. Strict
compliance with the law can
be dispensed with provided
that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the
seized items were
preserved by the law
enforcers.
Page 37 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
their non-compliance substance offered in
with the directives of court as exhibit must
the law, cast doubt on likewise be established
the integrity of the with the same degree
corpus delicti. of certitude as that
needed to sustain a
guilty verdict. The chain
of custody carries out
this purpose "as it
ensures that
unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity
of the evidence are
removed
In this case, a buy-bust
operation was
conducted to validate
the tip given by the
confidential informant.
While a buy-bust
operation has been
known to be useful in
"flushing out illegal
transactions that are
otherwise conducted
covertly and in
secrecy," it has its
drawback "that has not
escaped the attention
of the framers of the
law." It is prone "to
police abuse, the most
notorious of which is its
use as a tool for
extortion.
Thus, it is essential that
the chain of custody is
established in buy-bust
operations. This
includes: First, the
seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered
from the accused by
the apprehending
officer; Second, the
turnover of the illegal
drug seized by the
apprehending officer to
the investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Antonieta Lucido Lucido was found guilty of
v. People of the child abuse by the RTC
Philippines under Setion 10(a) of R.A.
No. 7160. The victim, AAA,
G.R. No.217764 was placed by her parents
August 7, 2017 in the custody of Lucido,
Leonen, J. who was their neighbor.
This arrangement was
made upon the request of
lucido that AAA stay with
her since she was living
alone. During AAA's stay
with Lucido, the child
suffered repeated physical
abuse in the latter's hands,
which included
strangulation, beating,
pinching, and touching of
her sex organ by Lucido.
AAA was also threatened
by Lucido that she would be
stabbed if she tells anyone
about what was being done
to her. The CA affirmed
Lucido's conviction. Lucido
contends that the
prosecution failed to prove
that the physical injuries
inflicted on the child had
prejudiced the child's
development so as to
debase, degrade or
demean the intrinsic worth
and dignity of the child as a
human being. She cites the
absence of an expert
opinion validating
scientifically that the acts
complained of proximately
caused the prejudice
inflicted upon the child's
development.
Page 38 of 94
lustre5159
The Court found no
reversible error in the
Court of Appeals
Decision affirming
petitioner's conviction
for child abuse. It is a
fact that when the
incident happened, the
victim was a child
entitled to the
protection extended by
R.A. No. 7610, as
mandated by the
Constitution.Thus,
petitioner was properly
charged and found
guilty of violating Article
VI, Section 10(a) of
R.A. No. 7610.
CRIMINAL LAW
the investigating officer
of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for
laboratory examination;
and Fourth, the
turnover and
submission of the
marked illegal drug
seized by the forensic
chemist to the court.
As defined in the law,
child abuse includes
physical abuse of the
child, whether it is
habitual or not.
Petitioner's acts fall
squarely within this
definition.
AAA testified on the
physical abuse she
suffered in the hands of
Lucido. The RTC
described her narration
of the facts to be in "a
straightforward,
credible and
spontaneous manner
which could not be
defeated by the denial
of the accused."From
the appearance of the
victim, the trial court
likewise observed
physical evidence of
the abuses and ill-
treatment inflicted by
the petitioner on AAA
aside from the victim's
psychological
displacement.AAA's
testimony was further
corroborated by Dr.
Abierra, who noted
several observations
during his physical
examination of the
victim.
The RTC's assessment
on the trustworthiness
of AAA and Hinampas
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People of the Cabellon was charged with
Philippines v. a violation of Section 5 of
Siegfried R.A. No. 9165 as a result of
Cabellon a buy bust operation that
Cabanero captured Cabellon in the act
of selling drugs.
G.R. No. 207229
September 20, After Cabellon's arrest, the
2017 poseur-buyer handed over
Leonen, J. the sachet of shabu he
purchased from Cabellon to
PO3 Bucao. That same
date, a sachet marked with
"SCC 04/13/06" was turned
over to the Philippine
National Police Crime
Laboratory for
examination.(P/S Insp.
Salinas), a forensic chemist,
confirmed executing
Chemistry Report No. D-
698-2006. She testified that
she had examined a heat-
sealed plastic sachet of
white crystalline substance
labelled with "SCC
04/13/06." The chemistry
report bore the signatures
of P/S Insp. Salinas and
P/Supt. Myrna P. Areola.
The specimen weighed 0.03
grams and tested positive
for methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu).
Cabellon alleged that the
supposed illegal sale was
never proven because the
poseur-buyer was not
presented to attest to the
alleged sale, and that the
prosecution was unable to
show an unbroken chain of
custody as PO3 Bucao
testified that the poseur-
buyer handed him the
Page 39 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
will not be disturbed,
absent any facts or
circumstances of real
weight which might
have been overlooked,
misappreciated, or
misunderstood.
This Court granted the The marking and
appeal and acquitted identification of the
Cabellon. While the seized dangerous drug
prosecution may have is an essential part of
proven that a the chain of custody.
transaction took place, Absent this step, a gap
it was not as convincing is created which casts
in proving the identity of a shadow of doubt on
the shabu supposedly the identity and integrity
seized from the of the dangerous drug
accused. presented as evidence,
creating reasonable
doubt, which must be
resolved in favor of the
accused.
The prosecution utterly
failed to proffer
evidence on who
placed the markings on
the sachet.
Furthermore, it also
failed to account for the
seized sachet's transfer
from PO3 Bucao to the
Philippine National
Police Crime
Laboratory for
laboratory examination,
creating another gap in
the chain of custody.
This blatant lack of
compliance with R.A.
No. 9165 was made
even more egregious
by the fact that the
seized sachet only
contained 0.03 grams
of shabu, no more than
a grain of rice. The
danger of tampering
and planting of
evidence was, thus,
heightened.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
sachet after Cabellon was
arrested, but he never
testified as to whom he
gave it next or who marked
it.
Ibañez v. People Accused Alcubar Ibañez
G.R. No. along with three armed
204990 men, acting as a band,
attempted to rob Raymond
February 22, 2017 Ignacio of his Nokia 6680
and necklace. Ignacio
claimed that the accused
pointed a knife at him and
declared a hold up while he
was on a jeep. The robbery
was thwarted by the timely
arrival of policemen who
took the four into custody.
The Manila RTC found the
accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the
crime of Robbery in band
defined and punished under
Art. 294 in relation to Article
295 of the Revised Penal
Code. Ibanez and the rest
of the accused argued in
their appeal to the CA that
they should be acquitted
since the witnesses for the
prosecution did not testify
that they performed any act
in furtherance of the
robbery. The CA denied
this, principally because
Ibañez was "caught red-
handed" with a weapon
during the robbery, which
was sufficient to establish
that he had a common
unlawful purpose with the
rest of the accused.
Page 40 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
The trial court and the Robbery is the taking,
Court of Appeals did with the intent to gain,
not err. The of personal property
prosecution was able to belonging to another by
prove beyond use of force, violence
reasonable doubt that or intimidation. Under
petitioner was guilty of Article 294 (5) in
robbery in band. relation to Article
295, and Article 296 of
Ignacio testified on the Revised Penal
cross-examination that Code, robbery in band
one of the robbers is committed when four
announced a holdup, (4) or more malefactors
and that another take part in the robbery.
pointed a weapon at All members are
him, forcing him to take punished as principals
off his necklace and for any assault
hand over his mobile committed by the band,
phone. He did not see unless it can be proven
what petitioner Ibañez that the accused took
was doing at the time of steps to prevent the
the incident since commission of the
petitioner and his co- crime.
accused Salmeo were
seated beside the Even if the crime is
driver. Ignacio's failure committed by several
to see what petitioner malefactors in a motor
was doing during the vehicle on a public
robbery is justified highway, the crime is
considering that the still classified as
configuration of a robbery in band, not
jeepney bench makes it highway robbery or
hard to see precisely brigandage under
what passengers Presidential Decree No.
seated in the front seat 532. It is highway
are doing. robbery only when it
can be proven that the
Ignacio was also able malefactors primarily
to testify that he saw organized themselves
both Salmeo and for the purpose of
petitioner place their committing that crime.
knives on the jeepney
bench when the police
fired a warning shot.
SPO3 Perez
corroborated this, and
testified that there were
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. Accused Tayabas was
Tayaban charged with raping AAA,
who had been previously
G.R. No. 207666, assessed to have moderate
November 22, mental retardation, an
2017 intellectual disability.
Sometime in May 2008,
AAA went to the house of
her uncle, accused-
appellant Tayaban, at
Ifugao. While she was
there, accused-appellant
undressed her and removed
his pants. He then inserted
his penis in her vagina
many times and bit her
breast. Around three
months later, Dr. Mae
Codamon-Diaz (Dr. Diaz)
physically examined AAA
and found a healed
laceration on her hymen,
which she said could have
occurred more than two (2)
weeks earlier. The RTC and
the CA both found Tayabas
guilty of Rape
People v. Divinagracia and CCC were
Divinagracia, Sr. husband and wife with
seven (7) children.
G.R. No. 207765, Sometime in Nov.
July 26, 2017 1996, Divinagracia and
CCC quarrelled, prompting
CCC to leave and spend
Page 41 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
eight (8) other
passengers in the
jeepney, who pointed
out all four (4) of the
accused. After making
the arrests, the four (4)
accused were frisked,
and a fan knife was
recovered from
petitioner.
The prosecution was In relation to the
able to prove carnal requirement that the
knowledge, AAA victim should be under
testified that accused- 12 years of age, it is
appellant inserted his the victim's mental age
penis into her vagina that is determinative of
repeatedly.[30] Dr. her capacity to give
Diaz's testimony consent. one's capacity
corroborated that there to give consent
had been carnal depends upon his or
knowledge of her mental age and not
AAA.[31] The on his or her
prosecution also chronological age.
proved that due to her
intellectual disability, The presentation of a
AAA's mental age was psychologist is not
equivalent to someone essential in determining
under 12 years old. the intellectual
AAA's intellectual condition of AAA. In
disability was this case, AAA's
established by the intellectual disability
testimony of her was established by the
teacher. The Regional testimony of her
Trial Court, which itself teacher and the
was able to examine Regional Trial Court's
her demeanor, stated observation of her
that her demeanor is of conduct in court. Even
a two to three year old accused-appellant
child. Carnal himself admitted that
knowledge of a he was aware of AAA's
retardate person is intellectual disability
considered rape under
subparagraph B not D
of 266-A(1) of the
Revised Penal Code
It was not disputed that It is well-established
AAA was eight (8) that "[p]hysical
years old in November evidence is evidence of
1996. The medical the highest order. It
findings of Dr. Biag, as speaks more eloquently
interpreted and testified than a hundred
to by Dr. Poca, also witnesses." The
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
the night at her sibling's
house.
Later that evening, while
AAA and BBB were
sleeping side by side inside
their house, BBB suddenly
woke up to her father's tight
embrace from behind and
felt him roughly running his
hand over her leg and
breasts. BBB then felt her
father poking his hard penis
against her buttocks. BBB
begged her father to stop,
saying that she still had to
go to school the following
day. Divinagracia moved
away from BBB and went
out of the house. BBB was
nine (9) years old at that
time
A few minutes later,
Divinagracia went back
inside the house and lay
down beside AAA. AAA
noticed that BBB, who was
then lying beside her, slowly
moved away. AAA tried to
follow BBB, but
Divinagracia pulled AAA
towards him and made her
face him. Divinagracia
pulled down AAA's shorts
and put his finger inside her
vagina. Afterwards,
Divinagracia got on top of
AAA and inserted his penis
inside her vagina. AAA’s
father then continued to
molest her. AAA cried to her
sister for help but BBB
could do nothing but weep
and cover her ears. AAA
was eight (8) years old at
that time
People v. In the Information, appellant
Brusola Brusola was charged with
the killing of his wife, Delia
G.R. No. 210615, Brusola with the use of ball
July 26, 2017
Page 42 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
corroborate AAA's physical evidence of
allegations of her the healed lacerations
father's abuse. Dr. in AAA's vagina
Poca likewise testified strongly corroborates
that given AAA's AAA and BBB's
revelation of her ordeal testimonies that AAA
caused by her father, was raped by their
"the complete healed father.
laceration at 8 :00 The rule is settled that
o'clock" is indicative of the factual findings and
sexual abuse. the evaluation of
witnesses' credibility
People v. Noveras and testimony mad~ by
emphasized that when the trial court should be
a rape victim's entitled to great
allegation is respect, unless it is
corroborated by a shown that the trial
physician's finding of court may have
penetration, "there is "overlooked,
sufficient foundation to misapprehended, or
conclude the existence misapplied any fact or
of the essential circumstance of weight
requisite of carnal know and substance
ledge."
BBB's reaction is
consistent with the
normal, expected
actuations of a child
seeing her father doing
despicable acts on her
younger sister,
especially after she
herself had fallen victim
to his acts of
lasciviousness. Her
action is a mixture of
denial and fear-denial
that the father whom
she trusted could do
these acts and fear, not
so much for her
physical safety, but
more for her economic
and financial support.
Abenir Brusola was Any person who shall
guilty of parricide. kill his father, mother,
There was no dispute or child, whether
as to the relationship legitimate or
between the accused- illegitimate, or any of
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CRIMINAL LAW

hammer on her head, which appellant and the his ascendants, or

directly caused her death. victim. As for the act of descendants, or his
killing, their daughter spouse, shall be guilty
For his defense, Abenir Joanne clearly testified of parricide.
claimed that he did not that she suddenly saw
intend to hit his wife. On the her father hit the head Well settled is the rule
day of the crime, he was of her mother with a that it is unnatural for a
home preparing things. small mallet. Joanne's relative, in this case the
Delia went outside, straightforward and accused's own child,
appearing to be wait for candid narration of the who is interested in
somebody. When Abenir incident is regarded as vindicating the crime, to
asked if Delia was going positive and credible accuse somebody else
somewhere, she said it was evidence, sufficient to other than the real
none of his business. convict the accused. culprit. For her to do so
Abenir then went to the is to let the guilty go
bathroom and while inside, free.
he heard people talking
outside and looked out
through a crack in the
plywood wall. He saw
another man and Delia kiss.
Delia then told the man,
"Huwag muna ngayon,
nandiyan pa siya."
However, the man
embraced her, and groped
her breast and private parts.
Enraged, Abenir picked up
the maso, went outside, and
approached them,
surprising both the man and
Delia. Abenir attacked the
man who used Delia as a
shield and pushed her
toward Abenir. He
accidentally hit Delia
instead.

