2022 NEW POINTERS

DEAN RODERICK E. MANZANO

COLLEGE OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW
Cases Penned by Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
(2022 Bar Examinations Chair)
 Department Chairs
Chief City Prosecutor Aldrin P. Evangelista
Chairperson, Criminal Law Department

State Solicitor Ruben S. Ayson, Jr.

Political Law Department

Prof. Jose Ortiz, Jr.

Civil Law Department

Dean Salvador Moya

Remedial Law Department

Atty. Voltaire T. Duano

Labor Law Department

Dean Aristeo R. Cruz

Commercial Law Department

Atty. Mark Anthony Tamayo

Taxation Law

Atty. Alma Lanzo

Legal Ethics Department
 Bar Operations Committee
Political and International Law
Atty. Evangeline Omadto (Supervising Lawyer)
Del Agua, Athena - Team Leader; Balacanao, Hannah – Asst.
Members: Acosta, Pamela; Balan, Ailene; De La Rosa, Ma. Kathyrine Rose; Felimon, Jean
Lianne; Galdo, Arwin; Garil, Mary Ann; Grospe, Kathryne Joy; Mirador, Jerome

Labor Law
Atty. Patrick Cortes (Supervising Lawyer)
Singson, Nikki – Team Leader; Santiago, Jullia Nicole – Asst.
Members: Andres, Alyssa Faith; Dimaculangan, Leila; Diomino, Katleen; Marlin,Georgelyn; Orillosa,
Mariel; Santoyo, Iralyn; San Pedro, Carmela; De Chavez, Alvin

Criminal Law
Atty. Ellizar Castelltort (Supervising Lawyer)
Canoso, Marvic – Team Leader
Members: Abad, Samuel Edrian; Baldesco, Maria Monica; Cabading, Hyacinth Anne; Garlitos, Victor;
Gemoto, Joyce; Luisa, Andrea Mariz B. Padilla, Ruby; Salazar, Franchesca

Commercial Law
Atty. Mark Angelo Reyes (Supervising Lawyer)
Tagumpay, Diwa – Team Leader; Alejos, Jenaline – Asst.
Members: Alipio, Mark; De Jesus, Ryan Joeferson; Medico, Irish

Civil Law
Atty. Randel Felismino (Supervising Lawyer)
Olalo, Lycel , Team Leader; Cabang, John Benedick P. - Asst.
Members: Agustin, Arvy; Bactin, April Joy; Dazo, Al Adrian; Doctor, Lorenz Benedict; Guzman,
Mariah Alliana; Vicedo, Lloyd David

Remedial Law
Atty. Katherine Macorol (Supervising Lawyer)
Jungco, Jericho – Team Leader; Pado, Maria Potenciana – Asst.
Members: Ampa, Monisah; Belleza, Jan Pauline; Datlan, Johayra; Dela Cruz, Arthur Michael;
Rodriguez, Jayra; Salvacion, Odette

Taxation Law
Atty. Ana Reyes (Supervising Lawyer)
Fuentes, Angelo – Team Leader; Sembrana, Jonel – Asst.
Members: Balero, Ma Lourdes; Cortes, Dann Philip; Domingo, Kim; Tagulob, Gizella Kym

Legal Ethics
Atty. Leihriza Urban (Supervising Lawyer)
Ronquillo, Ian – Team Leader; Vertucio, Stella Anne Marie – Asst.
Members: Barrameda, Victorio III; Basal, Bernadeth; Espineli, Caryl; Ferrer, Karl Mark
 Executive Committee
Atty. Neri Aspili
Chairperson
Mark JR. Alipio
Assistant
Atty. Fitz Lexine Ayala
Co-Chairperson
Nikki Singson
Assistant
Kim A. Domingo
Secretary
Victorio D. Barrameda III
Assistant

Members
Atty. Jan Aldrin Afos
Atty. Kriska Antiojo
Atty. Jay-R Arguelles
Atty. Rosana Berba
Atty.Cattleya Cañete
Atty. Meriel Castillo
Atty. Ryan Castillo
Atty. Allyzza Concepcion
Atty. Czarina Conson
Atty. Albert James Dagsaan
Atty. Shiela Deimoy
Atty. Jastine Gaffuy
Atty. Dwight Pilotin
Atty. Nikka Rabang
Atty. Kenji Rangel
Atty. Jethro Reales
Atty. Vanessa Realizan
Atty. Roca Regala
Atty. Bea Unas
Atty. Rosebelle Vasquez
Atty. Roel Villaruz

Committee Heads
Atty. Wilson Legaspi
Proofreader
Kimberly Hazel Lazatin
Assistant
Julia Nicole Santiago; Katleen Diomino; Kate Lapira; Diana Benedicto
Members
Samantha Siojo
Layout Artist
Maria Potenciana Pado
Assistant Layout Artist

Adviser
DEAN RODERICK MANZANO
Administrative Officers
Brother Manuel F. Rufin, Jr
Ministrong Tagasubaybay

Atty. Wilson Legaspi

OIC- College Secretary/Supervising Lawyer

Atty. Gerald Villanueva

Director, Legal Aid Clinic

Staff
Ms. Analyn L. Rogel
Dean’s Office Staff

Jayra Rodriguez
Staff

Mr. Loue C. Tolentino

Legal Aid Clinic’s Staff

Mr. Nikko Ysagun

MCLE’s Staff

Ms. Eunice Nemenzo-Arenas

Dean’s Office Staff

Mr. Ravi dG. Ysmael

Legal Aid Clinic’s Staff
 Table of Contents
STAGE OF EXECUTION
Gemenez vs. People (G.R. No. 241518, March 4, 2020) ...................................................... 1

CONSPIRACY
People vs. Gimpaya (G.R. No. 227395, January 10, 2018) ................................................... 2
People vs. Pilpa (G.R. No. 225336, September 5, 2018) ....................................................... 2
People vs. Callao (G.R. No. 228945, March 14, 2018) ......................................................... 3

JUSTIFYING/EXEMPTING/MITIGATING/AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
People vs. Raytos (G.R. No. 225623, June 7, 2017) .............................................................. 4
People vs. Siega (G.R. No. 213273, June 27, 2018) .............................................................. 4
People vs. Duran (G.R. No. 215748, November 20, 2017) ................................................... 5
People vs. Gonzales (G.R. No. 218946, September 5, 2018) ................................................ 6
People vs. Bagabay (G.R. No. 236297, October 17, 2018) ................................................... 7
People vs. Bacolot (G.R. No. 233193, October 10, 2018) ..................................................... 8
People vs. Pentecostes (G.R. No. 226158, November 8, 2017) ............................................ 9
People vs. Agramon (G.R. No. 212156, June 20, 2018) ........................................................ 9
People vs. Magbuhos (G.R. No. 227865, November 7, 2018) ............................................ 10
People vs. Bulutano (G.R. No. 232649, November 28, 2018) ............................................ 11
People vs. Aseniero (G.R. No. 218209, April 10, 2019) ..................................................... 12

COMPLEX CRIME
People vs. Mercado (G.R. No. 218702, October 17, 2018) ................................................. 12

RAPE
People vs. Dechoso (G.R. No. 248530, March 3, 2021) ...................................................... 13
People vs. Fruelda (G.R. No. 242690, September 3, 2020) ................................................. 14
People vs. Gerola (G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017) .......................................................... 14
People vs. XXX (G.R. No. 226467, October 17, 2018) ...................................................... 15
People vs. XXX (G.R. No. 225059, July 23, 2018) ............................................................. 16
People vs. Andes (G.R. No. 227738, July 23, 2018) ........................................................... 17
People vs. Nievera (G.R. No. 242830, August 28, 2019) .................................................... 17
People vs. Villaros (G.R. No. 228779, October 8, 2018) .................................................... 18
Granton vs. People (G.R. No. 226045, October 10, 2018) .................................................. 19
People vs. XXX (G.R. No. 242684, February 17, 2021) ..................................................... 19
People vs. Bermas (G.R. No. 234947, June 19, 2019) ........................................................ 20

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY

Threats and Coercion
People vs. Azurin (G.R. No. 249322, September 14, 2021) ................................................ 21

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Swindling and Other Deceits
Zenaida vs. People (G.R. No. 207249, May 14, 2021) ........................................................ 21
Sorongon vs. People (G.R. No. 230669, June 16, 2021) ..................................................... 22

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

R.A. 7610: Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Briñas vs. People (G.R. No. 254005, June 23, 2021) .......................................................... 23
XXX vs. People (G.R. No. 242101, September 16, 2019) .................................................. 24

R.A. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers Act, as amended

People vs. Espiritu (G.R. No. 226140, February 26, 2020) ................................................. 25

R.A. 3019: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Lacap vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 198162, June 21, 2017) ............................................. 26
Martel vs. People (G.R. No. 224765-68, February 2, 2021) ................................................ 27
Macairan vs. People (G.R. No. 215104, March 18, 2021) .................................................. 28

R.A. 916: Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

Luna vs. People (G.R. No. 231902, June 30, 2021) ............................................................ 29
People vs. Luna (G.R. No. 219164, March 21, 2018) ......................................................... 30
People vs. Tomawis (G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018) ..................................................... 30
People vs. De Leon (G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018) ............................................. 31
People vs. Bricero (G.R. No. 218428, November 7, 2018) ................................................. 32
People vs. Sood (G.R. No. 227394, June 6, 2018) .............................................................. 33
People vs. Musor (G.R. No. 231843, November 7, 2018) ................................................... 33
People vs. Rasos (G.R. No. 243639, September 18, 2018) ................................................. 34
People vs. Serad (G.R. No. 224894, October 10, 2018) ...................................................... 34
People vs. Pacnisen (G.R. No. 234821, November 7, 2018) ............................................... 35
People vs. Ga-a (G.R. No. 222559, June 6, 2018) ............................................................... 36
People vs. Otico (G.R. No. 231133, June 6, 2018) .............................................................. 37
People vs. De Vera (G.R. No. 218914, July 30, 2018) ........................................................ 37
People vs. Angeles (G.R. No. 237355, November 21, 2018) .............................................. 38
People vs. Cabezudo (G.R. No. 232357, November 28, 2018) ........................................... 38
Tuates vs. People (G.R. No. 230789, April 10, 2019) ......................................................... 39
People vs. Buniag (G.R. No. 217661, June 26, 2019) ......................................................... 40
People vs. Manabat (G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019) ....................................................... 40
Acibo vs. People (G.R. No. 228132, March 11, 2020) ........................................................ 41
People vs. Cabriole (G.R. No. 248418, May 5, 2021) ......................................................... 42
`

STAGE OF EXECUTION

Gemenez vs. People

G.R. No. 241518, March 04, 2020

Problem: Jerry Becachino and his friend Axiel were walking when they noticed that Rolando
Gemenez and his companion were following them. After a while, Gemenez and his
companion blocked their path. Gemenez pointed his shotgun at Jerry. Jerry tried to parry the
gun but Gemenez fired it twice, hitting Jerry’s right thumb, left chest and left arm. He was in
comatose condition for a week and regained consciousness at the intensive care unit of the
PG Hospital.

The RTC convicted Gemenez of the crime of Frustrated Homicide, ruling that the pictures of
Jerry on the hospital bed attached to numerous tubes were sufficient that the injury could have
been fatal if not for timely medical intervention. The CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling.

Did the CA err in affirming the conviction of Gemenez?

Suggested Answer: Yes. The CA erred in affirming the RTC’s ruling. The crime committed
should only be for Attempted Homicide.

It has been held that there are several ways by which courts may determine the existence of
intent to kill, namely: "(1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location,
and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before,
during or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which
the crime was committed and the motives of the accused [as well as] the motive of the
offender and the words he uttered at the time of inflicting the injuries on the victim.

Here, the weapon used, the number of shots fired, and the location of the injuries
clearly established that the attack was indeed made with intent to kill.

However, it was not established that his injuries would have caused his death without timely
medical assistance. The fact that there were pictures of Jerry on the hospital bed with
tubes attached to him does not conclusively establish that his injuries were so serious
that he would have died without timely medical assistance.

As there is doubt as to the existence of the second element of Frustrated Homicide, that the
victim sustained fatal or mortal wounds but did not die because of timely medical assistance,
Gemenez’s conviction must thus be modified to Attempted Homicide.

1
 CONSPIRACY

People vs. Gimpaya

G.R. No. 227395, January 10, 2018

Problem: An information for Murder was filed against Oscar Gimpaya and Roel Gimpaya for
the alleged killing of Genelito Clete. During trial, Roosevelt Agamosa testified that he saw
Genelito being hugged by Oscar while Roel was stabbing Genelito.

The RTC found Oscar and Roel guilty of Murder qualified by Treachery, and held that both
accused acted in concert towards a common criminal goal. The CA affirmed the RTC’s
decision.

Was there conspiracy?

Suggested Answer: No. There was no conspiracy.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and
purpose. Conspiracy requires the same degree of proof required to establish the crime —
proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The act of Oscar in merely hugging the victim does not establish conspiracy in the intent to
kill. It was not proven that he acted in concert with Roel or that he even knew of Roel's intention
to stab Genelito. It was not established that Oscar was hugging Genelito deliberately to
enable Roel to stab him as he had no knowledge of Roel's intention.

People vs. Pilpa

G.R. No. 225336, September 05, 2018

Problem: Pilpa is one of the persons involved in the five-men group of a certain “JR”. Said
group arrived at the scene when the witness, Leonila, was talking with the group of Alde. "JR"
stabbed Alde on the chest with a big knife while Pilpa was positioned at the back of Leonila.
After "JR" stabbed Alde, Pilpa poised to thrust Alde as well. However, Pilpa’s attempts to stab
Alde failed because Alde’s companion was able to parry the thrusts. Alde was able to run but
Pilpa’s group chase them. Thereafter, they scampered away. Sometime after, the police were
able to arrest Pilpa, who was in “JR”’s home, and was brought to the hospital where Alde was
brought. Alde was able to positively identify Pilpa as one of those who stabbed him. Eventually,
Alde died.

The RTC convicted Pilpa of the crime of Murder, ruling that all of the assailants were liable as
co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective active participation in
the commission of the crime perpetrated in furtherance of such conspiracy. The CA affirmed
the RTC’s conviction. Pilpa questions his liability as he claims he only attempted to

2
stab Alde after “JR” had already stabbed him.

Was there conspiracy in the commission of the crime?

Suggested Answer: Yes. There was conspiracy in the commission of the crime.

The existence of conspiracy need not, at all times, be established by direct evidence; nor is it
necessary to prove prior agreement between the accused to commit the crime charged.
Conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the
commission of the crime, where such conduct reasonably shows community of criminal
purpose or design.

Here, the conduct of Pilpa and "JR" in approaching the group of Alde, stabbing him and
running after him, indubitably shows that they had agreed to kill him. After the incident,
Pilpa was also found to be in "JR"’s home. The fact that Pilpa was unable to actually stab
Alde, not by his own volition but due to the parry of Alde's companion, does not preclude the
existence of conspiracy. Conspiracy can rightly be inferred and proven by the acts of stabbing
committed by both appellant and "JR" jointly and concertedly.

People vs. Callao

G.R. No. 228945, March 14, 2018

Problem: While in the market, Hesson Callao and Junello Amad discussed a plan to kill the
victim, Fernando. Both of them then went to the victim’s house. Amad pretended to borrow a
lighter from Fernando who, after handing out a lighter, was unknowingly struck on the nape.
Then, Amad hacked Fernando. After the victim fell on the ground, Callao jumped in and
stabbed Fernando's chest with a knife; thereafter opened the victim’s stomach with a knife, took
out his organs and fed it to a pig, and then further sliced the victim’s body into pieces.

The trial court found Callao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder qualified
by treachery, which was affirmed by the CA. Callao, however, contends that it was legally
impossible for him to kill Fernando as the latter was already dead when Callao stabbed him.

Is Callao liable for an impossible crime?

Suggested Answer: No. Callao is liable for murder, not for an impossible crime. Aside from
the fact that the victim’s death before he was stabbed by Callao was not sufficiently established
by the defense, Callao is still liable for murder because of the clear presence of conspiracy
between the latter and Amad.

In this case, conspiracy is evident from the series of acts of Callao and Amad, which, when
taken together, reveal a commonality and unity of criminal design. From planning, going
to Fernando’s house, Amad hacking Fernando, and then Callao jumping in and stabbing
Fernando—all these acts clearly reveal conspiracy.

With conspiracy attending, collective liability attaches to the conspirators Callao and Amad.
3
Thus, Callao’s defense of impossible crime is thus unavailing.

JUSTIFYING/EXEMPTING/MITIGATING/AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

People vs. Raytos

G.R. No. 225623, June 07, 2017

Problem: Raytos, the accused, and others were having a dance session in front of his house.
At around 11:30 in the evening, Araza arrived and was approached by Edgar, and the two
danced. Sometime after, Araza approached the table where Raytos was seated and asked who
was brave enough while drawing a knife tucked in his waistband. Raytos tried to escape by
moving backwards, while doing so he got hold of Araza’s right hand and was able to twist the
same. Raytos got hold of the knife and stabbed Araza three times on the chest. He ran away
immediately and surrendered himself to the barangay officials.

Can Raytos interpose self-defense based on the given facts?

Suggested Answer: No, Raytos cannot interpose self-defense.

It has been held that the mere drawing of a knife by the victim does not constitute unlawful
aggression, whether actual or imminent, as the peril sought to be avoided by the accused was
both premature and speculative.

Applying the foregoing to this case, Araza's alleged act of simply drawing a knife from his
waist did not constitute unlawful aggression. At that point, there was yet no actual risk or
peril to the life or limb of Raytos.

Even assuming arguendo that unlawful aggression was present on the part of Araza, there was
no longer any danger on Raytos’ person from the moment he disarmed the former by wresting
possession of the knife.

When an unlawful aggression that has begun has ceased to exist, the one who resorts to
self-defense has no right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor. Aggression, if not
continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting defense of one's self.

Here, after obtaining possession of the weapon, Raytos no longer had any reason to stab Araza
as in fact, there was no showing that the latter persisted in his alleged purpose of wanting
to hurt Raytos. Thus, Raytos overstepped the acceptable boundaries of self-preservation when
he deliberately inflicted fatal injuries on Araza, even when the purported aggression had
already ceased. By killing Araza, Raytos was no longer acting in self-defense but in retaliation
against the former.

People vs. Siega

G.R. No. 213273, June 27, 2018

4
Problem: On October 16, 2005, at around 4:00 p.m., Siega was about to enter his house when
he heard a sound coming from the feeder road facing his residence. When Siega turned to the
source of the noise, he saw Bitoy, rushing towards him and shouting at him to get out of his
house so that they could end their grudge against each other. As Bitoy was nearing him, Siega
saw the former attempting to draw the bolo that was wrapped on his waist. Scared by Bitoy's
actions, Siega immediately grabbed unto the bolo that was then beside him and hacked Bitoy.
Siega inflicted several injuries on Bitoy, before the latter retreated and ran away. Siega then
went inside his house, changed his clothes, and surrendered to the authorities. However, Siega
pleads self-defense.

The RTC found Siega guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. The CA affirmed
the RTC’s ruling.

Will Siega’s defense prosper? Reason briefly.

Suggested Answer: No. Siega’s defense will not prosper.

In pleading self-defense, it is essential that there be unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim. Unlawful aggression refers to "an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to
inflict real imminent injury, upon a person." Without unlawful aggression, the justifying
circumstance of self-defense has no leg to stand on and cannot be appreciated.

In this case, Bitoy's supposed act of holding a weapon from his waist does not constitute
unlawful aggression, as it does not pose any actual, sudden, or imminent danger to the life
and limb of Siega. Absent unlawful aggression, Siega’s claim of self-defense must necessarily
fail.