People v. The accused Opiniano, Opiniano's conviction The testimony of a

Opiniano Lumayag and Dela Cruz
were charged with robbery
G.R. No. 181474 with homicide. On
July 26, 2017 November 30, 1997, at
around 2:30 a.m., spouses
Eladio Santos (Eladio) and
Leonor Santos (Leonor)
were found dead in the
garage of their house. At
the time of the incident,
Eladio was 72 years old
while Leonor was 71 years
old. The Spouses Santos
were dealers of soft drinks
and beer. They maintained
still stand. The single witness, if
eyewitness account of credible and positive, is
Dela Cruz, sufficient to produce a
corroborated by the conviction.
testimony and findings
of Dr. Arizala and When several accused
Forensic Biologist are tried together, the
Buan, suffices to confession made by
convict accused- one (1) of them during
appellant Opiniano of the trial implicating the
the crime charged. others is evidence
against the latte
Dela Cruz, as a
witness, was
categorical and

Page 43 of 94
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
a store, adjacent to their
two-storey house which
sold other commodities
such as rice, cigarettes, and
canned goods.
When the daughter of the
victims arrived at the scene
of the crime, she saw the
store and the house in
disarray. She noticed that
cigarettes, lighters, coins,
and bills were missing.
Estrella remembered
wrapping some coins and
signing her initials on them
for eventual bank deposit.
When she went up to the
second floor, she found the
master bedroom in
shambles, and noticed that
some money and her
mother's pieces of jewelry
were missing. Dela Cruz
allegedly gave a confession
after he was apprehended.
The RTC found Opiniano
and Lumayag liable as
principals; Dela Cruz as
accessory. Affirmed by the
CA
Coronel v. Two informations were filed
People alleging that Coronel,
Permejo, Villafuerte, and
G.R. No. 214536| Olivarez were caught
March 13, 2017| knowingly and illegally
Leonen J. visiting a drug den and
using shabu, offenses
punishable under RA 9165.
Both the RTC and CA found
them guilty beyond
reasonable doubt based
solely on the positive results
of the drug tests. The
prosecution alleges that
because the petitioners’
Page 44 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
coherent in stating Dela Cruz's
appellant Opiniano's extrajudicial confession
participation in the without counsel at the
robbing and killing of police station without a
the Spouses Santos. valid waiver of the right
His answers were to counsel - that is, in
candid and writing and in the
spontaneous. He presence of counsel - is
positively identified inadmissible in
Lumayag and Opiniano evidence. It is
as the assailants who undisputed that Dela
stabbed the victim Cruz was neither
spouses with a knife. assisted by a lawyer
nor was his confession
Dr. Arizala testified that reduced into writing.
Eladio and Leonor died Further, when the
as a result of several police officers informed
stab wounds, inflicted Dela Cruz of his right to
by sharp-edge and a lawyer, the latter did
single-bladed not say anything. Even
instruments, on so, such silence did not
different areas of their constitute a valid
bodies. Moreover, the waiver of his right to
contents of the bag remain silent and to
seized from Dela Cruz - have a competent and
Marlboro cigarettes and independent counsel
coins in wrappers -
were the same things
Estrella claimed to
have been taken from
the store of her
parents. The
bloodstains on the cash
recovered from Dela
Cruz correspond to the
blood types of the
victims.
Before a person may Assuming that persons
be convicted of the who test positive for
crime of knowingly drugs used them at the
visiting a drug den, it place of arrest is not
must be shown that he sufficient to show that
or she knew that the they were aware of the
place visited was a nature of the suspected
drug den, and still drug den before visiting
visited the place it, absent any other
despite this knowledge. circumstantial
There was no attempt evidence.
to show that petitioners
knew the nature of the
alleged drug den, or
even that they used
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
drug tests were conducted
right after their arrest, it was
proven that drugs were
used at the drug den itself
and that the use of drugs at
a drug den automatically
implies that the drug users
were aware of the nature of
the place as a drug den
before visiting it.
People v. An information for rape was
Gacusan filed before the RTC against
Gacusan alleging that he
G.R. No. raped the 15-year old AAA,
207776|April 26, the child of his late
2017| Leonen J. common-law wife. Both the
RTC and CA convicted
Gacusan ruling that in rape
committed by an ascendant,
close kin, a step parent, or
a common law spouse of a
parent, moral ascendancy
takes the place of force and
intimidation. Gacusan
alleges that the employment
of force, threat, or
intimidation under the RPC
was not satisfactorily
proven by the prosecution.
Cruz v. People Cruz was convicted by both
the RTC and CA for
G.R. No. 210266 violating Sec. 9(a) and (e)
|June 7, 2017| of RA 8484 which punishes
Leonen J. the possession and use of a
counterfeit access device.
Cruz argues that according
to A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, the
corpus delicti or the alleged
Page 45 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
drugs in the premises.
The petitioners were
not found to be in
possession of any
drugs. There were no
acts alleged or
evidence found, which
would tend to show a
familiarity with the
nature of the place as a
drug den. The crime of
knowingly visiting a
drug den carries with it
a minimum penalty of
imprisonment of 12
years and 1 day, and a
maximum of 20 years.
It is not to be taken so
lightly that its elements
can be presumed to
exist without any effort
to show them.
Recent cases In rape committed by a
reiterating that moral close kin, such as the
ascendancy replaces victim's father,
violence or intimidation stepfather, uncle, or the
in rape committed by a common-law spouse of
close-kin cited People her mother, it is not
v. Corpuz. In Corpuz, it necessary that actual
was held that “in rape force or intimidation be
committed by a close employed; moral
kin, such as the victim's influence or
father, stepfather, ascendancy takes the
uncle, or the common- place of violence or
law spouse of her intimidation.
mother, it is not
necessary that actual
force or intimidation be
employed; moral
influence or
ascendancy takes the
place of violence or
intimidation.”
Cruz was found in Under Sec. 9 (a) and
possession of a (e) of RA 8484, the
Citibank credit card possession and use of
which he also used to an access device is not
purchase shoes. The illegal. Rather, what is
same Citibank credit prohibited is the
card was later proven possession and use of
to be a counterfeit a counterfeit access
access device. device. Therefore, the
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
counterfeit credit card is
inadmissible since it was
not marked and identified
during pre-trial.
People v. Two informations were filed
Armodia against Armodia for
allegedly raping his own
G.R. No. 210654| child. The State moved for
June 7, 2017| leave to amend the
Leonen, J. informations and add the
phrase “being the father of
the victim.” The RtC denied
the State’s motion ruling
that the requested
amendment was substantial
and prejudicial to accused-
appellant’s right to be
informed of the charges
against him. Both the RTC
Page 46 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
corpus delicti of the
Under A.M. No. 03-1- crime is not merely the
09-SC, the rule is that access device, but also
no evidence shall be any evidence that
allowed during trial if it proves that it is
was not identified and counterfeit.
pre-marked during trial.
The exception is when Under A.M. No. 03-1-
allowed by the court for 09-SC, the rule is that
good cause shown. no evidence shall be
There is no hard and allowed during trial if it
fast rule to determine was not identified and
what may constitute pre-marked during trial.
"good cause," though The exception is when
the Court has allowed by the court for
previously defined it as good cause shown.
any substantial reason There is no hard and
"that affords a legal fast rule to determine
excuse." The trial court what may constitute
retains its discretion to "good cause," though
allow any evidence to the Court has
be presented at trial previously defined it as
even if not previously any substantial reason
marked during pre-trial. "that affords a legal
Here, the trial court excuse."
allowed the
presentation of the
counterfeit credit card
at trial due to the
prosecution's
explanation that during
pre-trial, the counterfeit
credit card was still in
the Criminal
Investigation and
Detective Group's
custody.
The RTC and CA found The crime of qualified
that Armodia’s rape under Art. 266-
relationship with the B(1) of the RPC
victim was not duly consists of the twin
alleged in the circumstances of the
information. Thus, his victim’s minority and
relationship with the her relationship to the
victim cannot qualify perpetrator, noth of
the crimes of rape. which must concur and
Ruling otherwise would must be alleged in the
deprive him of his informatio. It is
constitutional right to be immaterial whether the
informed of the nature relationship was proven
and cause of during trial if that was
accusation against him. not specifically pleaded
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
and CA convicted Armodia
of two counts of simple
rape.
People v. Two informations were filed
Avancena charging Avancena, et al.
with the crimes of
G.R. No. 200512| Kidnapping for Ransom and
June 7, 2017| Robbery/Extortion for
Leonen, J. allegedly kidnapping
Rizaldo by posing as PDEA
agents and demanding
P150,000.00 in exchange
for his release. Both the
RTC and CA found them
guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of kidnapping with
serious illegal detention and
robbery.
Page 47 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
for in the information.
Avancena, et al. claim In kidnapping for
that they were PDEA ransom, the
agents but were unable prosecution must be
to present any able to establish the
evidence to following elements:
substantiate their claim. first, the accused was a
The prosecution, private person; second,
however, was able to he or she kidnapped or
present Police detained or in any
Inspector Nabor manner deprived
who testified that they another of his or her
were not in any manner liberty; third, the
connected with PDEA. kidnapping or detention
The prosecution was was illegal; and fourth,
likewise able to prove the victim was
that Rizaldo was kidnapped or detained
illegally deprived of for ransom.
his liberty. The fact that
the victim voluntarily In order to prove
went with the accused kidnapping, the
does not remove the prosecution must
element of deprivation establish that the victim
of liberty if the victim was forcefully
went with the accused transported, locked up
on a false or restrained. It must be
inducement without proven that the
which the victim would accused intended to
not have done so. deprive the victim of his
Rizaldo would not have liberty.
gone with Avancena, et
al. had they not The elements of simple
misrepresented robbery are: a) that
themselves as there is personal
PDEA agents. property belonging to
another; b) that there is
Because of the unlawful taking of that
continued demands for property; c) that the
payment, NAKTAF had taking is with intent to
the opportunity to set gain; and d) that there
up an entrapment is violence against or
operation. During the intimidation of persons
operation, Avancena or force upon things.
approached Alfonso,
Rizaldo’s father, and Taking is considered
received the marked complete from the
money from him. When moment the offender
they drove away, gains possession of the
NAKTAF agents thing, even if the
followed them and were offender has no
able to apprehend opportunity to dispose
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Veridiano y Sapi Veridiano was charged with
v. People the crime of illegal
possession of dangerous
G.R. No. 200370 | drugs. According to the
June 7, 2017 | prosecution, after a tip from
Leonen, J. a concerned citizen,
policemen flagged down the
jeepney Veridiano was
riding and recovered from
him a “tea bag containing
what appeared to be
marijuana.” According to
Veridiano, he was accosted
in the jeepney where
nothing was found on his
person, but upon arrival at
the police station, he was
informed “illegal drugs
was… found in his
possession.” Veridiano
argues that the tea bag is
"inadmissible in evidence
for being the 'fruit of a
poisonous tree,'" and that
the police officers failed to
comply with the rule on
chain of custody.
Page 48 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
them. NAKTAF was of the thing.
able to recover the
marked money from
them. In this instance,
there was a taking of
personal property
belonging to Alfonso by
means of intimidation.
Taking is considered
complete from the
moment the offender
gains possession of the
thing, even if the
offender has no
opportunity to dispose
of the thing. The
marked money was
recovered from
Avancena, et al. when
they were arrested,
which proves that they
were able to gain
possession of Alfonso's
money.
In the present case, the The following are
extensive search recognized instances of
conducted by the police permissible warrantless
officers exceeded the searches laid down in
allowable limits of jurisprudence: (1) a
warrantless searches. "warrantless search
They had no probable incidental to a lawful
cause to believe that arrest," (2) search of
the accused violated "evidence in 'plain
any law except for the view,"' (3) "search of a
tip they received. They moving vehicle," (4)
did not observe any "consented warrantless
peculiar activity from search[es]," (5)
the accused that may "customs search," (6)
either arouse their "stop and frisk," and (7)
suspicion or verify the "exigent and
tip. Moreover, the emergency
search was flawed at circumstances.
its inception. The
checkpoint was set up
to target the arrest of
the accused.
The warrantless search
conducted by the police
officers is invalid.
Consequently, the tea
bag containing
marijuana seized from
petitioner is rendered
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. Corpuz Corpuz was charged with
y Flores four counts of rape of AAA,
a mental retardate
G.R. No. 208013 | (intellectually disabled) with
July 3, 2017 | a mental age of 5 years and
Leonen, J. an IQ of 42. AAA identified
Corpuz as her assailant and
recounted the acts
committed against her in a
“categorical,
straightforward, and
credible” manner.
People v. San The San Jose brothers
Jose y Gregorio were charged with the
murder of Espino.
Page 49 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
inadmissible under the
exclusionary principle
in Article III, Section 3
(2) of the Constitution.
There being no
evidence to support his
conviction, petitioner
must be acquitted.
A person with low An intellectually
Intelligence Quotient disabled person is not,
may still perceive and solely by this reason,
is capable of making ineligible from testifying
known his or her in court. "He or she can
perception to others. be a witness,
Given that AAA's depending on his or her
qualification as a ability to relate what he
witness is already or she knows." If an
settled, AAA's mental intellectually disabled
state also does not victim's testimony is
prevent her from being coherent, it is
a credible witness. admissible in court.
The credibility as a
witness of an
intellectually disabled
person is upheld
provided that she is
capable and consistent
in narrating her
experience.
Therefore, Corpuz
cannot exculpate
himself, claiming that
his guilt was not proven
beyond reasonable
doubt since AAA was
allegedly not oriented
to date, time, and
place. AAA's failure to
offer any testimony as
to when and where she
was raped does not
matter. This Court
underscores that the
date, place, and time of
the incidents need not
be accurately
established since these
are not elements of
rape.
Rather than clarifying The prosecution has
the situation, the the burden to prove the
testimony of the accused's guilt beyond
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CRIMINAL LAW

G.R. No. 206916 | The prosecution’s lone
July 3, 2017 | eyewitness positively
Leonen, J. identified the brothers as
the assailants.
accused raises even reasonable doubt. If it
more questions that the fails to discharge this
trial court and the Court burden, courts have the
of Appeals ignored. duty to render a
There were also judgment of acquittal.
material
inconsistencies
between the testimony
and the autopsy report
submitted by the
prosecution.
The prosecution's lone
eyewitness could not
even give a clear and
categorical narrative of
the events. There were
several unusual
circumstances during
the prosecution of the
case that he has not
adequately explained.
The prosecution having
failed to discharge its
burden to prove
guilt beyond reasonabl
e doubt, this Court is
constrained to acquit
accused-appellants.

Torres y Salera Torres was charged with Petitioner's act of A person who commits
v. People acts of child abuse under whipping AAA on the an act that debases,
Sec 10 (a) of RA 7610 neck with a wet t-shirt degrades, or demeans
G.R. No. 206627 | against AAA, a minor. is an act that debases, the intrinsic worth and
January 18, 2017 | degrades, and dignity of the child as a
Leonen, J. demeans the intrinsic human being, whether
worth and dignity of a habitual or not, can be
child. It is a form of held liable for violation
cruelty. Being smacked of Republic Act No.
several times in a 7610.
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.

Mariano v. Petitioner Ryan Mariano The petitioner acted, at An attack showing the
People was charged with the very least, in aggressor’s intention is
Frustrated Homicide under defense of a stranger. enough to consider that

Page 50 of 94
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
G.R. No. 224102 | Article 249 of the RPC
July 26, 2017 | before the RTC when he
Leonen, J. stabbed Frederick Natividad
with a kitchen knife.
Mariano pleaded not guilty,
claiming it was self-defense
and in defense of a relative.
Velasquez v. This case is a petition for
People review on certiorari under
Rule 45 wherein the
G.R. No. 195021 petitioners pray that the
|March 15, 2017 | assailed decisions be
Leonen, J reversed and they be
absolved of any criminal
liability.
Petitioners in this case were
charged with attempted
murder under Article 248 in
relation to Article 6 of the
RPC. It was alleged that on
May 24, 2003 the
petitioners while armed with
stones and wooden poles,
conspired, confederated
and mutually helped one
another; with intent to kill,
attacked the victim Jesus
Del Mundo and therefore,
Page 51 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
To properly invoke the unlawful aggression
justifying circumstance was committed. The
of defense of a stranger state of mind of the
under Article 11(3) of accused during the
the RPC, it must be alleged act of self-
shown that there was defense or defense of a
unlawful aggression on stranger must be
the part of the victim, considered in
that the means determining whether a
employed to repel the person’s means of
victim were reasonably repelling an aggressor
necessary, and that the were reasonable.
accused was not
induced by revenge,
resentment, or other
evil motive. Here, there
was unlawful
aggression Natividad
did not deny attacking
petitioner’s common-
law wife and her
daughter. Further,
although the victim was
drunk, his attacks were
incessant. As there was
no other reasonable
means to protect his
family, petitioner was
justified in stabbing
Natividad.
The SC denied the It is settled that when
petition. an accused admits
[harming] the victim but
On the first issue, the invokes self-defense to
petitioners allege that escape criminal liability,
they acted in defense the accused assumes
of themselves and also the burden to establish
in defense of their his plea by credible,
wives and another co- clear and convincing
accused’s mother. evidence; otherwise,
Under this defense they conviction would follow
invoke Article 11 of the from his admission that
RPC. The SC settled he [harmed] the victim.
this issue and stated Self-defense cannot be
that a person who justifiably appreciated
invokes self-defense when uncorroborated
also admits to having by independent and
inflicted harm upon competent evidence or
another person but when it is extremely
he/she makes it doubtful by itself.
additional the defensive Indeed, in invoking self-
contention that even defense, the burden of
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
inflicting injuries in the vital
parts of his body. They
were found guilty for having
performed all the acts that
could have produced
Murder but nevertheless did
not produce it due to other
reasons or causes. The
RTC found them guilty of
attempted murder and upon
their appeal before the CA,
the CA modified their
sentence and found them
liable only for serious
physical injuries. The
petitioners filed for a motion
for reconsideration which
was denied, hence this
petition before the SC
wherein they insist that their
co-accused merely acted in
response to the victim’s
aggressive behavior and
therefore they should not be
held accountable for the
physical harm inflicted upon
Del Mundo.
Page 52 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
though he/she may evidence is shifted and
have inflicted harm the accused claiming
he/she nevertheless self-defense must rely
incurred no criminal on the strength of his
liability. Given this the own evidence and not
burden of proof is now on the weakness of the
shifted to the accused prosecution.
and therefore they have
to prove that they were To successfully invoke
justified in acting as self-defense, an
they did. They should accused must
be able to meet all the establish: “(1) unlawful
elements enumerated aggression on the part
by the RPC to of the victim; (2)
successfully invoke the reasonable necessity of
defense. the means employed to
prevent or repel such
However, upon aggression; and (3)
examination of their lack of sufficient
claims, the SC stated provocation on the part
that they were not able of the person resorting
to meet all the to self-defense.”
elements required to Defense of a relative
invoke self-defense. under Article 11(2) of
Their claims were “self- the Revised Penal
serving and Code requires the
uncorroborated” and same first two (2)
they failed to present requisites as self-
independent and defense and, in lieu of
credible proof to back the third, “in case the
up their assertions. provocation was given
Even if it were to be by the person attacked,
granted that Jesus was that the one making the
the initial aggressor, defense had no part
the beating dealt to him therein.”
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 repel his
supposed aggression.
Petitioners thereby fail
in satisfying the second
requisite of self-
defense and of defense
of a relative.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. King Rex Ambatang was
Ambatang charged with the murder1 of
60-year-old Ely Vidal.
G.R. No. 205855 | Ambatang used a kitchen
March 29, 2017 | knife to hit Vidal in different
Leonen, J parts of the body.
Postmortem findings stated
that the cause of death was
stab wounds to the chest.
According to Vidal’s wife,
her husband was able to
get near her, embrace her
and tell her “ Si King Rex
sinaksak ako ng sinaksak.”
In his defense, Ambatang
claimed that he was at AMA
Computer Learning Center
on October 17, 2002 from 3
to 8 p.m., and did not get
home until 9:30 p.m. RTC
found Ambatang guilty of
murder. CA upheld
Ambatang’s conviction.
People v. This case is an appeal from
Entrampas a conviction of 2 counts of
rape.
G.R. No. 212161 |
March 29, 2017 | Accused Entrampas and
Leonen, J BBB were common-law
spouses. AAA, BBB's
daughter from a previous
relationship, lived with
them.
Sometime in February
2003, AAA, an 11-year old
girl, was forced to lie down
on the floor by the accused.
She was penetrated by the
Page 53 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
The testimonies of the Treachery is present to
prosecution witnesses qualify Vidal’s killing to
are sufficient to convict murder as shown by
Ambatang. It is well the suddenness of the
settled that positive attack against the
identification by the unarmed victim, without
prosecution witnesses the slightest
of the accused as provocation on the
perpetrators of the latter’s part and
crime is entitled to opportunity to defend
greater weight than himself. Accused was a
their denials and alibis. tall, young man with a
The few discrepancies sturdy physique. Armed
and inconsistencies in with a sharp bladed
the testimonies of weapon, he attacked
witnesses referring to and repeatedly stabbed
minor details and not the victim who was at
actually touching upon that time sixty years old
the central fact of the and inferior in size and
crime do not impair the built compared to him
credibility of the
witnesses. Instead of
weakening their
testimonies, such
inconsistencies tend to
strengthen their
credibility because they
discount the possibility
of their being
rehearsed. In this case,
what matters is that
both witnesses are able
to see how Ambatang
stabbed Vidal.
The SC affirms the In rape perpetrated by
finding of Entrampas’ close kin, such as the
guilt. common-law spouse of
the child's mother,
The alleged actual force or
inconsistencies "are intimidation need not
collateral and minor be employed. While
matters which do not at [accused-appellant]
all touch upon the was not the biological
commission of the father of AAA ... [she]
crime nor affect [the considered him as her
minor victim]'s father since she was a
credibility." Neither do child." Moral influence
these alleged or ascendancy added
discrepancies, not to the intimidation of
being elements of the AAA. It enhanced the
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
accused and was warned
not to tell anyone otherwise
the accused would kill her.
Over the following months,
Entrampas would
repeatedly rape AAA, who
remained silent out of fear.
In July 2003, BBB observed
changes in AAA’s body.
BBB asked Entrampas,
who, according to BBB,
admitted that he was the
father of AAA's child. Upon
examination by a physician,
BBB was indeed found
pregnant.
Before the Regional Trial
Court, Entrampas was
charged and found guilty
with two (2) counts of
qualified rape under the
RPC, as amended by
Republic Act No. 8353
(Anti-Rape Law of 1997).
CA affirmed the RTC’s
ruling.
Sole issue is whether
accused-appellant Juanito
Entrampas is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two (2)
counts of statutory rape.
Page 54 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
crime, diminish the fear that cowed the
credibility of AAA's victim into silence.
declarations. Accused-appellant's
Jurisprudence has physical superiority and
consistently given full moral influence
weight and credence to depleted AAA's resolve
a child's testimonies. to stand up against her
foster father.
In rape perpetrated by
close kin, such as the
common-law spouse of
the child's mother,
actual force or
intimidation need not
be employed. "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.
Accused-appellant's
acts amounted to
statutory rape through
carnal knowledge
under Article 266-A(l
)(d) of the RPC, as
amended:
Article 266-A. Rape,
When and How
Committed. Rape is
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
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. A tip was received by the
Segundo y Mandaluyong Police Station
Iglesias from a "confidential
informant" about Segundo's
GR No. 205614 | sale of illegal drugs in Brgy.
July 26, 2017 | Malamig, Mandaluyong
Leonen, J. City. A buy-bust team was
created upon the order of
Officer in Charge PO3
Victor Santos. 2 P100.00
bills served as marked buy-
bust money.When the
police officers reached their
destination, PO1 Claveron
and the confidential
informant came near
Segundo, who was then
positioned along an
alley.Segundo was initially
hesitant but the confidential
informant persuaded him to
finally sell illegal drugs. PO1
Claveron gave the buy-bust
money to Segundo. In
return, Segundo handed
Page 55 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
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.
Accused-appellant also
committed the crime
with the
aggravating/qualifying
circumstance that he
was the common-law
spouse of AAA's
mother.
In view of the depravity
of the acts committed
by accused-appellant
against his 11-year old
foster daughter, the
Court increased the
amounts awarded to
AAA, in accordance
with jurisprudence.
In this case, the In sustaining a
prosecution failed to conviction for illegal
establish the elements sale of prohibited
of the crime. Segundo drugs, the prosecution
was acquitted for failure must establish the
of the prosecution to following elements:(1)
prove his guilt beyond the identity of the buyer
reasonable doubt. and the seller, the
object, and the
consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment
therefor.Accordingly,
these entail proof "that
the sale transaction
transpired, coupled with
the presentation in
court of the corpus
delicti." The
prosecution offered
testimonies to establish
the identity of the buyer
and seller, as well as
the consideration that
sustained the alleged
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
him "one heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet"
with shabu. PO1 Claveron
made the pre-arranged
signal, which prompted the
other members of the team
to make the arrest. The
RTC found Segundo guilty
of selling dangerous drugs.
It ruled that in prosecution
of illegal possession or sale
of prohibited drugs, great
weight is given to
prosecution witnesses,
particularly when they are
police officers.The CA
affirmed the ruling.
Segundo assailed the
broken chain of custody in
handling the alleged
confiscated shabu.
Daayata v. This case resolves a
People Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45
GR No. 205745 | wherein the petitioners
March 8, 2017 | assail the decision and the
Leonen, J. resolution of the Court of
Appeals, be reversed and
they be acquitted of the
offense charged.
It was alleged that the
petitioners, on December
17, 1995, attacked Rolando
Bahain with a stone. Hitting
the latter’s head and
several parts of his body
thereby inflicting injuries
upon him. They were
charged with frustrated
murder and the RTC found
them to be guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. On
appeal, the CA affirmed the
penalty imposed by the
RTC but modified the award
for damages. Petitioners
filed a Motion for
reconsideration which was
subsequently denied.
Hence, this petition to the
SC.
Page 56 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
deal and how the sale
had transpired. It
failed, however, to
comply with the chain
of custody that would
supposedly ensure that
the miniscule amount of
0.03 grams of shabu
offered as evidence in
court was the one
retrieved from Segundo
at the time of the
operation. It was also
emphasized that there
were apparent
inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the
police officers who
were part of the buy-
bust team.
The SC granted the Conviction in criminal
petition. actions demands proof
beyond reasonable
In criminal cases, the doubt. Rule 133,
accused must be Section 2 of the
convicted with proof Revised Rules on
beyond reasonable Evidence.
doubt. While it is not
required that the While not impelling
degree of proof must such a degree of proof
establish absolute as to establish
certainty, it is still the absolutely impervious
responsibility of the certainty, the quantum
prosecution to establish of proof required in
moral certainty that criminal cases
ultimately appeals to a nevertheless charges
person’s conscience. In the prosecution with the
this case, the burden of immense responsibility
proof to prove that the of establishing moral
accused were indeed certainty, a certainty
guilty of the charges that ultimately appeals
against them, rests the to a person’s very
prosecution an they conscience. This rule
must rely on the places upon the
strength of their own prosecution the task of
evidence and not bank establishing the guilt of
on the weakness of the an accused, relying on
defense of the the strength of its own
accused. The court evidence, and not
also discussed that the banking on the
requirement that there weakness of the
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Monir Jaafar y Tambuyong
People v. Jaafar and Ahmad Gani y Idjirani
y Tambuyong were charged with violation
of RA 9165. According to
G.R. No. 219829 | the prosecution, at 8:00
January 18, 2017 | a.m. on September 10,
Leonen, J 2009, a male civilian
informant reported to Chief
of Police, Police
Superintendent Alberto
Capacio Larubis that Jaafar
sold shabu in his house. A
buy-bust operation was
conducted the next day.
Upon examination, the
contents taken from Jaafar
tested positive for
metamphetamine
hydrochloride. In their
defense, Jaafar and Gani
said that they were at an
internet café near the police
station when they were
suddenly arrested. RTC
found that the prosecution
clearly established all the
elements of the crime of
illegal sale of drugs.
Although the chain of
custody rule was not strictly
complied with, the
integrity and evidentiary
value of the confiscated
Page 57 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
should be proof beyond defense of an accused.
reasonable doubt first Requiring proof beyond
is not only to meet the reasonable doubt finds
due process clause but basis not only in the
is also the right of the due process clause of
accused. In this case it the Constitution, but
cant be seen from the similarly, in the right of
details pointed out by an accused to be
the defense, that the “presumed innocent
prosecution failed to until the contrary is
establish moral proved.”
certainty that qualified
to be proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
Therefore, it casts
doubt on whether the
accused were actually
guilty of the crimes they
were charged with.
Guilt was not proven Since narcotic
beyond reasonable substances are not
doubt. In all readily identifiable and
prosecutions for are highly susceptible
violations of RA 9165, to alteration, tampering,
the corpus delicti is the or contamination. It is
dangerous drug itself. imperative that the
Its existence is drugs are the very
essential to a judgment same objects tested in
of conviction. Hence, the laboratory and
the identity of the offered in court as