People vs. Duran

G.R. No. 215748, November 20, 2017

Problem: Beverly Quilana was awakened by someone calling her. At that time, she was inside
her house. Recognizing it was her grandson Gilbert Grimaldo, she then asked why. Grimaldo
replied from outside asking for help. Then, she opened the door for her godson. She then saw
Paul Duran shot Grimaldo with a .38 caliber revolver from behind. Grimaldo was hit at the
nape, and then fell to the ground lying with his face down. Duran then left the place passing
between their houses. Moments later, Duran returned and shot Grimaldo three more times to
make sure that the latter was dead.

Duran invoked self-defense. He asserted that Grimaldo, along with another guy, poked a gun
at him and that he needed money. Duran was able to obtain possession of the gun. He pulled
the trigger and hit Grimaldo. The RTC found him guilty of Murder, qualified by treachery.

Was the act of Duran a valid act of self-defense?

Suggested Answer: No. It was not a valid act of self-defense.

5
When an unlawful aggression that has begun has ceased to exist, the one who resorts to self-
defense has no right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor. Aggression, if not
continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting defense of oneself.

Even if Duran’s account of an attempted robbery is to be believed, Grimaldo, albeit the initial
aggressor, ceased to be the aggressor as Duran had successfully wrested the weapon from
him. Thereafter, Duran shot the gun at Grimaldo four times. At this moment, his actions were
already done in retaliation and not self-defense. The condition sine qua non of unlawful
aggression being absent, self-defense cannot be appreciated in favor of Duran.

Was treachery present?

Suggested Answer: No. Treachery was not present. There was no other circumstance attendant
to the shooting that shows that Duran carefully and deliberately planned the killing in a manner
that would ensure his safety and success. It was not proven that he had deliberately chosen
the place, time, and method of killing, or that the meeting between him and Grimaldo was
planned. In fact, the location was disadvantageous to him, as it was right in front of the house
of Quilana, Grimaldo's godmother.

People vs. Gonzales

G.R. No. 218946, September 05, 2018

Problem: Bobby and his nephew Rene were having a confrontation which led to Rene
punching Bobby who failed to retaliate. Ricky, the brother of Rene, then emerged from the
plaza and, without warning, stabbed Bobby three times with a knife. The brothers escaped
together. However, Ricky voluntarily surrendered and pleaded not guilty, alleging that his
actions were necessary to defend himself. Rene remained at large.

The RTC found Ricky guilty of Murder. Further, it ruled that there was indeed treachery as
Bobby was completely deprived of a real chance to defend himself. The CA affirmed the RTC’s
decision in toto.

Is there a valid self-defense?

Suggested Answer: No. There was no valid self-defense.

A person who interposes self-defense must establish: (i) that there was unlawful aggression
by the victim; (ii) that the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression were
reasonable; and (iii) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part. Of the three,
unlawful aggression is the foremost requirement. Absent such element, self-defense, whether
complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated.

Here, Ricky was not coming to his brother's aid at the time of the stabbing, as the victim did
not retaliate after receiving a blow from Rene. Therefore, there was no valid self-defense.

6
Is Ricky and his co-accused Rene guilty of the crime of Murder?

Suggested Answer: No. They cannot be held guilty of the crime of Murder. It does not always
follow that if the attack was sudden and unexpected, it should necessarily be deemed as an
attack attended with treachery. The prosecution failed to prove that Ricky intentionally
sought the victim for the purpose of killing him and deliberately and consciously employed
means, methods or forms in the execution of the criminal act to ensure that Bobby could not
defend himself.

People vs. Bagabay

G.R. No. 236297, October 17, 2018

Problem: At morning around 7:00, while Alfredo Guevarra was unloading his passengers in
front of a school and giving out their change, Armando Bagabay alighted from his tricycle
armed with a kitchen knife. Without warning, Armando grabbed Guevarra’s shoulder and
stabbed him twice. Guevarra tried to run away but collapsed on the road. Armando stabbed him
one more time and left. Guevarra died.

Accordingly, Armando was charged with the crime of Murder of Guevarra. In his defense,
Armando asserted that he merely acted in self-defense when he saw Guevarra pointing and
cursing at him. Upon asking why, Guevarra allegedly pulled out a knife and pointed it at him.
When Guevarra tried to stab him, he held Guevarra’s hand and twisted it, causing Guevarra to
stab himself. Guevarra tried to stab him again, but Armando caused Guevarra to stab himself a
second time.

The RTC found Armando guilty of Murder. The CA agreed with the RTC that Armando failed
to prove self-defense. It likewise sustained the finding of the RTC that treachery attended the
killing of the victim.

Can self-defense be appreciated in this case?

Suggested Answer: No. Self-defense cannot be appreciated in this case.

An accused who pleads self-defense admits to the commission of the crime charged. He has
the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the killing was attended by the
following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.

Here, assuming that Guevarra had indeed shouted and cursed at him and drew out a knife, it
was still not reasonably necessary for Armando to stab the victim. Furthermore, Armando
stabbed the victim three times, the last wound inflicted when Guevarra was already on the
ground asking for help. Thus, the CA was correct in ruling that the means employed by
Armando in repelling the attack was unreasonable. Therefore, self-defense is not present in this
case.

7
Was treachery present in this case?

Suggested Answer: No. Treachery was not present in this case.

In treachery, it is not enough that the attack was "sudden," "unexpected," and "without any
warning or provocation." There must also be a showing that the offender consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means, methods and forms in the execution of the
crime which tended directly to insure such execution, without risk to himself.

Although the attack was sudden and unexpected, the prosecution did not prove that Armando
deliberately chose a particular mode of attack that purportedly ensured the execution of the
criminal purpose without any risk to himself arising from the defense that the victim might
offer. The incident happened in broad daylight outside the school, a public place where
there were plenty of other people present who could have offered their help. If Armando
wanted to make certain that no risk would come to him, he could have chosen another time and
place to stab the victim. Therefore, treachery was not present in this case.

People vs. Bacolot

G.R. No. 233193, October 10, 2018

Problem: On May 14, 2008, Rodolfo, Arnulfo, Renato, and some other companions were
having a drinking spree. While Rodolfo was singing with his face turned towards the television,
Renato suddenly took Arnulfo’s scythe and hacked Rodolfo three times on the neck, back and
fingers. Rodolfo died.

During trial, Renato pleaded insanity as his defense. Dr. Genotiva testified that she had
previously examined Renato in the year 2005 prior to his arrest. Dr. Genotiva diagnosed Renato
then as having "auditory hallucinations, depressed mood with appropriate effect," and was
"able to converse, but he was not oriented to time and place, he had poor memory recall of the
incidents, and he had blank stares." Dr. Genotiva again examined Renato after his arrest,
leading her to conclude that Renato had poor memory recall of the incidents relating to the
commission of the crime and that he did not know what he did at that time.

The RTC stated that he failed to prove his insanity and thus rendered judgement against him.
This judgement was affirmed by the CA.

Was insanity successfully proven?

Suggested Answer: No. The defense of insanity was not successfully proven.

In proving insanity as a defense, the inquiry into the mental state of the accused should
relate to the period before or at the precise moment of doing the act which is the subject
of the inquiry. His mental condition after that crucial period or during the trial is
inconsequential for purposes of determining his criminal liability.

Here, Dr. Genotiva's testimony regarding accused-appellant's mental condition refers to the

8
time he was examined in 2005, which is three years prior to the incident and on August 15,
2008, which is three months after the commission of the crime. The testimony of Dr. Genotiva
failed to show the mental condition of accused-appellant between 2005 and 2008. Hence,
the Court cannot second guess whether the accused-appellant was insane at the time the crime
was committed.

Was treachery present?

Suggested Answer: No. Treachery was not present.

It has been held that treachery cannot be presumed merely from the fact that the attack was
sudden. The suddenness of an attack does not, of itself, suffice to support a finding of treachery,
even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was made suddenly and the victim's
helpless position was accidental.

The following circumstances negate the presence of treachery: First, the stabbing incident
happened during a drinking spree in which the accused-appellant was a part. He did not
deliberately seek the presence of the victim as he was already in the same vicinity as the
latter when he hacked the victim. Second, in killing the victim, the accused-appellant did not
even use his own weapon – he merely took a scythe from Arnulfo, who was sitting beside him.

People vs. Pentecostes

G.R. No. 226158, November 08, 2017

Problem: Liberato was charged of Murder for the killing of Vivian Vargas, six years of age.
After trial on the merits, the RTC found Liberato guilty of the crime of Murder, qualified by
treachery. In the questioned Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC's conviction.

Should treachery be appreciated in this case?

Suggested Answer: Yes. Treachery should be appreciated in this case.

It has been held that treachery is present in the killing of children who, by reason of their
tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. In People v. Diaz, the Court held that
the killing of an 11-year-old was deemed ipso facto qualified by treachery by reason of the
child's "inherent defenselessness."

Considering that Vivian was murdered at the tender age of six years old, treachery attended
the commission of the crime.

People vs. Agramon

G.R. No. 212156, June 20, 2018

Problem: Roger was with his common-law wife Pelita, when Gerry Agramon, armed with an
unsheathed weapon, came to their dwelling, yelling “I will kill you all.” Then, Agramon tried

9
to stab Roger. Meanwhile, Pelita tried to cover Roger in order not to be hit again, resulting in
Pelita being stabbed on her left breast which caused her death.

Agramon was charged with Murder with deliberate intent with treachery and evident
premeditation for killing Pelita. The RTC found Gerry guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. However, as regards the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, the CA found that only evident
premeditation was clearly established.

Are the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation present in this
case?

Suggested Answer: No. The two qualifying circumstances were not proved by the prosecution
with the required quantum of evidence. Thus, Gerry can only be convicted of Homicide, not
Murder.

With respect to treachery, the latter can be appreciated if Gerry consciously and deliberately
adopted means which would ensure that Pelita could not defend herself or seek help. Here,
Pelita was forewarned of the impending danger to her life and that it was Roger who
Gerry intentionally sought to kill. Indeed, jurisprudence has set that treachery cannot be
appreciated simply because the attack was sudden and unexpected.