dangerous drug must evidence. The chain of
be clearly established. custody, as a method
of authentication,
Section 21 of Republic ensures that
Act No. 9165 provides unnecessary doubts
the manner by which involving the identity of
law enforcement seized drugs are
officers should handle removed.
seized dangerous
drugs. While it may be Police officers are
true that presumed and are
noncompliance with required to know the
Section 21 of RA 9165 laws they are charged
is not fatal to the with executing. Recent
prosecution’s case cases have highlighted
provided that the the need to ensure the
integrity and evidentiary integrity of seized drugs
value of the seized in the chain of custody
items are properly when only a miniscule
preserved by the amount of drugs had
apprehending officers, been allegedly seized
this exception will only from the accused.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
shabu sachet had been duly
preserved. It applied the
legal presumption of
regularity in the
performance of duties by
the police officers. CA
affirmed in toto.
People v. Austria This involves two
informations of rape
G.R. No. 210568 | committed by accused
November 8, 2017 Austria.
| laceration is not an
J. Leonen Accused Austria was AAA’s
stepfather as he was legally
married to her mother. AAA
testified that sometime in
1997, when she was 10
years old and in grade 4,
she woke up at around 2:00
a.m. when Austria went
inside her bedroom and
removed her shorts and
panty. She tried to fight him
off but he threatened her
and her family and warned
her not to tell anybody
about what happened. She
testified that Austria
Page 58 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
be triggered by the
existence of a ground
that justifies departure
from the general rule.
In this case, the
prosecution failed to
show any justifiable
reason that would
warrant noncompliance
with the mandatory
requirements in Section
21. Although the buy-
bust team marked and
conducted a physical
inventory of the seized
sachet of shabu, the
records do not show
that the seized sachet
had been
photographed. There is
absolutely no evidence
to show that the
physical inventory was
done in the presence of
accused-appellant or
his representative,
representatives from
the media and the DOJ,
and an elected public
official
The SC affirms the Accused's argument
lower courts’ findings that AAA's intact hymen
but increases the must fail in light of the
penalty imposed. fact that hymenal
Rape under Article 266- element of rape. As
A(1)(d) is called regards complainant's
statutory rape "as it lack of genital
departs from the usual injury, People v. Dela
modes of committing Cruz merely pointed
rape." People v. out that her intact
Gutierez explained the hymen "does not offer
elements of statutory much to indicate the
rape: commission of the
(1) the offended party is offense." It never
under 12 years of age proclaimed or even
and implied that the
(2) the accused has absence of genital
carnal knowledge of injuries disproved an
her, regardless of accusation of rape.
whether there was
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
regularly raped her from
1997 to 2003 every time her
mother was not at home,
and the last time was when
she was 16 years old.
The RTC held that the
prosecution was able to
prove three (3) separate
incidents of rape, and these
charges were qualified
because of AAA's minority
and his relationship with her
as her stepfather. CA
affirmed the decision.
The accused asserts that
physical evidence ran
counter to the testimonial
evidence presented by the
prosecution; hence, he
insists that physical
evidence should prevail. He
claimed that during both
instances that AAA was
examined immediately after
the alleged acts of rape by
the accused, AAA's hymen
was found to be intact.
The only issue to be
resolved is whether or not
accused’s guilt for the
charges of rape against him
was proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
People v. Orozco Lalona testified that she
was at Murillo’s Restaurant
G.R. No. 211053 | with the victim, Julius Mata.
November 29, Orozco, Osir, Castro and
2017 | Leonen, J. Maturan entered and
occupied the table in front
Page 59 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
force, threat or
intimidation; whether
the victim was deprived
of reason or
consciousness; or
whether it was done
through fraud or grave
abuse of authority.
It is enough that the
age of the victim is
proven and that there
was sexual intercourse.
In this case, the
defense did not dispute
AAA's claim that she
was 10 years old at the
time she was first
raped.
The Court also held
that the accused's
argument that AAA's
intact hymen must fail
in light of the fact that
hymenal laceration is
not an element of rape.
Contrary to what the
accused believes,
People v. Dela
Cruz never proclaimed
or even implied that the
absence of genital
injuries disproved an
accusation of rape.
Lastly, rape becomes
qualified when
committed by a parent
or step-parent against
his child less than 18
years of age. It is not
disputed that the
accused is AAA’s
stepfather.
There is evidence Orozco claims that the
beyond reasonable prosecution failed to
doubt that the victim prove that treachery
was subdued by the attended the killing of
decedent and his Mata, positing that the
companions. Thus, finding of treachery was
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
of them. Shortly after they
ordered beer, Orozco
approached Mata from
behind and stabbed him
twice with a small bolo.
Mata shouted that he was
stabbed. Lalona grabbed
Orozco and wrestled with
him, but he pushed her
back. When Mata tried to
run out, the rest of the
accused caught him. While
Maturan and Osir held
Mata's arms, Castro
stabbed him in the chest.
The 4 accused continued
stabbing Mata and ran
away when Lalona shouted
for help. Lalona took Mata
to the Caraga Regional
Hospital on a tricycle, but
Mata was pronounced dead
on arrival. The RTC found
Maturzan, Orozco, and
Castro guilty of murder. The
CA reversed. Orozco
insisted that the qualifying
circumstance of treachery
should not have been
applied to all the accused,
as was no clear and
convincing evidence
proving the existence of
conspiracy.
People v. Saunar This case resolves an
appeal from a September
G.R. No. 207396 | 26, 2012 decision of the CA
August 9, 2017 | which affirmed the
Lenonen, J conviction of Delia Saunar
for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs.
On noon of February 27,
2006 the authorities
received a report regarding
Saunar’s whereabouts and
Capt Dalonos formed a
team to conduct a buy-bust
operation. The buy-but
operation was successful
and they were able to
capture Saunar. However
Page 60 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
they employed means based only on the fact
to weaken the victim's that Orozco stabbed
defense, constituting Mata suddenly in the
treachery. back, which is
insufficient to establish
treachery. This
argument has no merit.
Contrary to Orozco's
contention, the finding
of treachery was not
based only on his act of
swiftly stabbing Mata
from behind. As
observed by the CA,
Mata was helpless
against a group of
persons with knives,
who ganged up on him
and held his hands
while stabbing
him.There is likewise
no sufficient ground to
overturn the finding of
conspiracy.In this case,
the prosecution proved
the common purpose of
all the accused, a
concert of action, and a
community of interest.
The SC reversed the A miniscule amount of
petition and acquitted dangerous drugs
Saunar. alleged to have been
taken from the accused
The crime of sale of is highly susceptible to
illegal drugs is planting, tampering, or
consummated the alteration. In these
moment the buyer cases, “law enforcers
receives the drug from should not trifle with the
the seller. And in order legal requirement to
to prove that this ensure integrity in the
happened, the chain of custody of
prosecution must prove seized dangerous
it with proof beyond drugs and drug
reasonable doubt. paraphernalia.
Aside from this, the
corpus delicti must be
presented as evidence
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
upon recovering the marked
money used in the
operation they were only
able to recover a cellphone
from Saunar. Aside from
this, there was no
photograph of the seized
items from the crime scene
and then Saunar was
brought to Camp Simeon
Ola for investigation.
Both the RTC and the CA
found Saunar guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the
illegal sale of dangerous
drugs. Saunar filed for an
appeal alleging that the
authorities failed to comply
with the chain of custody
rule.
People v. Emma Bofill Pangan was
Pangan arrested after a test-buy
operation was conducted
G.R. No. 206965 | and Pangan allegedly sold
November 29, shabu to PO1 Carillo and
2017 | Leonen, J PO1 Bernardez. The
confiscated items were
turned over to SPO1 Lebria
for marking. He also
prepared the inventory,
which was signed by the
third-party witnesses, who
were present during the
search. PO1 Carillo took
pictures of the premises
Page 61 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
in court and therefore
the prosecution has an
obligation to ensure
that the illegal drugs
offered in the court are
the same drugs that
were seized from the
accused. To comply
with this, they must
present the evidence
on how the drugs were
seized, handled, and
reserved the moment
they were confiscated
from the accused.
Noncompliance of this
requirement creates
doubt as to the origins
of the dangerous drugs.
In this case, the drugs
confiscated from the
accused-appellant was
only a minuscule
amount which the court
thinks is highly
susceptible to
tampering and
contamination. The
court then stated that
the prosecution failed
to discharge the burden
of proof through the
pieces of evidence they
presented warranting
the acquittal of the
accused-appellant.
The Court sustained In crimes involving
the conviction. The dangerous drugs, the
prosecution presented State has the burden of
evidence beyond proving not only the
reasonable doubt to elements of the offense
establish that all the but also the corpus
elements of the offense delicti of the charge.
were present and that The illicit drugs, itself,
the accused committed comprise the corpus
the offense. The delicti. Therefore, it is
prosecution presented important that the
evidence that in the identity of the illegal
morning of April 10, drugs be proven
2003, PO1 Carillo beyond reasonable
initially conducted a doubt. To establish that
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
and the seized items. The
confiscated articles were
recorded in the police
blotter and then brought to
the court. Later, P/S Insp.
Batiles wrote a letter to
Judge Fantilanan,
requesting to withdraw the 4
sachets of suspected shabu
for laboratory examination.
In her defense, Pangan
alleged that a delivery man
from Fastpak suddenly
came with a package for
her which she noticed was
addressed to someone else
(“Gemma”), and it was at
that point that the police
officers apprehended her.
Pangan claimed that the
package was sealed when it
was delivered and that she
was already inside the
vehicle when the search
warrant was shown to her.
RTC convicted Pangan. CA
ruled that failure to strictly
conform to the requirements
of Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 does not
immediately make the
seized drugs inadmissible
as evidence, provided, that
the integrity and
evidentiaryworth of the
seized articles were
maintained. Furthermore,
Pangan’s absence during
the marking and inventory
was justified as she became
“hysterical” after the search
warrant was read to her.
Page 62 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
successful test-buy the illicit drugs
which served as basis scrutinized and
for the application of a presented in court were
search warrant. In the the very same ones
test-buy, Pangan confiscated from the
disclosed to PO1 accused, the
Carillo that more drugs prosecution should
would be delivered to offer testimonies
her via Fastpak in the relating to its chain of
afternoon that day. Her custody.
words were confirmed
when indeed, Culili Chain of custody is
delivered a Fastpak defined as the duly
package to Pangan. recorded authorized
Pangan admitted the movements and
delivery of the Fastpak custody of seized drugs
package where she or controlled chemicals
signed a delivery or plant sources of
receipt. dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of
To evade liability, each stage, from the
Pangan offered time of
uncorroborated and seizure/confiscation to
self-serving assertions. receipt in the forensic
Her mere possession laboratory to
establishes a prima safekeeping to
facie proof of presentation in court for
knowledge or animus destruction. Such
possidendi enough to record of movements
convict her as an and custody of seized
accused in the absence item shall include the
of any acceptable identity and signature
reason for its custody. of the person who held
temporary custody of
As for the chain of the seized item, the
custody, the date and time when
prosecution was able to such transfer of
establish the necessary custody were made in
links in the chain of the course of
custody from the time safekeeping and use in
the sachets of illicit court as evidence, and
drugs were confiscated the final disposition.
until they were
forwarded to the However, what matters
laboratory for most is that the integrity
examination and and evidentiary worth
presented as evidence of the seized articles
in court. were maintained since
these will be used in
resolving the guilt or
innocence of the
accused. The arresting
officers’ noncompliance
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. This is a criminal case filed
Francica against Francica for three
counts of statutory rape
G.R. No. 208625 | committed against a girl
September 6, eleven years of age.
2017 |
J. Leonen AAA, who was then 11
years old and a Grade 6
student at a public school in
Mandaluyong City testified
that she knew the accused
as he was their neighbor.
He would sometimes give
her money when he
touched her. When asked
how Francica touched her,
AAA answered that he
licked her breasts and
inserted his penis into her
vagina.
The accused denied the
allegations against him, and
claimed that he was only
set up by AAA's family after
he found out from AAA's
aunt, that AAA had a
relationship with her uncle.
The RTC found Francica
guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of 3 counts of
statutory rape. CA affirmed
the conviction. Hence, this
petition.
Page 63 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
with Section 21 is not
fatal, provided, that
there is a justifiable
reason for their
deviation and that the
evidentiary worth of the
seized drugs or articles
was preserved.
The SC affirms the Hymenal laceration is
conviction of the not an element of rape.
accused, but increases It is well-established
the amount of penalty that "[p]hysical
imposed. evidence is evidence of
the highest order. It
Francica's defense that speaks more eloquently
he was merely set up to than a hundred
become the fall guy so witnesses. Further, the
that AAA's family can lone yet credible
hide her sexual testimony of the
relationship with her offended party is
uncle is not worthy of sufficient to establish
belief. Further, the guilt of the accused.
Francica's expose is
primarily hearsay in
character since it was
supposedly relayed to
him by AAA's aunt
Nora, who was not
presented as a witness
before the trial court to
corroborate his
testimony.
Second, Francica's
argument that the
presence of healed
hymenal lacerations
belies AAA's
accusation that he
sexually abused her
must fail in light of the
fact that hymenal
laceration is not an
element of rape.
Despite the absence of
the medico-legal officer
as a witness, the
presence of healed
lacerations
corroborates AAA's
testimony as it "is the
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. SPO1 Roldan Paller
Saragena received information that a
certain “Tatay” was selling
G.R. No. 210677 | illegal drugs at Brgy.
August 23, 2017 | Mabolo, Cebu City. As a
Leonen, J result, a buy-bust team was
formed. Outside accused-
appellant's house, PO1
Misa convinced the suspect
to sell him shabu. PO1 Misa
handed the P100.00 bill as
payment, for which he
received a "pack of white
crystalline substance."
SPO1 Paller and SPO3
Magdadaro then rushed to
the scene and introduced
themselves as police
officers. SPO1 Paller
conducted a body search
on accused-appellant and
recovered the buy-bust
money. Accused-appellant
was brought to the police
station. The RTC convicted
accused-appellant of the
crime charged.Upon
appeal, the CA found that
the police officers failed to
comply with the compulsory
procedure on the seizure
and custody of dangerous
drugs under the chain of
custody rule. Nevertheless,
it justified the
noncompliance by applying
the exception in the same
provision.
Page 64 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
best physical evidence
of forcible defloration."
It is well-established
that "[p]hysical
evidence is evidence of
the highest order. It
speaks more eloquently
than a hundred
witnesses."
This Court reversed When the quantity of
Saragena’s conviction the confiscated
and acquitted him of substance is miniscule,
the sale of dangerous the requirements of
drugs under Section 5 Section 21 of RA 9165
of RA 9165. must be 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 2
apprehending police
officers witnessed the
transaction at night
time, engenders
reasonable doubt on
the guilt of the accused.
The prosecution's
failure to sufficiently
establish the chain of