With respect to the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, it is indispensable to

show concrete evidence on how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time
had elapsed before it was carried out. Mere lapse of time is not enough. Also, the mere fact
that the accused was armed at the beginning of the altercation does not unequivocally
establish that he earlier devised a deliberate plot to murder the victim. In this case, the
prosecution did not present any proof showing when and how Gerry planned and prepared to
kill Pelita.

People vs. Magbuhos

G.R. No. 227865, November 07, 2018

Problem: Rodel Magbuhos was charged with the crime of Murder for the killing of Enrique
Castillo. Angelito and Michael, Enrique’s nephew and son respectively, testified that they were
with Enrique watching billiard games at the billiard hall of Juanito, the uncle of Michael. There
were a lot of people inside the billiard hall. Without warning, Rodel armed with a fan knife,
approached Enrique and stabbed him once. Enrique died.

The RTC convicted Rodel of Murder. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision, ruling that the
killing of Enrique was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery because the assault
was totally unexpected by the victim that the latter had no opportunity to defend himself, much
less retaliate.

Did treachery attend the commission of the crime?

10
Suggested Answer: No. Treachery did not attend the commission of the crime.

It has been held that treachery cannot be appreciated when aid was easily available to the
victim, such as when the attendant circumstances show that there were several
eyewitnesses to the incident including the victim's family, because if the accused indeed
consciously adopted means to ensure the facilitation of the crime, he could have chosen another
place or time.

Here, Rodel attacked the victim in the place familiar to the latter and in the presence of
at least four other people, two of whom are related to the victim, who could have helped
him repel the attack. Thus, it can be hardly said that the mode of attack chosen by Rodel, who
stabbed Enrique on the chest, in a place familiar to the victim and in the presence of the latter's
relatives, supposedly guaranteed the execution of the criminal act without risk on his end.

People vs. Bulutano

G.R. No. 232649, November 28, 2018

Problem: Mario Bulutano and Jhun Serad were charged for the murder of Wilbert Augusto.
During trial, Allan Ramos, one of the witnesses, testified that an altercation ensued between
two groups of men. While attempts were made in settling the problem, Wilbert Augusto, who
was just passing by after making a phone call at a nearby site, stood next to Allan. Suddenly,
Serad surreptitiously went behind Wilbert and hit him with a piece of wood. Thereafter, a fight
ensued. While Allan was retreating, he looked back and saw Bulutano hit Wilbert on the head
even if the latter was already lying on the ground gasping for breath. Wilbert died.

The RTC convicted Bulutano of the crime of Murder. The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction
of Bulutano, holding that the element of treachery was present in the killing of Wilbert.

Did the CA err in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery?

Suggested Answer: Yes. The CA erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of

treachery.

It has been held that where the meeting between the accused and the victim was casual and
the attack was done impulsively, there is no treachery even if the attack was sudden and
unexpected because the accused could not have made preparations for the attack, and the
means, method and form thereof could not therefore have been thought of by the accused,
because the attack was impulsively done.

Here, the melee was only a chance encounter between the warring groups. More importantly,
Wilbert was just passing by after making a phone call at a nearby site when he was hit in the
head by Serad with a piece of wood and then later on continually hit by Bulutano. The foregoing
thus negates the existence of the second requisite for treachery to be appreciated, namely, that
the offenders deliberately and consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of
attack employed by him. Therefore, the killing could not have been attended by treachery.

11
 People vs. Aseniero
G. R. No. 218209, April 10, 2019

Problem: Romeo Aseniero was charged with the crime of Murder of Dominador Ranes.
During the trial, Analyn Gomez testified that she was walking behind Dominador when
Aseniero suddenly came from behind and pushed her, and then stabbed Dominador in the back
with a bolo. Dominador tried to run but stumbled down. Aseniero was able to catch him and
continued stabbing him. A witness for the defense testified that Aseniero was walking behind
Analyn Gomez and Dominador, along with other persons. Suddenly, Dominador kicked
Aseniero and stabbed him with a knife. Aseniero then leaned back, unsheathed his bolo and
stabbed Dominador.

The RTC found Romeo guilty of Murder. The CA affirmed the conviction. The CA held that
the accused’s attack on the victim was treacherously carried out. It also held that the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender should be considered in the imposition of the penalty.

Should treachery be appreciated in this case?

Suggested Answer: No. Treachery should not be appreciated in this case.

It has been held that there is no treachery if the attack was preceded by an altercation
between the accused and the victim. Each of them is forewarned of an impending attack by
either of them.

Certainly, the attack made by the accused was not sudden or unexpected as it was the victim
who first attacked the former. Even assuming that the version of the events as narrated by
Analyn is to be considered, she also narrated that she was pushed by the accused prior to his
attack on the victim. Thus, this event should have made the victim aware that there was an
impending attack on him. Furthermore, he had his own weapon and was able to run away from
the accused.

COMPLEX CRIME

People vs. Mercado

G.R. No. 218702, October 17, 2018

Problem: The defendant named Patrick John attacked, assaulted, hit with a baseball bat, and
poured gasoline on live-in partners named Alicia and Evelyn, thereby causing them third-
degree burns which directly caused their instantaneous death and the burning of the victims’
house. While the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling, it modified the penalty imposed on Mercado
from a single count of reclusion perpetua to two counts of reclusion perpetua for each of the
murders he committed.

Did the CA err in modifying the penalty imposed?

12
Suggested Answer: Yes. The CA erred in modifying the penalty imposed.

In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute
only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. Hence, there
is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime.

Applying the foregoing, the single act of burning the house in order to kill the victims
constituted the complex crime of Double Murder, which carries only a single penalty. For
these reasons, the CA is not correct in modifying the penalty imposed.

[Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, “When a single act constitutes two or more grave
or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period.”]

RAPE

People vs. Dechoso

G.R. No. 248530, March 3, 2021

Problem: AAA, who was then four months pregnant, was walking near the railroad track when
the accused suddenly blocked her path and hugged her. AAA started shouting and begged the
accused to spare her because she was pregnant. Despite her pleas, the accused warned her not
to shout, otherwise he would kill her, and that he only needed her for a few minutes to satisfy
his lust. Eventually, the accused was able to have carnal knowledge of her. AAA was examined
by PCI Ebdane who testified that there were no evident injuries on AAA's genitalia at the time
of the examination. However, she clarified that the absence of injuries does not negate rape
because: (a) the rapist could have lubricated his penis and/or the victim's vagina; or (b) AAA
had already given birth, making the entrance of her vaginal wall larger.

The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape. The CA
affirmed the RTC’s Decision. The CA found that the prosecution was able to establish by proof
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of rape.

Were all the elements of the crime of rape present in this case?

Suggested Answer: Yes. All the elements of the crime of rape were present in this case.

Under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a) of the RPC, the elements of rape are: (1) the act is
committed by a man; (2) that said man had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (3) that such
act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.

Here, the first element is uncontroverted. As to the second element, while the Medico-Legal
Report shows no injuries sustained by AAA on her genitalia, the examining physician
clarified that this circumstance does not negate rape as it was possible that no injuries arose
because the vaginal wall of the victim had already widened after giving birth as AAA was

13
already a mother of five children during the incident of rape. As to the third element, AAA is
categorical that her life was repeatedly threatened by the accused if she continued to resist the
rape. In sum, the three elements of rape were proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt. Hence, the accused’s conviction must be sustained.

[The absence of physical injuries or fresh lacerations does not negate rape, as it is not among
its essential elements.]

People vs. Fruelda

G.R. No. 242690, September 03, 2020

Problem: An Information was filed by AAA against Fruelda for the crime of rape. Based on
AAA’s testimony, Fruelda asked AAA to retrieve for him bar soaps inside a storeroom. When
AAA entered the storeroom, Fruelda trailed behind her. Inside the storeroom, Fruelda suddenly
grabbed AAA’s breast and unzipped her pants. While Fruelda was moving his finger in and out
of her private part through the opening of her pants' zipper, he took out his penis and massaged
the same. Shortly thereafter, AAA lost consciousness. When she woke up, she was seated on
the floor with her underwear and pants pulled down to her knees. The RTC found Fruelda guilty
of the crime of rape by carnal knowledge. The CA sustained the conviction of Fruelda for the
crime charged.

Is Fruelda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape by carnal knowledge?

Suggested Answer: No. Fruelda is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape by
carnal knowledge.

As enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the accused has the right to be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved. To overcome the presumption, nothing but proof beyond reasonable
doubt must be established by the prosecution.

In this case, there is no evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that there is indeed
carnal knowledge that occurred. Although it is possible that Fruelda had carnal knowledge of
AAA while the latter was unconscious, he cannot be convicted of the crime of rape by carnal
knowledge based on a mere possibility. Therefore, the accused should be acquitted of the
crime of rape by carnal knowledge.

[The accused here instead was convicted for Sexual Assault.]

People vs. Gerola

G.R. No. 217973, July 19, 2017

Problem: Private complainant AAA was born on July 5, 1987. She was a minor when all three
acts of rape were committed. She was 11 years old when the first act of rape occurred sometime
in the year 1998. The second act of rape happened sometime in the year 1999 when she was 12
years old, and the third time was in January 2000 when she was 12 years and 6 months of age.

14
At the time all 3 acts of rape occurred, she was living in the same house in San Jose with her
full-blood sister, her half-siblings, her mother and AAA's stepfather, accused appellant
Federico Gerola.

During the investigation, the testimony of complainant AAA was inconsistent and
contradictory in terms of the dates mentioned. The Court rendered its decision finding the
accused-appellant guilty of rape. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

Was the decision of the court correct?

Suggested Answer: Yes. The decision of the court was correct.

It was held that the date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of
the crime and need not be stated with absolute accuracy; where the time of commission is not
an essential element of the crime charged, a conviction may be had on proof of the commission
of the crime, even if it appears that the crime was not committed at the precise time alleged.

Applying the foregoing, the fact that the testimony of AAA was inconsistent as to the dates
is immaterial. What remains paramount is the witness' consistency in relating the principal
elements of the crime and the positive and categorical identification of the accused as the
perpetrator of the same. Therefore, the decision of the court was correct.

People vs. XXX

G.R. No. 226467, October 17, 2018

Problem: In July 2003, AAA, 10 years of age, was lying down on the bed when XXX, her
father, lay beside her. XXX embraced her while his hands touched her body. XXX asked her
to give him a massage, but she refused. As a result, XXX pulled her hand and placed it on his
chest and to his penis. In 2007, AAA could no longer take her father’s abuses, so she told her
teacher about it. The matter was reported to the police.

An information for Rape was filed against XXX for allegedly raping AAA in 2003. During
trial, XXX admitted that in 2007, something happened between him and AAA, but it was
consensual. The RTC convicted XXX of Rape based on his own admission, ruling that date is
not an essential element of the crime of rape. The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction.

Did the RTC and the CA err in convicting XXX in Statutory Rape?

Suggested Answer: Yes. The RTC and CA erred in convicting XXX of Statutory Rape.

While it has been held that date is not an essential element of the crime of rape, the date can
be essential, especially when the accusation changes from Simple Rape to Statutory Rape.
In the present case, the Information specifically accused XXX of having sexual intercourse
with AAA "sometime in July 2003." The date, in this case, is essential because in July 2003,
AAA was only 10-years old; thus, making the accusation against him that for Statutory Rape
instead of Simple Rape.

15
Applying the foregoing, the admission by XXX cannot be used against him, as his admission
pertains to his having sexual intercourse with AAA in 2007, or when AAA was already 14
years old – beyond the age set for Statutory Rape.

Can XXX be held liable for any crime?

Suggested Answer: Yes. XXX can be held liable for Acts of Lasciviousness, under Article
336 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to R.A. 7610.

The elements of acts of lasciviousness are: (1) that the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a)
by using force or intimidation, (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age.

Here, XXX got a hold of AAA’s hand and placed it on top of his penis. AAA was 10 years old
at the time of the act. Undoubtedly then, the established facts in this case complies with the
elements needed to be proved to reach a conviction for acts of lasciviousness.

Applying prevailing jurisprudence, the nomenclature of the crime would be Acts of

Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b), Art. III of R.A. No.
7610.

[The charge of Acts of Lasciviousness is necessarily included in a charge of Rape, applying the
variance doctrine under Section 4, in relation to Section 5 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.]

People vs. XXX

G.R. No. 225059, July 23, 2018

Problem: Four separate Informations for rape under Article 266-A, par. 1, in relation to Article
266-B, par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code were filed in the RTC against XXX for four counts
of rape committed against BBB, his daughter. Upon arraignment, XXX pleaded "not guilty" to
all charges. In the RTC Decision, XXX was found guilty on all four counts of Rape.

XXX impugns BBB’s credibility for her delay in immediately reporting the rape incidents. He
further argues that BBB’s testimony should be doubted because she failed to offer any
resistance or shout for help during any of the alleged rapes.

Does failure to resist and delay in reporting the crime affect the credibility of the rape
victim’s testimony?

Suggested Answer: No. Neither failure to resist nor delay in reporting the crime affects the
credibility of the rape victim’s testimony.

It has been held that failure to resist and delay in reporting the crime does not negate the
rape victim’s credibility. Based on BBB's testimony, in all the incidents of rape, XXX was

16
armed with a deadly weapon and he would, on several occasions, threaten BBB not to tell
anyone of his acts. Thus, considering that XXX is the father of BBB, his moral ascendancy
was certainly more than enough to silence her, not to mention the normal tendency of rape
victims to conceal their humiliation and shame resulting from the irrevocable violation of
their honor.

People vs. Andes

G.R. No. 227738, July 23, 2018

Problem: At around 1:00 in the morning, while AAA was sleeping with her son, somebody
covered her mouth and told her not to shout and simultaneously poked a knife on her neck,
saying “Don’t shout, I will kill you and your son.” While AAA could not see anything, she was
able to identify the voice as belonging to Jacinto Andes, her stepfather. AAA was able to grab
the handle of his knife. While on top of her, Andes told her “Ang sarap naman ng anak ko.” In
her reply, AAA told him “Puta ka! If you treat me as your daughter, you will not do this to me.”
Despite this, AAA did not resist in doing what was commanded of her.

Andes was accused of the rape of AAA. During the trial, AAA testified that the knife was not
poked at her but believed that Andes was still holding it because it was dark. Andes countered
that the element of intimidation was absent because AAA was able to get hold of his knife, and
she even told her abuser “Puta ka! If you treat me as your daughter, you will not do this to me”
instead of begging for mercy.

Was the element of intimidation present?

Suggested Answer: Yes. The element of intimidation was present.

In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception
and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule.

Here, AAA was of the belief that maybe Andes was still holding the weapon and that she
could not ascertain where the weapon was because it was dark. Also, that the crime was
committed in a dark place, in the presence of AAA 's son who was sleeping, coupled with
Andes' threat that he would kill the child if AAA would not give him what he wanted, all
the more makes it more convincing that intimidation was present.

People vs. Nievera

G.R. No. 242830, August 28, 2019

Problem: An Information was filed against Nievera for the rape of AAA. During the trial,
AAA admitted that she did not offer strong resistance against the advances of Nievera, but said
to him “ayoko po,” and using one of her hands to shove Nievera’s body away from her.

The RTC convicted Nievera of the crime charged, finding that the prosecution was able to
establish all the elements of the crime. The CA affirmed Nievera’s conviction. The accused

17
argues that AAA clearly testified that she did not resist, and hence the element of force or
intimidation was not established.

Does the failure of AAA to offer strong resistance to the sexual advances of the accused
constitute consent?

Suggested Answer: No. The failure of AAA to scream for help or resist the acts of the accused
does not equate to giving consent. It is important to stress that the gravamen of the crime of
rape under Art. 266-A (1) is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her
consent.

It is well established that the failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make
voluntary the victim’s submission to the criminal act of the offender. Notably, the law does
not impose on the rape victim the burden of proving resistance. Force and intimidation must be
viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of
the crime and not by any hard and fast rule.

Here, the absence of consent was shown by (1) her saying “ayoko po,” and (2) using one
of her hands to shove Nievera’s body away from her. The sexual acts were, therefore, done
to her against her will and without her consent.

People vs. Villaros

G.R. No. 228779, October 08, 2018

Problem: AAA, 12 years of age, was pulled by William Villaros, her stepfather’s brother, into
his bedroom. There, he asked AAA to remove her clothes while he was covering her mouth.
As she refused, Villaros was the one who did so. After removing AAA’s clothes, Villaros
touched AAA’s private part and then mounted on top of her by inserting his sexual organ into
her private part. Almost a month after, Villaros again sexually abused AAA.

Two separate Informations were filed against Villaros for the rape of minor AAA. The RTC
convicted Villaros for the crimes charged. The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction of Villaros.
Villaros contends that AAA failed to establish that she employed significant resistance
considering that she did not allege that he used any weapon during the alleged rape incidents.

Did the RTC and CA err in convicting Villaros?

Suggested Answer: No. The RTC and CA did not err in convicting Villaros.

In rapes committed by a close kin, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be
employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. The
fact that Villaros was only a "brother of her stepfather" does not diminish the fact that he
exercised moral influence over the minor, much more so in this case where they actually live
together in the same house.

18
 Granton vs. People
G.R. No. 226045, October 10, 2018

Problem: NNN was cleaning the house when she noticed blood in the undergarments of CCC,
the two-year old daughter of MMM and FFF. The day after, NNN noticed another of CCC's
undergarments with blood stains on it. When NNN asked CCC if her “Tito Ambet” had been
touching her, CCC answered “yes,” and demonstrated a push-and-pull movement of her index
finger.

What should be the nomenclature of the crime committed by Granton?

Suggested Answer: Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, in
relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610.

In instances where the lascivious conduct is covered by the definition under R.A. No. 7610 and
the act is likewise covered by sexual assault under Art. 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC, the
offender should be liable for violation of Section 5 (b), Art. III of R.A. No. 7610, where the
law provides for the higher penalty of reclusion temporal medium if the offended party is a
child victim. If the victim of lascivious conduct is under 12 years of age, the nomenclature
of the crime should be 'Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal
Code in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610' and pursuant to the second
proviso thereof, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period.

Applying the foregoing, while the crime committed is rape by sexual assault, Granton should
be held liable for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section
5(b), Art. III of R.A. No. 7610. Accordingly, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal
in its medium period.

People vs. XXX

G.R. No. 242684, February 17, 2021

Problem: The accused-appellant XXX was charged with two counts of Qualified Rape of
AAA, a 23-year-old victim who suffers from epilepsy and mild mental retardation. Ms. Nimia
De Guzman, a clinical psychologist examined AAA and determined that she has a mental age
of an eight-year-old as she is unable to perceive things in her environment in relation to her
chronological age of 23 years old. Ms. De Guzman attested that AAA is suffering from mild
mental retardation. During the cross-examination, the accused-appellant admitted that he knew
that AAA is a mentally retardate woman.

The RTC found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision holding that the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant was guilty of raping AAA.

Did the RTC and CA err in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of qualified
rape?

19
Suggested Answer: Yes. The accused-appellant should instead be convicted of Qualified
Statutory Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d).

In the recent case of People v. Castillo, the Court ruled that when the victim is a mental
retardate whose mental age is that of a person below 12 years old, the rape should be
classified as statutory rape under Article 266-A par. 1(d) of the RPC. As shown in the
Psychological Report submitted by Ms. De Guzman, AAA was found to be suffering from mild
mental retardation. Her mental age is equivalent to that of an eight-year-old child.

Further, under Article 266-B, paragraph 10 of the RPC, the rape shall be qualified "when the
offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of
the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime." This instance was proved
by the accused-appellant’s own admission in court. Hence, the accused-appellant’s proper
conviction should be Qualified Statutory Rape.