custody in accordance
with the law further
amplifies the doubt on
accused's guilt.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Aparente v. This case is petition for
People review on certiorari
assailing the June 1, 2012
G.R. No. 205695 | decision and January 24,
September 27, 2013 resolution of the CA
2017 | Leonen, J which dismissed the appeal
of Jesus Aparente.
On February 13, 2006 the
accused was caught in
possession of 0.01 gram of
white crystalline substance
known as shabu, a
dangerous drug, in violation
of the Dangerous Drugs
Act. After the filing of the
information against
Aparente, the RTC found
the prosecution witnesses’
testimonies and found the
accused-appellant to be
guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. The CA upon appeal
by Aparente, affirmed the
RTC’s decision saying that
Aparente was in the middle
of violating a law at the time
he was searched making
the warrantless arrest
lawful. They also reasoned
that the chain of custody
rule was not broken and
was properly complied with.
People v. Borja PO3 Borja was charged of
kidnapping Ronalyn
Page 65 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
The SC granted the Where miniscule
petition and acquitted amounts of drugs are
Jesus Aparente. involved, trial courts
should require more
On the issue regarding exacting compliance
the evidence with the requirements
confiscated from under Section 21 of
Aparente and the Republic Act No. 9165.
handling of the Consequently, the trial
evidence in accordance court and the Court of
to the chain of custody Appeals should have
rule, the court ruled that considered the failure
the seized drugs were of the apprehending
not properly marked by team to mark the
the apprehending tea seized drugs
but by an investgating immediately after
officer at the police seizure and
station and therefore confiscation. They
not in accordance with should also have
RA 9165. considered that it was
the investigating officer
They explained that at the police station
under RA 9165 and its who marked the same
IRR, it was required and not the arresting
that the apprehending officers. The failure of
officer/team who has the prosecution to
the initial custody of the address this issue and
dangerous drugs , to provide a justifiable
should be the one to reason for this are
conduct a physical enough to cast a
inventory and shadow of doubt on the
photograph the seized integrity of the
items in the presence operation.
of the accused or his
representative/counsel,
and with
representatives from
the media and the DOJ.
They further discussed
that where the amount
seized was minuscule,
the courts must
carefully consider the
intricacies of the case.
Therefore,
noncompliance of any
of the provisions of the
law produces doubts as
the origins of the seized
narcotics.
SC affirmed the A conviction for the
conviction. Ronalyn's crime of kidnapping or
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
G.R. No. 199710 | Manatad under Article 267
August 02, 2017 | of the Revised Penal Code.
Leonen, J Ronalyn’s family allegedly
received a phone call from
one of the kidnappers
demanding P100,000 in
exchange for Ronalyn’s
liberty. Thus, an entrapment
operation was conducted
and while PO3 Borja was
arrested, Ronalyn was
taken by her captors to
PDEA where she was
charged with illegal sale of
shabu. RTC found PO3
Borja guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of
kidnapping for ransom.
Borja argued that Ronalyn
was not deprived of her
liberty because she was
lawfully arrested and
charged with violation of
Republic Act No. 9165. CA
affirmed.
Page 66 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
apprehension for serious illegal detention
violation of Republic requires the
Act No. 9165 does not concurrence of the
automatically negate following elements:
the criminal liability of 1. The offender is a
accused-appellant. It private individual
also does not exclude 2. That individual
the possibility of the kidnaps or detains
commission of the another or in any other
crime with which manner
accused-appellant is deprives the latter of
charged. The buy-bust liberty
operation carried out 3. The act of detention
against Ronalyn and or kidnapping is illegal
her kidnapping are 4. In the commission of
events that can the offense, any of the
reasonably coexist. following circumstances
is
Although the crime of present:
kidnapping can only be a. The kidnapping or
committed by a private detention lasts for more
individual, the fact that than three days.
the accused is a public b. It is committed by
official does not one who simulates
automatically preclude public authority.
the filing of an c. Any serious physical
information for injury is inflicted upon
kidnapping against him. the person kidnapped
A public officer who or detained, or any
detains a person for the threat to kill that person
purpose of extorting is made.
ransom cannot be said d. The person
to be acting in an kidnapped or detained
official capacity. is a minor, a female or
a public officer.
The quantum of
evidence required in
criminal cases is proof
beyond reasonable
doubt. This does not
entail absolute certainty
on the accused's guilt.
It only requires moral
certainty or "that
degree of proof which
produces conviction in
an unprejudiced mind."
The mind and
consciousness of a
magistrate must be
able to rest at ease
upon a guilty verdict.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
2016
CASE FACTS
Matalam v. Petitioner Datu Guimid P.
People Matalam is high-ranking
public officer being the
G.R. No. 221849- Regional Secretary of the
50 | April 04, 2016 Department of Agrarian
| Leonen, J. Reform-Autonomous
Region for Muslim
Mindanao (DAR-ARMM).
Matalam, Lawi, and Unte
were the officers involved in
the collection and
remittance of accounts to
the GSIS and Pag-IBIG
Fund but failed and/or
refused to remit the
required contributions
without justifiable cause
Matalam presented
testimonial and
documentary evidence and
claimed that Lawi and Unte
were responsible for
remitting the GSIS and Pag-
IBIG Fund government
contributions. Even if the
funds were released to
DAR- ARMM, Matalam as
the Regional Secretary
could not be held
accountable for the
nonpayment or remittance,
since as a matter of
procedure, he merely acts
as a signatory.
Furthermore, Matalam
argues that even if the
offensesvhe allegedly
committed are mala
prohibita, his guilt must still
be proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
The Sandiganbayan found
petitioner guilty of non-
remittance of the
employer’s share in
Government Service
Insurance System and
Home Development Mutual
Page 67 of 94
lustre5159
HELD
Matalam is liable for
the non-remittance of
the contributions to
GSIS and Pag-IBIG
Fund. Petitioner was
informed of the
underpayment or non-
remittance of
premiums for a period
of one (1) year and six
(6) months but failed to
heed the letters and
billing statements,
which asked him, as
head of DAR-ARMM,
to pay the deficiencies.
Petitioner’s liability for
the non-remittance to
GSIS and Pag-IBIG
Fund of the employer’s
share in the
contributions is clearly
set out in the laws
mandating the
collection and
remittance of the
premiums—Sec. 52(g)
of RA 8291; sec. 1,
Rule XIII of the IRR for
RA 7742.The state has
adopted a policy of
maintaining and
preserving the
actuarial solvency of
GSIS funds at all
times. Since the fund
comes from both
member and employer
contributions, non-
remittance of the
contributions threatens
the actuarial solvency
of the fund.
The Pag-IBIG Fund
was established as a
continued commitment
to social justice and
CRIMINAL LAW
DOCTRINE
RA 8291, Section 52(g)
clearly provides that
heads of agencies or
branches of government
shall be criminally liable
for the failure, refusal, or
delay in the payment,
turnover, and remittance
or delivery of such
accounts to the GSIS.
Similarly, the refusal or
failure without lawful
cause or with fraudulent
intent to comply with the
provisions of RA 7742,
with respect to the
collection and
remittance of employee
savings as well as the
required employer
contributions to the Pag-
IBIG Fund, subjects the
employer to criminal
liabilities such as the
payment of a fine,
imprisonment, or both.
As to penalty, the
Indeterminate Sentence
Law’s basic goal is “to
uplift and redeem
valuable human
material, and prevent
unnecessary
andexcessive
deprivation of personal
liberty and economic
usefulness.” However,
penalties shall not be
standardized but fitted
as far as is possible to
the individual, with due
regard to the imperative
necessity of
protecting the social
order.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Fund (Pag-IBIG Fund)
premiums. The main issue
in this case is whether
petitioner Matalam is guilty
of non-remittance of the
employer’s share of the
GSIS and Pag-IBIG Fund
premiums.
People of the The accused, Ruben Baron,
Philippines v. was charged with rape and
Baron killing of a 7-year old girl,
AAA.
G.R. No. 213215|
January 11, 2016 | Eight (8) witnesses testified
Leonen, J. for the prosecution.
According to the testimony
of AAA’s mother, AAA
sought her permission to
play at a daycare center on
May 4, 1999. At about
1:30pm, she came back
home with accused Baron,
wet from head to toe
because they played at the
seawall. They then asked
for the mother’s permission
to go on a joy-ride. They
came back at 4:30pm.
However, AAA was found
missing at around 5:30pm.
With Baron’s assistance in
looking for AAA, they found
AAA’s lifeless body as they
entered the seawall.
Accused-appellant alleges
that the prosecution has not
Page 68 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
national development
through the
establishment,
development,
promotion, and
integration of a sound
and viable tax-exempt
mutual provident
savings system for the
working peoples’
housing needs, with
the mandatory
contributory support of
the employers. Failure
of the employer to
remit its share of the
contributions
jeopardizes the
peoples’ needs and
rights to decent shelter
or housing.
SC affirms the In People v. Gambao,
conviction of accused the SC took occasion to
Baron. However, SC require an increase in
deletes the award of the minimum award of
temperate damages damages where the
and increases the death penalty would
award of damages have been imposed,
imposed. were it not for a law
preventing it. Hence, in
The requirements for this case, the award of
circumstantial damages were also
evidence to sustain a increased in view of the
conviction are settled. sheer heinousness and
Rule 133, Section 4 of depravity of accused’s
the Revised Rules on acts of raping and
Evidence provides: drowning a seven-year
old girl to death.
Section 4.
Circumstantial
evidence, when
sufficient. —
Circumstantial
evidence is sufficient
for conviction if:
(a) There is more than
one circumstances;
(b) The facts from
which the inferences
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
established his involvement
with certainty. He bewails
the prosecution’s reliance
on supposedly tenuous
circumstantial evidence.
The sole issue of whether
accused-appellant Ruben
Baron’s guilt has been
established beyond
reasonable doubt.
Lescano y A buy bust operation was
Carreon v. conducted based on an
People informant’s tip to the City
Anti-Illegal Drug Special
GR No. 214490, Operation Team
January 13, 2016 (CAIDSOT). The informant
introduced PO3 Javier to
Lescano. Lescano asked
PO3 Javier how much
marijuana he was willing to
buy. PO3 Javier responded
by handing the marked
P100 bill to Lescano who
then gave PO3 Javier a
medium-sized plastic
sachet supposedly
containing marijuana. At
this signal, PO3 Javier gave
the pre-arranged signal to
Page 69 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
are derived are
proven; and
(c) The combination of
all the circumstances
is such as to produce
a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt
A careful examination
of the records shows
that there is nothing
that warrants a
reversal of the
Decisions of the
Regional Trial Court
and of the Court of
Appeals.
For the sheer
heinousness and
depravity of accused-
appellant’s acts of
raping and drowning a
seven-year-old girl to
death and in
accordance
with People v.
Gambao, the SC
exercised its judicial
prerogative and
increased the award of
damages.
Whether the DOCTRINE #1
prosecution was able "Law enforcers should
to establish not trifle with the legal
compliance. with the requirement to ensure
requisites of Section integrity in the chain of
21 of Republic Act custody of seized
No. 9165. – NO. dangerous drugs and
Section 21(1) of the drug paraphernalia. This
Comprehensive is especially true when
Dangerous Drugs Act only a miniscule amount
was not faithfully of dangerous drugs is
complied with. alleged to have been
taken from the
In actions involving the accused."
illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the In Malilin v. People, "the
following elements likelihood of tampering,
must first be loss or mistake with
established: respect to an exhibit is
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
the buy-bust team. PO1
Mataverde approached
them and introduced
himself as a police officer.
He then frisked Lescano
and recovered the buy-bust
money. PO3 Javier marked
the medium-sized plastic
sachet with the initials "HJ"
and turned it over to SPO1
Delos Reyes. Lescano was
then brought to the
CAIDSOT office for
investigation.
At the office, P/Insp. Javier
asked the Hospital
Administrator to conduct a
physical examination on
Lescano. He also asked the
PNP Crime Laboratory to
examine Lescano's urine
and the contents of the
sachet seized during the
buy-bust operation.
At the trial, PO3 Javier
positively identified the drug
specimen. The PNP Crime
Laboratory also issued a
report on Lescano's urine
stating that dangerous
drugs were present in
Lescano's system. The
laboratory examination on
the sachet also yielded a
positive result for marijuana.
Lescano was then charged
for violating Section 5 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. Upon
arraignment, Lescano
entered a plea of not guilty.
The defense denied that he
was selling marijuana.
Lescano claimed that he
was just sitting and passing
time when P/Insp. Javier
arrived and frisked him and
recovered nothing from him.
But when other officers
arrived, P/Insp. Told him
Page 70 of 94
lustre5159
(1) proof that the
transaction or sale
took place and
(2) the presentation in
court of the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug
as evidence.
As regards corpus
delicti, Section 21 of
the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002, as amended
by RA 10640
stipulates
requirements for the
custody and
disposition of
confiscated, seized,
and/or surrendered
drugs and/or drug
paraphernalia.
Section 21(1) requires
the performance of two
(2) actions: physical
inventory and
photographing. These
must be done
immediately after
seizure and
confiscation. As to
where it should be
done, if a search
warrant was served,
the physical inventory
and photographing
must be done at the
exact same place
that the search
warrant is served. In
case of warrantless
seizures, these actions
must be done "at the
nearest police
station or at the
nearest office of the
apprehending
officer/team,
whichever is
practicable."
Section 21(1) requires
at least three (3)
persons to be present
CRIMINAL LAW
greatest when the
exhibit is small and is
one that has physical
characteristics fungible
in nature and similar in
form to substances
familiar to people in their
daily lives."
DOCTRINE #2
In every criminal
prosecution for
possession of illegal
drugs, the Prosecution
must account for the
custody of the
incriminating evidence
from the moment of
seizure and confiscation
until the moment it is
offered in evidence.
That account goes to
the weight of evidence.
It is not enough that the
evidence offered has
probative value on the
issues, for the evidence
must also be sufficiently
connected to and tied
with the facts in issue.
The evidence is not
relevant merely because
it is available but that it
has an actual
connection with the
transaction involved
and with the parties
thereto. This is the
reason why
authentication and
laying a foundation for
the introduction of
evidence are important.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
that something was
confiscated from him. When
he insisted that nothing was
confiscated from him, he
was then said, "don't worry,
tomorrow there will be."
The RTC found Lescano
guilty.
The CA affirmed and denied
Lescano's MR, hence this
appeal.
Page 71 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
during the physical
inventory and
photographing. First,
the accused or the
person/s from whom
the items were
seized; second, an
elected public
official; and third, a
representative of the
National Prosecution
Service. There are
two (2) alternatives to
the first: his or her
representative, or his
or her counsel. As to
the second, the
alternatives are: the
representative of the
National Prosecution
Service, or a
representative of the
media.
Compliance with
Section 21's
requirements is critical.
According to People v.
Holgado:
"Non-compliance is
tantamount to failure in
establishing identity of
corpus delicti, an
essential element of
the offenses of illegal
sale and illegal
possession of
dangerous drugs. By
failing to establish an
element... of these
offenses, non-
compliance will, thus,
engender the acquittal
of an accused."
Compliance with the
chain of custody
requirement provided
by Section 21, ensures
the integrity of
confiscated, seized,
and/or surrendered
drugs and/or drug
paraphernalia in four
(4) respects and
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CRIMINAL LAW