People vs. Bermas

G.R. No. 234947, June 19, 2019

Problem: An Information was filed against Bermas for the rape of AAA. During trial on the
merits, the prosecution witnesses testified that AAA has had mental retardation since birth; that
she went to a special school; and that a doctor testified that she “probably” has Down
Syndrome. The RTC convicted Bermas of the crime of Rape. The CA affirmed the RTC’s
conviction of Bermas, holding that BBB’s testimony that AAA was mentally retarded since
birth was sufficient to establish her retardation, and that medical evidence was not a condition
sine qua non to prove that AAA indeed was a mental retardate.

Are the testimonies of the witnesses presented by the prosecution sufficient to properly
establish the mental incapacity of AAA?

Suggested Answer: No. The mere testimonies of the witnesses do not prove the mental
incapacity of AAA.

In People v. Dalandas, the Court held that the conviction of an accused of rape based on the
mental retardation of private complainant must be anchored on proof beyond reasonable doubt
of her mental retardation. To prove this, a thorough evaluation based on history, physical
and laboratory examination made by a clinician is necessary.

Here, the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies are but mere conclusions that do not establish the
fact of AAA’s mental retardation. Likewise, the doctor’s testimony cannot be the basis for
such as said findings were inconclusive. In sum, the second element of the crime charged —
that the victim be “deprived of reason” — was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Hence,
the acquittal of Bermas of the crime of rape necessarily follows.

20
 Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security

THREATS AND COERCION

People vs. Azurin

G.R. No. 249322, September 14, 2021

Problem: Juvenal Azurin, Regional Director of PDEA Regional Office No. 2, feloniously
threatened via phone call his subordinate Jaime Clave with the infliction of a wrong amounting
to a crime by uttering the following words during their phone conversation: “Putang ina mo
Clave ha, putang ina mo Bobot, papatayin kita”, over office internal matters and conflict. Clave
filed a case against Azurin for grave threats.

The Sandiganbayan found Azurin guilty of the crime of Grave Threats. On his appeal, Azurin
said that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt because, at most, what was proven by the
prosecution was merely the occurrence of the phone conversation between him and Clave, but
not the substance of the said conversation.

Is Azurin guilty of grave threats?

Suggested Answer: Yes. Azurin is guilty of the crime Grave Threats.

The elements for the crime of Grave Threats are that (1) the offender threatened another
person with the infliction upon his person of a wrong; (2) such wrong amounted to a
crime; and (3) the threat was not subject to a condition. This felony is consummated as
soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened.

Here, all the elements for the consummation of the crime of grave threats are present. It is clear
that Azurin’s threats to kill Clave are not justifiable amounting to the crime of homicide or
murder. The felony was consummated as soon as Clave heard of the threats during their
conversation. Hence, Azurin is guilty of the crime of Grave Threats.

Crimes Against Property

SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS

Zenaida vs. People

G.R. No. 207249, May 14, 2021

Problem: Zenaida was initially engaged in the business of buying and selling of appliances,
furniture, and other products. She would buy from Alson’s Trading owned by Ballesteros.
Eventually, she and Ballesteros had an agreement that her store would be used to establish
Alson’s Trading in her locality in Polangui, and became its manager. As branch manager,
Zenaida has the obligation to receive the stocks, sell and document them, hire and terminate
employees document and deposit collections in the bank and be accountable for the shortages
in the collection. On the other hand, Ballesteros had the obligation to pay the monthly salaries
of Zenaida and the other employees. Also, Ballesteros had prohibited Zenaida from continuing

21
with her previous business.

One time, Ballesteros visited Alson’s Polangui and did not find cash there. Becoming
suspicious, Ballesteros had the Polangui branch audited, where it was revealed that there was
a substantial shortage of cash. On the basis of the audit, Ballesteros filed an estafa case against
Zenaida. RTC convicted Zenaida. CA affirmed the conviction of Zenaida.

Is Zenaida guilty of the crime of Estafa through conversion or misappropriation?

Suggested Answer: No. Zenaida is not guilty of the crime of Estafa through conversion or
misappropriation for having no juridical possession of the money.

It has been held that, unlike an agent, an employee has no juridical possession over the funds
received because he or she has no independent right or title to retain or possess the same
against the owner.

Here, Zenaida did not have juridical possession of the goods delivered to her as she was a mere
employee and not an agent. Ballesteros had (1) the power to control the operations of Alson's
Polangui, (2) the power to control what Zenaida could and could not do, and (3) the
responsibility to pay the salaries of all Alson's Polangui's employees, including Zenaida. The
foregoing indicates the existence of employer-employee relationship between Ballesteros and
Zenaida. Not being an agent of Ballesteros, Zenaida has no juridical possession over the funds
she received. Therefore, the affirmation of the CA in the conviction of Zenaida for the crime
of estafa is not proper.

Sorongon vs. People

G.R. No. 230669, June 16, 2021

Problem: Rex Sorongon borrowed from Nelly Van der Bom a cement mixer for his project.
Nelly agreed to lend it to Rex provided that he should return it as soon as his project is
completed. When Rex failed to return the mixer, Nelly filed a complaint in the barangay against
Rex about unpaid accounts, which included the cement mixer. In March 2005, however, the
parties instead signed an amicable settlement. The amicable settlement provided that Nelly
agrees to waive her ownership of the properties in question in favor of Rex, provided that there
will be no countercharges related to the case regarding unpaid accounts to be filed in the future.

Despite the amicable settlement, an information for Estafa under Article 315 par. 1(b) was filed
against Rex in January 2006. After trial, the RTC found Rex guilty of the crime of estafa. The
CA affirmed its decision, ruling that Nelly’s act of lending the equipment gave rise to a contract
of commodatum between her and Rex; in which case, Rex, as the borrower, did not acquire
ownership over the thing borrowed and had the duty to return the same thing to Nelly.

Is the ruling of the RTC correct?

Suggested Answer: No. The ruling of the RTC is not correct.

22
In cases involving Estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1(b), where there is an underlying
contractual relationship or bilateral agreement between the parties which they can
modify or alter, novation may serve to either prevent the rise of criminal liability, or to
cast doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction, whether or not it was such that
the breach of the obligation would not give rise to penal responsibility, as when money loaned
is made to appear as a deposit, or other similar disguise is resorted to.

Here, the original contract of commodatum between the parties was effectively novated when
they entered into an amicable settlement before the barangay in March 2005, prior to the filing
of the Information for Estafa. The subject of the amicable settlement was the settlement of the
unpaid accounts which petitioner supposedly owed Nelly and her husband, which included the
cement mixer. In the amicable settlement, it stated that Nelly is waiving her ownership of
the properties therein in favor of Rex provided there he would not file a case or countercharge
against them. The amicable settlement remained valid despite the filing of the labor case,
as it was filed prior the barangay proceedings.

With Nelly waiving her ownership over the cement mixer in favor of Rex, there was clearly an
implied novation of the original contract of commodatum between her and Rex. Hence, it is
no longer the obligation of Rex to deliver the cement mixer because the ownership thereof
had already been transferred to him. Hence, there is no longer any prejudice caused to
another. Therefore, the ruling of the RTC is not correct, as any incipient criminal liability of
Rex involving his failure to deliver or return the cement mixer had been effectively avoided.

[NOTE: In this case, Rex filed a labor case against the Van der Boms prior to the filing of the
Estafa case.]

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

R.A 7610: Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation, and

Discrimination Act

Briñas vs. People

G.R. No. 254005, June 23, 2021

Problem: Asela Briñas is the Directress of the Challenger Montessori School. Micolle and
Keziah Liezle, both 16 years old and students of the said school, sent a text message to a certain
Charlene, while pretending to be Gale, the daughter of Briñas. Charlene’s mother arrived and
got angry at Micolle, Keziah Liezle and her classmates who sent the message for allegedly
quarrelling with her daughter. Briñas called the Micolle, Keziah Liezle and six other students.
There, in front of the teachers and other students, Briñas shouted at them, uttering the words
"pinakamalalandi, pinakamalilibog, pinakamahadera at hindot,” followed with "Mga putang
ina kayo.”

The private complainants reported that incident to the police authorities. An information was
filed against Briñas for Grave Oral Defamation in relation to R.A. 7610, alleging that Briñas
uttered the defamatory words which debased, degraded, and demeaned the private

23
complainants intrinsic worth and dignity, and to their grave humiliation, embarrassment,
damage and prejudice. After trial, the RTC held Briñas guilty of the crime of grave oral
defamation in relation to Section 10 (a) of R.A. No.7610. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

Did the RTC and CA err in convicting Briñas of the crime of grave oral defamation in
relation to Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610?

Suggested Answer: Yes. The RTC and CA erred in convicting Briñas.

Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610 is clear in that it punishes acts of child abuse which are "not
covered by the Revised Penal Code.” Thus, she cannot be convicted of grave oral defamation
under the RPC in relation to Section 10 of R.A. 7610, there being no such crime.

Even assuming that the charge was child abuse, Briñas still cannot be convicted. As provided
in Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) of R.A. 7610, a conviction for child abuse
requires the presence of a specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth
of the child as a human being. Such specific intent may be refuted by proof that the acts were
merely offshoots of emotional outrage in the spur of the moment and/or that the accused merely
intended to discipline the child.

Here, the only acts proven to have been committed by Briñas are the hurling of invectives,
made in a spur of the moment and in the heat of anger, against the private complainants,
after she learned of the latter's mischief against her own daughter. These acts, by themselves,
do not show intent to debase, degrade or demean the minors which is an indispensable element
of the crime charged. Therefore, the RTC and CA erred in convicting Briñas.

XXX vs. People

G.R. No. 242101, September 16, 2019

Problem: AAA, private complainant who is 14 years old, was about to pick up something on
the floor in one of the rooms of their house when without warning XXX, her stepfather,
approached her from the back. When she turned to face him, he grabbed the lower end of her
t-shirt, inserted his hands inside, and touched her breast while he uttered the word "Pahawak
nga". She resisted, but he tried to pull down her shorts, but she held on to the sides to prevent
him from stripping her. Sometime after, AAA narrated to her mother what happened.
Subsequently, an information was filed against XXX for committing lascivious acts against
AAA.