forecloses
opportunities for
planting,
contaminating, or
tampering of evidence
in any manner. These
are:
(1) the nature of the
substances or items
seized;
(2) the quantity (e.g.,
weight) of the
substances or items
seized;
(3) the relation of the
substances or items
seized to the incident
allegedly causing their
seizure;
(4) the relation of the
substances or items
seized to the person/s
alleged to have been
in possession of or
peddling them.

Non-compliance
suffices as a ground
for acquittal. In the
present case, chain of
custody of the illicit
drug seized was
compromised. Even
the doing of acts which
ostensibly approximate
compliance but do not
actually comply with
the requirements of
Section 21 does not
suffice.
In the present case,
Section 21(1) of the
Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act
was not faithfully
complied with.
While an inventory
was supposed to have
been conducted, this
was done neither in
the presence of
petitioner, the person
from whom the drugs

Page 72 of 94
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CRIMINAL LAW

were supposedly
seized, nor in the
presence of his
counsel or
representative. Not
one of the persons
required to be present
(an elected public
official, and a
representative of the
National Prosecution
Service or the media)
was shown to have
been around during
the inventory and
photographing.
Moreoever, in
decisions involving
analogous
circumstances, "[t]he
miniscule amount of
narcotics supposedly
seized amplifies the
doubts on their
integrity.” What is
involved here is all but
a single sachet of 1.4
grams of plant material
alleged to have been
marijuana.
While the miniscule
amount of narcotics
seized is by itself not a
ground for acquittal,
this circumstance
underscores the need
for more exacting
compliance with
Section 21.
With the integrity of the
corpus delicti of the
crime for which
petitioner was charged
is cast in doubt, it
follows that there is no
basis for finding him
guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
Petitioner must be
acquitted.

People vs. This case involves separate SC denies the petition. Conspiracy does not
Feliciano, Jr. Motions for Reconsideration require that all persons

Page 73 of 94
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
of the accused-appellants
G.R. No. 196735 | who were found guilty for
August 3, 2016 | attempted murder of an 18-
Leonen, J. year-old student of De La
Salle – College of St.
Benilde, who died, allegedly
because of hazing. The
accused-appellants in this
case, are seeking the
reversal of the May 5, 2014
Supreme Court decision
finding them guilty of the
said act.
One of the main issues
raised by the accused-
appellant Alvir is that the
Court erred in finding
conspiracy among all the
accused since the trial court
acquitted those who were
identified by Mangrobang
Jr., one of the private
complainants in the case.
Lopez was charged with
Lopez v. People violation of PD 533.
According to Perez, the
GR No. 212186 | female carabao that he
June 29, 2016| purchased from Villanueva
Leonen, J went missing on July 17,
2002 around 5 am and it
was Lopez who took it. A
confrontation took place at
the barangay police station
where Lopez allegedly
admitted to taking the
carabao and promised to
pay indemnification. Lopez
denied this claim and said
that when he went to the
Page 74 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
The SC stated that the charged in the
trial court only information be found
acquitted some of the guilty. It only requires
accused because they that those who were
were afforded the found guilty conspired in
benefit of the doubt committing the crime.
because the The acquittal of some of
identification of the accused does not
Mangrobang was not necessarily preclude the
corroborated and the presence of conspiracy.
alibis of those
acquitted were not
refuted. However, in
Alvir’s case the
identification by
Lachica, another
witness, was given
credibility and Alvir’s
alibi was thereafter
also found to be weak.
The court then stated
that there is no need
for all the persons
charged in the
information to be found
guilty in order for there
to be conspiracy. What
is only required is that
those who were found
guilty conspired in
committing the crime.
The prosecution failed To sustain a conviction
to prove one of the for cattle-rustling, the
elements of cattle- identity of the stolen
rustling: that the lost cattle must be proven
carabao of Mario and with certainty.
Teresita Perez is the Otherwise, the accused
same carabao must be acquitted on
allegedly stolen by the ground of
petitioner. The witness’ reasonable doubt. Also,
definition of the a "request for
carabao was too appearance" issued by
generic—no law enforcers to a
distinguishing mark on person identified as a
the cattle was suspect is akin to an
mentioned. In addition, "invitation." Thus, the
the witness had no suspect is covered by
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
police station, he denied
stealing the carabao. The
trial court found Lopez guilty
of cattle-rustling. Lopez filed
before the CA an appeal
arguing that the prosecution
was unable to prove that
the carabao allegedly stolen
was the same carabao
owned by Perez. CA ruled
that the Certificate of
Transfer of Large Cattle and
Alderete's testimony were
sufficient to prove the
ownership of the lost
carabao. Furthermore, there
was no violation of Lopez's
custodial rights. PO3
Lozarito did not ask
questions, and Lopez was
not compelled to make any
admissions. Lopez
negotiated for a settlement
with Mario and Teresita
Perez, which could not be
considered as custodial
investigation.
Tuano v. People Accused Ruel Tuano y
Hernandez was charged
G.R. No.204412| with violation of Article II,
September 20, Section 11(3) of Republic
2017 | Leonen, J Act No. 9165 for having in
his possession one (1)
heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet with 0.064
grams of shabu.
On June 27, 2016, this
Court issued the Resolution
acquitting accused for
failure of the prosecution to
prove his guilt beyond
Page 75 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
personal knowledge of the rights of an accused
the appearance of the while under custodial
carabao owned by investigation.
Perez that he himself
doubted whether theft Custodial investigation
was committed. shall include the
practice of issuing an
As to the admission of "invitation" to a person
petitioner, the who is investigated in
uncounselled connection with an
admission during the offense he is suspected
confrontation at the to have committed,
police station is without prejudice to the
inadmissible in liability of the "inviting"
evidence. The record officer for any violation
shows that petitioner's of law. It commences
appearance before the when a person is taken
police station was far into custody and is
from being voluntary. singled out as a suspect
The so called "request in the commission of a
for appearance" is no crime under
different from the investigation and the
"invitation" issued by police officers begin to
police officers for ask questions on the
custodial investigation suspect's participation
as defined in sec. 2 of therein and which tend
RA 7438. In People v. to elicit an admission.
Bio, the SC has held
that "the infractions of
the so-called Miranda
rights render
inadmissible only the
extrajudicial
confession or
admission made
during custodial
investigation."
The SC sets aside its As officers of the court
June 27, 2016 and as protectors of the
resolution and legal interests of their
dismisses the criminal clients, counsels have a
action. duty to properly act in
case of their clients'
Although Rule 3, death by notifying the
Section 16 of the Court of this
Rules of Court is development.
directly applied more
often in civil actions for The death of accused
the substitution of the extinguishes his criminal
deceased party, the liability, in accordance
rule that the counsel of with Art. 89 par 1 of the
the deceased party RPC. Likewise, the civil
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
reasonable doubt. Thus, an
Order of Release was
issued and sent to the
Director of the Bureau of
Corrections.
On July 22, 2016, this Court
received from the Director
General of the Bureau of
Corrections a letter dated
July 15, 2016 informing this
Court that accused died on
March 1, 2015, prior to the
issuance of this Court's
June 27, 2016 Resolution.
This Court notes that
counsels for accused
should have informed this
Court of the death of their
client. Rule 3, Section 16 of
the Rules of Court provides
that the counsel is duty-
bound to report the death of
a party to the court.
Page 76 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
must inform the court liability of the accused
of the death of his or arising from his criminal
her client also properly liability is extinguished
applies in criminal upon his death.
actions. Regardless of
the nature of the
action, courts cannot
be expected to
assume the death of
the party without the
counsel's proper
manifestation.
Counsels for accused
were grossly remiss in
this duty. Accused
died on March 1,
2015.re However, his
counsels continued to
file pleadings on his
behalf even after said
date.
This Court notes that
accused was
represented by the
Public Attorney's
Office.
Notwithstanding their
heavy case workload
and the free legal
assistance they
provide to indigents
and low-income
persons, however,
counsels from the
Public Attorney's
Office are still obliged
to pursue their cases
with competence and
diligence.
Rule 14.04 of the
Code of Professional
Responsibility provides
that "[a] lawyer who
accepts the cause of a
person unable to pay
his professional fees
shall observe the
same standard of
conduct governing his
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Marasigan y De Petitioner Marasigan
Guzman v. alleged that on December
Fuentes 20, 2006 at about 3:00 a.m.,
he felt someone throw an
GR No. 201310, object at him from behind.
January 11, 2016 Turning around, he saw
Fuentes, who, upon noticing
that he had been seen,
disappeared. A witness,
Jefferson Pablo, confirmed
that it was Fuentes who
threw an object at him.
While they were talking,
Fuentes and several other
assailants appeared and
efforts were made to hit his
head with pieces of hollow
blocks. Petitioner managed
to parry an attempted blow,
thereby causing a fracture
in his right hand. Marasigan
shouted for help. Pablo's
mother, came and tried to
pacify the assailants, to no
avail. It was only upon the
arrival of 2 more neighbors
that they ceased their
assault and fled.
A criminal complaint for
frustrated murder was filed
against Fuentes, Calilan,
Page 77 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
relations with paying
clients.
Given these
circumstances,
counsels for accused
are directed to show
cause why no
disciplinary action
should be taken
against them in light of
their failure to inform
this Court of accused's
death.
This Court resolves to
set aside its June 27,
2016 Resolution and
dismiss this case.
Whether DOJ DOCTRINE #1:
Secretary Devanadera Preliminary investigation
was in grave error in inquires only into the
citing with approval existence of probable
Assistant Provincial cause: a matter which
Prosecutor’s having rests on likelihood rather
faulted petitioner for than on certainty. It
lack of "sufficient relies on common sense
showing, or clear and rather than on "clear
convincing evidence to and convincing
prove that the herein evidence"
respondents
collectively intended to DOCTRINE #2:
kill petitioner.”— YES. Conspiracy exists when
two or more persons
A preliminary come to an agreement
investigation concerning the
"ascertains whether commission of a felony
the offender should be and decide to commit it.
held for trial or be It arises on the very
released.” It inquires instant the plotters
only into the existence agree, expressly or
of probable cause: a impliedly, to commit the
matter which rests on felony and forthwith
likelihood rather than decide to pursue it.
on certainty. It relies
on common sense
rather than on "clear
and convincing
evidence"
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Lindo, and one John Doe.
After conducting preliminary
investigation, Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor
Serrano issued the
Resolution finding probable
cause for charging Fuentes
and Calilan with less
serious physical injuries and
clearing Lindo of any
liability, reasoning that there
were no qualifying
circumstances to support a
charge for murder.
Marasigan filed a Petition
for Review before the DOJ.
He argued that the medical
findings made on him as
well as the qualifying
circumstance of abuse of
superior strength justified
prosecution for frustrated
murder. He added that
Lindo's acts were
unambiguous and indicated
his participation in a design
to kill him.
Page 78 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
Probable cause, for
the purpose of filing a
criminal information,
has been defined as
such facts as are
sufficient to engender
a well-founded belief
that a crime has been
committed and that
respondent is probably
guilty thereof. The
term does not mean
"actual and positive
cause" nor does it
import absolute
certainty. It is merely
based on opinion and
reasonable belief.
Probable cause does
not require an inquiry
into whether there is
sufficient evidence to
procure a conviction. It
is enough that it is
believed that the act or
omission complained
of constitutes the
offense charged.
In determining
probable cause, the
average man weighs
facts and
circumstances without
resorting to the
calibrations of the
rules of evidence of
which he has no
technical knowledge.
He relies on common
sense.
Whether the
respondents acted in
conspiracy – YES.
It is settled that direct
proof of conspiracy is
not imperative and that
conspiracy may be
inferred from acts of
the perpetrators. As
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CRIMINAL LAW

explained in People v.
Amodia:

“Conspiracy exists
when two or more
persons come to an
agreement concerning
the commission of a
felony and decide to
commit it. It arises on
the very instant the
plotters agree,
expressly or impliedly,
to commit the felony
and forthwith decide to
pursue it. It may be
proved by direct or
circumstantial
evidence.”

Thus, it has been held

in People v. Amodia
that a perpetrator's act
of holding the victim's
hand while another
perpetrator is striking a
blow is indicative of
conspiracy.

In this case, petitioner

averred that
respondents Calilan
and Lindo took hold of
each of his arms while
respondent Fuentes
was about to strike him
with a hollow block. It
is, therefore, apparent
that all three of them
acted out of a common
design as is indicative
of a conspiracy.

Whether the
respondents ought
to stand trial only for
the charge of less
serious physical
injuries. – NO. There
is basis for prosecuting
respondents for
murder in its

Page 79 of 94
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CRIMINAL LAW

attempted, and not in

its frustrated, stage.

The essential
elements of an
attempted felony are
as follows:
(1) The offender
commences the
commission of the
felony directly by overt
acts;
(2) He does not
perform all the acts of
execution which
should produce the
felony;
(3) The offender's act
be not stopped by his
own spontaneous
desistance;
(4) The non-
performance of all acts
of execution was due
to cause or accident
other than his
spontaneous
desistance.

The first requisite of an

attempted felony
consists of two
elements, namely:
(1) That there be
external acts;
(2) Such external acts
have direct connection
with the crime
intended to be
committed.

In this case, petitioner

alleged that
respondents
coordinated in
assaulting him and
that this assault
culminated in efforts to
hit his head with a
stone or hollow block.
Had respondents been
successful, they could
have dealt any number

Page 80 of 94
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. Pusing This case resolves an
y Tamor appeal of a conviction for
two counts of qualified rape
G.R. No. 208009 | and one count of child
July 11, 2016| abuse of a minor.
Leonen, J
The minor in this case,
AAA, is the accused-
appellant Tamor Pusing’s
foster daughter from his
live-in partner. After the
minor’s mother passed
away, Pusing took over the
custody of AAA. On or
about April 5, 2004, Pusing
allegedly sexually harassed
AAA. AAA’s cousin came to
their house the next day to
attend the wake of his
brother, and one of the
neighbors told the cousin to
take AAA with him because
she was being abused by
Pusing. BBB, AAA’s cousin,
then took AAA to Manila
where AAA revealed to him
Page 81 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
of blows on petitioner.
Each of these could
have been fatal, or,
even if not individually
so, could have, in
combination, been
fatal. The fact that
petitioner was
successful in blocking
the blow with his hand
does not, in and of
itself, mean that
respondents could not
have possibly killed
him. It does not negate
any homicidal intent.
That they were unable
to inflict fatal blows
was only because of
the timely arrival of
neighbors who
responded to the calls
for help coming from
petitioner and
witnesses, Mrs. Pablo
and 2 more neighbors.
The SC affirms the A careful examination of
decision of the RTC the records shows that
and the CA but there is nothing that
modified the penalties. would warrant a reversal
of the Decisions of the
For the first charge of Regional Trial Court and
rape which is rape the Court of Appeals.
through carnal When a woman,
knowledge, the SC especially a minor,
found that the lower alleges rape, “she says
courts did not err in in effect all that is
finding that the necessary to mean that
accused-appellant was she has been raped.”
guilty of the first
charge. This is
because according to
the Revised Penal
Code, the first type of
rape is committed
when a man has
carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of
the enumerated
circumstances. In this
case what specifically
applied is the
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
and his wife that she was
raped. They assisted her to
file a complaint before the
police, and Pusing was
charged with rape and
abuse in four separate
information. The RTC found
Pusing guilty beyond
reasonable out of two
counts of rape and one
count of child abuse.
Raised before the CA, the
CA affirmed the RTC’s
decision in toto. Hence the
petition before the SC.
Page 82 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
circumstance of when
the offended part is
under twelve years of
age or is demented.
The court in People v.
Quintos ruled that 12
years of age under
Article 266-A(1)(d) of
the RPC is defined as
either the
chronological age of
the child if he or she is
not suffering from
intellectual disability or
the mental age if
intellectual disability is
established. Another
qualification for the
first charge is if it was
committed with an
aggravating/qualifying
circumstance. Under
Article 266-B(6)(1) of
the RPC, when a child
is under eighteen
years of age and the
offender is a guardian
and when the offender
knew of the mental
disability of the
offended party. These
were all present in
Pusing’s case making
him guilty for the first
charge of rape.
As to the second
charge, he was also
correctly found guilty
by the lower courts
because the elements
defining the second
type of rape plus the
aggravating/qualifying
circumstance
mentioned in the
provision as well, were
present in Pusing’s
case.
Lastly, for the third
charge, sexual vilence
against a minor
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CRIMINAL LAW

through acts of
lasciviousness, the
lower courts did not err
in finding that the
elements of the said
crime were present in
the case of Pusing.
Aside from the
strength of the lower
courts’ findings the SC
also stated that when
a women, especially a
minor, alleges rape
“she says in effect all
that is necessary to
mean that she has
been rape”. They also
reiterated that factual
finding of the trial court
and evaluation of
witnesses and their
testimonies are
entitled to respect and
will not be disturbed on
appeal unless it is
shown to have
overlooked,
misapprehended, or
misapplied any factor
circumstance.

Page 83 of 94
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
2015
CASE FACTS
Benito v. People Rebecca Agbulos and
Angelita Cruz Benito were
G.R. No. 204644| charged with estafa when
February 11, 2015 the defrauded Abadilla. The
| Leonen, J accused allegedly refused
to turn over the proceeds
for the sale of assorted
pieces of jewelry in the
amount of P2,070,030
which was given to them by
Abadilla on a commission
basis. The jewelry were
later pawned by a certain
“Linda Chua”.
In their defense, the
accused denied receiving
jewelry from Abadilla. RTC
found that the prosecution
proved beyond reasonable
doubt that Agbulos and
Benito conspired to commit
estafa. CA affirmed.
According to Benito, the
prosecution failed to prove
her alleged conspiracy with
Agbulos to commit estafa.
She maintains that Agbulos
alone transacted with
Abadilla, denying that she
received any of the pieces
of jewelry. That she
allegedly accompanied
Agbulos to Abadilla's
residence does not prove
that she likewise received
some of the pieces of
jewelry. Thus, the element
of estafa consisting of the
receipt in trust of personal
property does not apply to
her.
Page 84 of 94
lustre5159
HELD
The prosecution failed to
prove beyond reasonable
doubt Benito's conspiracy
with Agbulos to commit
estafa.
Under Article 8 of the
Revised Penal Code, "a
conspiracy exists when
two or more persons come
to an agreement
concerning the
commission of a felony
and decide to commit it."
Proof of conspiracy may
be direct or circumstantial
as long as the evidence
presented show a
"common design or
purpose" to commit the
crime, all of the accused
shall be held equally liable
as co-principals even if
one or more of them did
not participate in all the
details of the execution of
the crime. For this reason,
the fact of conspiracy
"must be proven on the
same quantum of evidence
as the felony subject of the
agreement of the parties,"
– proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
As testified to by Abadilla,
only Agbulos received the
pieces of jewelry from her,
and Benito was merely
"present during the
negotiation" There is no
proof of Benito's direct
participation in the
commission of the crime
charged. Neither is there
proof beyond reasonable
CRIMINAL LAW
DOCTRINE
To prove estafa
through
misappropriation, the
prosecution must
establish the following
elements:
(1) the offender's
receipt of money,
goods, or other
personal property in
trust, or on
commission, or for
administration, or
under any other
obligation involving
the duty to deliver, or
to return, the same;
(2) misappropriation or
conversion by the
offender of the money
or property received,
or denial of receipt of
the money or property;
(3) the
misappropriation,
conversion or denial is
to the prejudice of
another; and
(4) demand by the
offended party that the
offender return the
money or property
received.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CRIMINAL LAW

doubt of her conspiracy

with Agbulos. The estafa
had already been
consummated when "Linda
Chua" allegedly pawned
the jewelry on June 17,
1994. Benito, who was
allegedly "Linda Chua,"
cannot be held criminally
liable with Agbulos. "There
can be no ex post facto
conspiracy to do that which
has already been done
and consummated."