The RTC found XXX guilty for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal
Code. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction.

Was the penalty imposed by the RTC and CA correct?

Suggested Answer: No. The penalty imposed by the RTC and CA was not correct.

It has been held in People v. Tulagan that if the victim is exactly 12 years of age, or more

24
than 12 but below 18 years of age, or is 18 years old or older but is unable to fully take care
of herself/himself or protect herself/himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or
discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, the crime should be
designated as "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610."

Since AAA is 14 years of age, the proper offense should be designated as Lascivious Conduct
under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, not Acts of Lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code,
and not Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC Hence, the penalty imposed by the RTC and CA
was not correct.

R.A. 8042, otherwise known as the “Migrant Workers Act”

People vs. Espiritu

G.R. No. 226140, February 26, 2020

Problem: L, M, N and O applied for jobs as factory workers abroad in the Green Pastures
International Staffing Incorporated, a duly licensed recruitment agency registered with the
POEA and owned by Ms. Isabel Rios. Accordingly, they paid the corresponding placement
fees. No receipt was issued to them for the payment of said placement fee. L, M, N and O were
promised to be deployed after they had signed forms, underwent physical examination, and
attended the Pre-Departure Orientation Seminar. However, such a promise of deployment did
not materialize. Worse, no reimbursement was made relative to the placement fee that they
were paid.

Consequently, an information for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment under Section 6(m) of R.A.
8042 and eight informations for Estafa through false pretenses were filed against Rios in her
capacity as president and General Manager of Green Pastures and several others. After trial on
the merits, the RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of Large-Scale
Illegal Recruitment and eight counts of Estafa. The CA affirmed with modification the RTC’s
ruling; however, it maintained the conviction for eight counts of Estafa, as the liability arising
from illegal recruitment also established the liability for Estafa.

Can Rios be held liable of Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment?

Suggested Answer: Yes. Rios can be held liable of Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment.

The elements of Illegal Recruitment through failure to reimburse documentation and processing
expenses are:

1. The offender (whether or not a POEA-licensed authority or authorized recruiter or

agency) promises or gives the distinct impression that he or she has the capacity to
deploy workers for employment abroad;
2. The applicant pays money to the offender in connection with documentation and
processing fees for purposes of deployment;
3. The deployment does not take place without the applicant’s fault; and
4. The offender fails to reimburse the documentation and processing expenses incurred by

25
 the applicant.

Here, all the elements are present. L, M, N and O were promised to be given jobs abroad by
the Green Pastures. They paid their respective payment fees. They were not deployed without
their fault. They were also not reimbursed for their payment of the placement fee. In addition,
the commission of Illegal Recruitment against three or more persons is deemed
committed in Large Scale. Therefore, Rios, as president and general manager of Green
Pastures, can be held liable of Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment.

[Section 6(m) of RA 8042, as amended, provides that “In case of juridical persons, the officers
having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable.”]

Can Rios be held liable for Estafa?

Suggested Answer: No. Rios cannot be held liable for Estafa.

While it is settled in jurisprudence that a person may be separately charged and convicted with
Illegal Recruitment under R.A. 8042 and Estafa under Article 315(2) for the same acts,
conviction is not automatic as the said crimes have different elements. Accordingly, the
elements of Estafa by means of false pretenses or deceit are:

1. there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power,

influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
2. such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
3. that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means
and was induced to part with his money or property; and
4. as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

Here, the element of false pretenses is lacking. The agency of Isabel Rios was a duly licensed
recruitment agency registered with the POEA. Clearly, Rios and the agency have the
capacity and qualifications to deploy workers overseas. Lacking an element, Rios cannot be
held guilty for the crime of Estafa.

R.A. 3019: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Lacap vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 198162, June 21, 2017

Problem: Fermina Santos filed an application for business permit. However, Mayor Corazon
Lacap denied her application. Fermina went to the Office of the Director of the Public
Assistance Bureau of the Ombudsman, where she was referred to Atty. Calderon. Through a
transmittal letter, they wrote to Corazon, attaching all the necessary documents for the
application for business permit in order for the application to be acted upon. However, instead
of replying, Corazon referred the matter to her lawyer.

26
After the filing of the corresponding information, Corazon was convicted for violation of
Section 3(f) of RA 3019 for refusing after due demand, and without sufficient justification, to
act within a reasonable time on the application of Fermina. On appeal, Corazon argued that she
did not refuse to act on Fermina's application for a mayor's permit as contained in the transmittal
letter of Atty. Calderon, because she deemed it wise to refer the said letter to her lawyer because
of "other pending cases lodged by Fermina against Corazon in the RTC.”

Did the Sandiganbayan err in finding Corazon guilty of violation of Section 3(f) of R.A.
3019?

Suggested Answer: No. Sandiganbayan did not err in finding the accused guilty of official
inaction under Section 3(f) of the Anti-Graft Law.

In an application for a mayor’s permit or license to do business, all the mayor has to do is to
approve or disapprove the application. If the deliberate refusal to act or intentional inaction
on an application for mayor’s permit is motivated by personal conflicts and political
considerations, it thus becomes discriminatory, and constitutes a violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.

Here, there was no law or ordinance which required her to refer the transmittal letter,
where Fermina’s application was attached, to a lawyer. Hence, Corazon simply ignored
Fermina's application for mayor's permit' and its supporting documents. There is likewise no
doubt that the act of Corazon in referring the matter to her lawyer was merely a ploy to mask
her refusal to act and avoid possible sanction for her inaction.

Martel vs. People

G.R. Nos. 224765-68, February 2, 2021

Problem: The Office of the Ombudsman received a letter, alleging that petitioners procured
motor vehicles without going through a public bidding, which is violative of procurement laws.
Accordingly, they were charged of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. The Sandiganbayan
found the petitioners guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 through manifest partiality
when they identified particular brands of vehicles in the purchase requests, and for gross
negligence when petitioners merely made an interview of the dealers involved, and was not
reduced into writing, despite being tasked to make a study on the purchase of the vehicles.

Can they be convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019?

Suggested Answer: No. They cannot be convicted for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019.

In cases of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 through evident bad faith, it is not enough
that the accused violated a provision of law or that the provision of law violated is clear,
unmistakable, and elementary. To constitute evident bad faith, it must be proven that the
accused acted with fraudulent intent.

Here, while it was proven that violations of procurement law were committed by the petitioners

27
(direct purchase instead of going through a public bidding), there was no evidence presented
whatsoever showing that petitioners were animated by fraudulent motives.

As to violation Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 through manifest partiality, it must be proven that the
accused had malicious and deliberate intent to bestow unwarranted partiality.

Here, while there appears to be a degree of preference for a specific brand, a preference for
the brand's performance record and reliability, this preference does not rise to the level
of manifest partiality that would show an ulterior motive or purpose on the part of petitioners.

As to violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 through gross inexcusable negligence, it requires
that the negligence committed must be both gross and inexcusable, characterized by the want
of even slight care, wherein the accused was consciously indifferent as to the compliance with
his or her duty as a public officer.

Here, petitioners did conduct a study, albeit limited and not reduced to writing. While it
is arguable that a more thorough study would have led petitioners to conclude that direct
purchase was not proper for the subject procurements, their actions cannot be characterized
as without even slight care and conscious indifference as to the compliance with their
duties so as to make them liable for gross inexcusable negligence. Hence, they cannot be held
liable for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 on this account.

For these reasons, petitioners cannot be held liable for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.

Macairan vs. People

G.R. No. 215104, March 18, 2021

Problem: The Office of the Ombudsman received an anonymous letter, complaining about the
alleged irregularity in the purchases of the DOH-NCR from pharmaceutical companies. After
trial on the merits, the Sandiganbayan found the petitioners guilty of violation of Section 3(e)
of R.A. 3019 through evident bad faith in purchasing overpriced medicines, and for allowing
the purchase of overpriced medicine without public bidding.

Can the petitioners be held liable for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 through evident
bad faith or manifest partiality?

Suggested Answer: No. The petitioners cannot be held liable for violation of Section 3(e) of
R.A. 3019 through evident bad faith or manifest partiality.

It has been settled that the absence of public bidding in the procurement of goods does not
automatically equate to evident bad faith and manifest partiality. To constitute evident bad faith
or manifest partiality, it must be proven that the accused acted with malicious motive or
fraudulent intent. It is not enough that the accused violated a law, committed mistakes, or
was negligent in his duties. There must be a clear showing that the accused was spurred by a
corrupt motive or a deliberate intent to do wrong or cause damage.

28
Even if it were to be conceded that the failure to conduct the requisite public bidding for the
questioned transactions was unjustified, no other evidence was presented to establish that
petitioners' actions were animated by malicious motive or fraudulent intent to defraud
the government. Hence, petitioners cannot be held liable for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A.
3019.

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

Luna vs. People

G.R No. 231902, June 30, 2021

Problem: Luna, who works as a driver for Susan, was asked to drive for Sexy. After leaving a
bag at the rear passenger’s seat, Sexy instructed Luna to proceed to a restaurant by himself. She
said that a certain Mike will be arriving there to get the bag, and that if Mike will have
something to leave for Sexy, he will just have to leave it at the back of car. Luna went to the
restaurant, and a man who introduced himself as Mike approached him and asked where Sexy
was. As per instruction, Luna told Mike to get the bag and wait for Sexy. However, Mike
announced that he is arresting Luna for carrying illegal drugs. Accordingly, an information for
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 was filed against Luna.

After trial, the RTC found Luna guilty of the crime charged, ruling that since the bag was in
the possession of Luna, there arises the presumption that the alleged packs of drug specimen
found inside the bag are owned by petitioner Luna, and therefore, the presumption of animus
possidendi is established. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction, holding that since
Luna was driving the vehicle where the bag was retrieved, he constructively possessed the
alleged packs of drug specimen.

Is Luna guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A.
9165?

Suggested Answer: No. Luna is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section
11, Article II of R.A. 9165.