Ricalde v. This is a criminal case for
People rape through sexual assault
committed against a 10-
G.R. No. 211002 | year-old boy.
January 21, 2015
| Accused Ricalde was a
Leonen distant relative and
textmate of XXX, a 10-year
old boy. After dinner, XXX’s
mother told Ricalde to
spend the night at their
house as it was already
late. Accused slept on the
sofa while XXX slept on the
living room floor. At around
2:00 a.m., XXX awoke as
"he felt pain in his anus and
stomach and something
inserted in his anus." He
saw that Ricalde "fondled
his penis." When Ricalde
returned to the sofa, XXX
ran toward his mother’s
room to tell her what
happened. XXX’s mother
armed herself with a knife
for self-defense when she
confronted Ricalde about
the incident, but he
remained silent. She asked
him to leave.
The RTC found Ricalde
guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of rape through
The SC affirms petitioner’s
conviction with
modification on the penalty
imposed, to the penalty
under Article III, Section
5(b) of RA 7610 known as
the "Special Protection of
Children Against Child
Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act".
Rape under the second
paragraph of Article 266-A
of the RPC is also known
as "instrument or object
rape," "gender-free rape,"
or "homosexual rape."
The gravamen of rape
through sexual assault is
"the insertion of the penis
into another person’s
mouth or anal orifice, or
any instrument or object,
into another person’s
genital or anal orifice."
The SC found no cogent
reason exists to overturn
the lower courts’ findings.
The Court held that a
victim need not identify
what was inserted into his
or her genital or anal
orifice for the court to find
that rape through sexual
The gravamen of the
crime is the violation
of the victim’s dignity.
The degree of
penetration is not
important. Rape is an
"assault on human
dignity.” The absence
of spermatozoa in
XXX’s anal orifice
does not negate the
possibility of an
erection and
penetration.
Further, the Variance
Doctrine does not
apply because no
variance exists
between what was
charged and what was
proven during trial.
The prosecution
established beyond
reasonable doubt all
elements of the crime
of rape through sexual
assault.

Page 85 of 94
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
sexual assault. CA affirmed
the decision.
Petitioner argues the
existence of reasonable
doubt in his
favor. Assuming he
committed an offense,
petitioner contends that the
court should have applied
the "variance doctrine" in
People v. Sumingwa, and
the court would have found
him guilty for the lesser
offense of acts of
lasciviousness under Article
336 of the Revised Penal
Code.
Page 86 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
assault was committed. In
People v. Soria, the Court
ruled that it is
inconsequential that the
victim could not specifically
identify the particular
instrument or object that
was inserted into her
genital. What is important
and relevant is that indeed
something was inserted
into her vagina. To require
“AAA” to identify the
instrument or object that
was inserted into her
vagina would be contrary
to the fundamental tenets
of due process.”
Second, the absence of
spermatozoa in XXX’s anal
orifice does not negate the
possibility of an erection
and penetration. This
result does not contradict
the positive testimony of
XXX that the lower courts
found credible, natural,
and consistent with human
nature.
Lastly, the SC addresses
the “variance doctrine” that
the petitioner invoked,
citing People v.
Sumingwa. The Variance
doctrine is provided under
Sections 4 and 5 of Rule
120 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure. It
states:
SEC. 4. Judgment in
case of variance between
allegation and proof.—
When there is variance
between the offense
charged in the complaint or
information and that
proved, and the offense as
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CRIMINAL LAW

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.
SEC. 5. When an offense
includes or is included in
another.—An offense
charged necessarily
includes the offense
proved when some of the
essential elements or
ingredients of the former,
as alleged in
the complaint or
information, constitute the
latter. And an offense
charged is necessarily
included in the offense
proved, when the essential
ingredients of the former
continue or form part of
those constituting the
latter.

The ruling in Sumingwa

applying the Variance
Doctrine does not apply to
the case at bar because in
the former, it was ruled
since “there was no
penetration, or even an
attempt to insert [the
accused’s] penis into [the
victim’s] vagina”, the crime
of rape was not committed;
only acts of lasciviousness.
In the instant case, no
variance exists between
what was charged and
what was proven during
trial. The
prosecution established
beyond reasonable doubt
all elements of the crime of

Page 87 of 94
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CRIMINAL LAW

rape through sexual

assault.

In the instant case, no

variance exists between
what was charged and
what was proven during
trial. The prosecution
established beyond
reasonable doubt all
elements of the crime of
rape through sexual
assault.

Further, XXX testified that

he “felt something was
inserted into his
anus.” The slightest
penetration into one’s
sexual organ distinguishes
an act of lasciviousness
from the crime of rape.

A long line of cases

consider a woman’s
private organ since most if
not all existing
jurisprudence on rape
involves a woman
victim. Nevertheless, this
interpretation
can apply by analogy when
the victim is a man in that
the slightest penetration to
the victim’s anal orifice
consummates the crime of
rape through sexual
assault.

People v. Version of the Whether there was DOCTRINE:

Rodrigo Prosecution
Casacop Y De
Castro POl Bautista testified that
he, together with SPO1
G.R. No. 208685, Glorioso, other police
Mar 9, 2015 officers, and two (2) assets,
conducted a buy-bust
operation. The poseur-
buyer went to the house of
compliance with the
rules in handling and
custody of confiscated
illegal drugs. – NO.
Prosecution argues that
the governing law in this
case is RA No. 6425 or
The Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972. Accused-
Failure to observe the
chain of custody
required under
Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 or failure
to sufficiently explain
the reason for non-
observance of the
chain of custody

Page 88 of 94
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
Casacop to buy shabu. POl
Bautista testified that he
saw Casacop give
something to the poseur-
buyer. In turn, the poseur-
buyer handed over the
P100.00 marked money to
Casacop. After the
transaction, the poseur-
buyer gave the signal and
the police officers headed
towards Casacop who tried
to escape. They were able
to apprehend him. Casacop
was apprised of his
constitutional rights. The
small heat-sealed plastic
sachet, which the police
suspected to contain
shabu, was marked and
sent to the Crime
Laboratory for examination.
Version of the Defense
Casacop testified he was
asleep in his home when
suddenly, someone banged
on their door. He was
awakened by his wife
Zenaida, thinking that he
might be arrested for failing
to report to his parole
officer. He jumped out of a
window but was eventually
arrested by POl Bautista.
Zenaida Casacop
corroborated her husband's
testimony. She also
testified that her husband
did not sell any shabu.
The RTC found Casacop
guilty and sentenced him to
life imprisonment The CA
affirmed the ruling of the
trial court.
Page 89 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
appellant was arrested creates reasonable
BEFORE RA No. 9165 doubt as to the
took effect. RA 6425 did integrity of the corpus
not provide for the proper delicti in... cases
procedure in handling involving dangerous
seized items. drugs.
The Court held that RA No. In dangerous drugs
9165 already took effect cases, the corpus
when the accused- delicti is the
appellant was dangerous drug itself.
apprehended and charged Thus, it is imperative
for the illegal sale of drugs, that the integrity of the
contrary to what the OSG seized dangerous
posited that the law drug be preserved.
effective at the time of the
commission of the crime is
RA. 6425. Hence, the
procedure in RA No. 9165
must be complied with.
Failure to comply with
Section 21 of Republic Act
No. 9165 will result in the
acquittal of the accused-
appellant.
Whether the guilt of
accused-appellant
Rodrigo Casacop for
violation of Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165
was proven beyond
reasonable doubt.—NO.
The elements of Section 5
of RA No. 9165 are:
(1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the
object and the
consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment.
What is material is the
proof that the transaction
actually took place,
coupled with the
presentation before the
court of the corpus delicti.
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CRIMINAL LAW

Section 21 of RA 9165
provides for the manner by
which law enforcement
officers should handle
seized items in dangerous
drugs cases, restated in
People v. Remigio are as
follows:
(1) The seizure and
marking, if practicable, of
the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
(2) the turnover of the
illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;
(3) the turnover by the
investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory
examination; and
(4) the turnover and
submission of the marked
illegal drug seized by the
forensic chemist to the
court.

Failure to comply with

Section 21 of RA 9165 will
result in the acquittal of the
accused-appellant. In
People v. dela Cruz:
“Non-compliance is
tantamount to failure in
establishing identity of
corpus delicti, an
essential element of the
offenses of illegal sale and
illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. By
failing to establish an
element of these offenses,
non-compliance will, thus
engender the acquittal of
an accused.”

In this case, there was

failure to observe the chain
of custody from the start of

Page 90 of 94
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CRIMINAL LAW

the buy-bust operation,

hence a failure to comply
with Section 21 of RA
9165. There were breaks
in the chain of custody as
to:
(1) The seizure and
marking of the seized item;
and
(2) The turnover of the
seized sachet over to the
PNP Crime Laboratory

PO1 Bautista's testimony

is silent as to where the
seized sachet was marked.
People v. Sabdula held
that in the absence,
however, of specifics on
how, when and where this
marking was done and
who witnessed the marking
procedure, there is non-
compliance with the
required chain of custody
requirement. There was
also no stipulation between
the parties regarding the
circumstances surrounding
this marking.

The prosecution also did

not identify the person who
turned the seized sachet
over to the PNP Crime
Laboratory when it was
submitted for examination.

Moreover, other
requirements provided
under Section 21 of RA
No. 9165 were not
complied with. No
inventory was conducted,
and the records of this
case do not show that the
seized items were
photographed.

Page 91 of 94
lustre5159
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
People v. Rudipico Pogay and
Oloverio Dominador Panday saw
G.R. No. 211159 Rodulfo Galane walking
March 18, 2015 about 5 meters away from
Leonen, J. them with Oloverio trailing
behind him. Oloverio
allegedly tapped Gulane’s
right shoulder and hacked
him on the chest and
extremities with a bolo until
Gulane collapsed on the
ground. Oloverio then
allegedly took Gulane’s
money from his pocket.
Brgy. Captain Romulo
Lamoste, alleged that
Gulane and Oloverio had
an altercation before the
incident. He alleged that
Oloverio’s daughter had
once confided to Oloverio
that Gulane wanted to
touch her private parts.
About a month later, he
allegedly heard Gulane ask
Oloverio "in a joking
manner about his
incestuous relationship with
his mother."Oloverio
allegedly got mad and they
ended up fighting, but
Lamoste was able to
subdue them. He, however,
admitted that he was not
present during the incident.
Oloverio was convicted of
murder by the RTC. The
RTC further ruled that the
mitigating circumstance of
Page 92 of 94
lustre5159
CRIMINAL LAW
Furthermore, there was
also a discrepancy in the
names of the police
officers who examined the
contents of the seized
sachet. This leads us to
doubt whether the corpus
delicti was established.
Oloverio is guilty only of Gulane not only
homicide under Article 249 threatened to molest
of the RPC. He is entitled Oloverio’s daughter
to the mitigating but also accused him
circumstances of passion in public of having
and obfuscation and of incestuous relations
voluntary surrender. with his mother.
Gulane was said to
have insulted Oloverio
in full view of his
immediate superior,
the barangay captain.
Passion and
obfuscation as a
mitigating
circumstance need not
be felt only in the
seconds before the
commission of the
crime. It may build up
and strengthen over
time until it can no
longer be repressed
and will ultimately
motivate the
commission of the
crime.
There is no uniform
rule on what
constitutes "a
considerable length of
time." The provocation
and the commission of
the crime should not
be so far apart that a
reasonable length of
time has passed
during which the
accused would have
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159
passion and obfuscation
was not present in this case
since it could not co-exist
with the presence of
treachery. The CA affirmed
the conviction.
Macayan v. Macayan was hired by
People Annie Jao as a sample
cutter and to undertake
G.R. No. 175842 materials purchasing for her
March 18, 2015 garments business Lanero.
Leonen, J. When business was doing
poorly, Jao allowed her
employees to accept
engagements elsewhere to
augment their income,
provided they prioritize their
work at Lanero. It came to
her attention that Macayan
and his wife accepted work
for a rival company. Jao
confronted Macayan, which
later led to a confrontation.
Afterwards, Macayan
stopped reporting to work.
Macayan later filed a
Complaint for illegal
dismissal against Lao. Lao
alleged that immediately
after the postponement of
the conference for this
case, Macayan threatened
Jao that her family would
be harmed and/or
kidnapped if she did not
give him P200k. This threat
was allegedly repeated the
next day through a phone
call.
Jao sought the help of the
NBI to set up an
entrapment operation.
Macayan was later
accosted during the
Page 93 of 94
lustre5159
The Court reversed the CA
decision and acquitted
Macayan of the charge of
robbery. The court found
Jao's testimony regarding
these occasions (and
ultimately, the presence of
the requisite of violence
against or intimidation of a
person) dubious and
unreliable.
CRIMINAL LAW
calmed down and be
able to reflect on the
consequences of his
or her actions. What is
important is that the
accused has not yet
"recovered his normal
equanimity" when he
committed the crime.
The prosecution failed
to establish the
elements of unlawful
taking and of violence
against or intimidation
of a person.
Reasonable doubt
persists. As is settled
in jurisprudence,
where the basis of
conviction is flawed,
this Court must acquit
an accused
Jao’s absence in the
intended conference
(though subsequently
postponed despite
both parties being
represented) places
serious doubt on the
occurrence of the
supposed first
instance of
intimidation.
The prosecution is left
to rely on the second
supposed instance of
intimidation: the phone
call made by Macayan
to Jao during which he
not only reiterated his
threats but also set a
rendezvous for the
handover of the
extorted money. Even
this, however, is
doubtful.The
prosecution itself
U.P. LAW BOC lustre5159 CRIMINAL LAW

operation. The RTC found acknowledged that

Macayan guilty of robbery. there is no basis for
The CA affirmed the RTC’s ascertaining the
decision. Macayan argued identity of Macayan as
that he neither intimidated the caller other than
nor threatened Jao, and the caller's use of
that he could not have "Madam" in
unlawfully taken money addressing Jao.
from Jao on account of any Certainly, Jao could
act of intimidation and/or have offered other,
threats made by him. more reliable means
of ascertaining that it
was, indeed, Macayan
with whom she was
conversing.

Jao's inconsistent
conduct, coupled with
flimsy justifications for
acting as she did,
betrays the absurdity
and unreliability of her
claims and ultimately,
of her as a witness

Page 94 of 94
lustre5159