Despite the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs being malum prohibitum, it is not
enough to show that the accused knowingly and intentionally possessed the bag or
receptacle that contained illegal drugs. The prosecution must go beyond and provide
evidence that the accused knowingly, freely, consciously, and intentionally possessed illegal
drugs.

Here, it was Sexy who placed the bag at the backseat of the vehicle. It was also Sexy who
instructed petitioner Luna to immediately proceed to the restaurant and allow a certain Mike
to get the said bag. In short, the person who effectively wielded control over the bag was Sexy
and not petitioner Luna.

Being a mere driver for hire who merely followed the instructions of Sexy, which, on their face,
were lawful instructions, it cannot be said that Luna exercised control and dominion over the

29
vehicle where the bag of specimen was recovered. Necessarily, the presumption of animus
possidendi did not arise. Therefore, Luna is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of
Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.

People vs. Luna

G.R. No. 219164, March 21, 2018

Problem: A buy-bust operation was conducted wherein Richael Luna was arrested at his house.
After the arrest, the poseur-buyer marked the sachets and accomplished an Inventory of
Confiscated Evidence in the presence of Luna. Thereafter, it was signed by a Barangay
Kagawad at the Barangay Hall, and a representative from the media signed the same at the
police station. At the police station, Luna was photographed holding the plastic sachets
supposedly recovered from him.

After being charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165, the RTC found him
guilty. The RTC ruled that while there was an admitted non-compliance with the procedure
under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized were
preserved. The CA likewise affirmed the RTC’s decision as regards the corpus delicti.

Is accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of violation of Sections
5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165?

Suggested Answer: No. Luna is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of violation
of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.

While non-compliance with the mandatory procedure in Section 21 triggers the operation of
the saving clause enshrined in the IRR of RA 9165, the prosecution must first establish that
such noncompliance was based on justifiable grounds and that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

Here, the saving clause was not triggered because no explanation was proffered as to why
none of the insulating witnesses was present at the place and time of the seizure, or as to
the failure to photograph the drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of such
witnesses. Accordingly, without the successful triggering of the saving clause, the seizure and
custody over the dangerous drugs in this case must perforce be invalidated. Hence, Luna cannot
be held liable for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.

People vs. Tomawis

G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018

Problem: Upon a tip by a confidential informant, a buy-bust operation was conducted in

Starmall, Alabang against Basher Tomawis for being engaged in illegal drug activities. After
the transaction, the arresting moved in to arrest. However, a commotion occurred during the
arrest because bystanders wanted to help Tomawis who shouted “Tulungan niyo ako papatayin
nila ako.” As a result, the police were not able to put markings on the evidence in the vicinity

30
because of the commotion. Instead, the inventory process was conducted after Tomawis was
brought to Brgy. Pinyahan, before two of its barangay officials.

The RTC found Tomawis guilty of violation of Section 5 of RA 9165, ruling that the conduct
of the inventory and photographing was justifiably done in a different place because of the
commotion that ensued in the place of arrest. On appeal, the CA affirmed the judgment of the
RTC in toto.

Was Tomawis's guilt for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 proven beyond reasonable
doubt?

Suggested Answer: No. Tomawis' guilt for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt.

While the IRR allows alternative places for the conduct of the inventory and photographing of
the seized drugs, the requirement of having the three required witnesses to be physically present
at the time or near the place of apprehension is not dispensed with.

There are police stations closer to Starmall, Alabang, in Muntinlupa City and the office of the
PDEA is also in Pinyahan, Quezon City. And yet, the inventory was conducted in the
barangay hall, which is not one of the allowed alternative places provided under Section
21 of the IRR. Also, there were no witnesses from the DOJ or the media. Only two witnesses
who were elected barangay officials were present. Having failed to observe the mandatory
requirements, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs have been compromised.
Therefore, Tomawis’s guilt for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.

People vs. De Leon

G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018

Problem: An informant went to the office of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations
Task Force and reported the illegal drug activities of a certain Nova De Leon. After a buy-bust
team was formed, the buy-bust team and the informant proceeded to the target area. After
receiving one sachet from De Leon and the handing of the buy-bust money, De Leon was
arrested and was instructed to empty her pockets, but only the buy-bust money was recovered.
Thereafter, she was brought to the barangay hall. A barangay kagawad was requested to witness
the marking and inventory of the items. Pictures were taken of De Leon and the recovered
evidence, the inventory together with the barangay kagawad.

During trial, the police officer who did the marking explained that he could not perform the
same at the place of apprehension because of the weather condition. The RTC convicted De
Leon of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

Was De Leon's guilt for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 proven beyond
reasonable doubt?

31
Suggested Answer: No. It has been held that a barangay hall is not one of the alternative
places for the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs. Also, the seized item was
not marked immediately upon seizure and confiscation. It should not be hard to immediately
mark the seized item because only one plastic sachet was recovered from De Leon and
considering further that the buy-bust team was able to pull off the entire operation, which only
took about 10 minutes, under the same weather condition. Since the seized drugs’ integrity is
put into doubt, the very corpus delicti of the offense, De Leon’s guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.

People vs. Bricero

G.R. No. 218428, November 07, 2018

Problem: A confidential informant came to the office of the District Anti-Illegal Drugs (DAID)
about the illegal drug activities of an alias Budoy. A team was formed for the conduct of the
buy-bust operation, consisting of PO1 Reyes as poseur-buyer, while PO3 Ramos, PO1 Vargas,
PO1 Jimenez and PO2 Ortiz as back-up members. After proceeding to the target area, PO1
Reyes, accompanied by the confidential informant, made the pre-arranged signal after receiving
the sachet of shabu. Thereafter, Segundo Bricero was apprehended by PO2 Ortiz. Afterwards,
PO1 Jimenez who was waiting in the car was asked to go to the crime scene for the marking
and inventory.

The RTC convicted Bricero of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165. It was convinced that the
chain of custody was not broken despite the absence of photographs, as there people blocking
the buy-bust team and throwing the stones at them, and they were able to conduct the marking
and inventory at the crime scene.

Was Bricero's guilt for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 proven beyond reasonable
doubt?

Suggested Answer: No. Bricero’s guilt for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt.

In dangerous drugs cases, the law requires that the marking and inventory of the seized drugs
should be done by the apprehending officer himself or the poseur-buyer.

Here, the inventory was not prepared by the police officer who recovered the prohibited
item. It was prepared by PO1 Jimenez who was not present at the time and place of
apprehension as he was the designated driver of the team waiting in the car. He was merely
called to go to the crime scene after the apprehension and seizure were already done.

Also, no photographs of the seized drug were taken at the place of seizure or at the police
station where the inventory was conducted. Photographs provide credible proof of the state or
condition of the illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia recovered from the place of apprehension to
ensure that the identity and integrity of the recovered items are preserved.

Here, if it was able to conduct the inventory at the place of apprehension, it could easily

32
have also taken photographs at the same time. Moreover, the police officers were able to
wait for PO1 Jimenez who came from his car to do the inventory, therefore there was no sense
of urgency for them to leave the place of apprehension. Thus, the explanation of the members
of the buy-bust team that there were people blocking the way and throwing stones at them
deserves scant consideration.

People vs. Sood

G.R. No. 227394, June 06, 2018

Problem: Norjana Sood was arrested by police officers in a buy-bust operation and was
charged for selling shabu, in violation of RA 9165. While the RTC found that Section 21 of
RA 9165 was not complied with when the inventory was not conducted on-site, it excused the
same on the ground that the buy-bust team supposedly wanted to avoid any commotion at the
area because there would be vehicular traffic. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC,
holding that there was “substantial compliance” with the law because the integrity and
evidentiary value of the drugs seized were preserved.

Was the non-compliance with the procedure in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 justified?

Suggested Answer: No. The non-compliance with the procedure in Section 21 of R.A. 9165
was not justified.

In case of non-compliance with the procedure for inventory and photographing imposed by RA
9165, the IRR imposed the twin requirements of, first, there should be justifiable grounds
for the non-compliance, and second, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
should be properly preserved. Failure to show these two conditions renders void and invalid
the seizure of and custody of the seized drugs.

Here, the reason that the buy-bust team wanted to avoid any commotion because there
would be vehicular traffic hardly qualifies as sufficient justification for not complying with
the requirements of Section 21 as to the conduct of the inventory and photographing at the place
of seizure. As buy-bust operations are planned, the team could have easily ensured that the
conduct of the inventory and photographing would cause minimal disruption to the area.

People vs. Musor

G.R. No. 231843, November 07, 2018

Problem: An information was received by the PNP for one Musor’s illegal drug activities at
the Wil-Jan Bar and Inn. A buy-bust operation was prepared to entrap Musor. The poseur-buyer
spoke with Musor. The former asked for shabu, and Musor handed over something. After
handing the marked money, Musor was arrested. Thereafter, the team leader of the buy-bust
team ordered them to return to the police station to avert any commotion, as their location was
dark and there were persons drinking in the area. It was only at the police station where the
inventory was conducted.

33
Was the deviation from Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 justified?

Suggested Answer: No. The buy-bust team’s explanation that there might be a commotion
since the place was very dark and there were plenty of persons drinking at the place is
not a sufficient justification. They did not even state that their safety would be threatened by
an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any persons acting for and on his behalf if the
inventory and photographing of the seized drugs were done in the place of apprehension.

People vs. Rasos

G.R. No. 243639, September 18, 2019

Problem: A confidential asset reported Jose Rasos Jr. for his alleged illegal drug trading
activities. After a buy-bust team was formed to entrap Rasos, the apprehending team went to
the target area. After the transaction of the illegal sale, the poseur-buyer made the pre-arranged
signal. Thereafter, the apprehending team effected the arrest of Rasos. During the inventory,
the police tried to seek the assistance of barangay officials to witness the same, but to no avail.

Two separate informations for illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of
dangerous drugs were filed against Rasos. After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a
Judgment convicting Rasos for committing illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165, but acquitted him as regards the charge of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs on the ground of reasonable doubt. The CA affirmed the RTC decision.

Was the failure to secure the attendance of the elective official justified?

Suggested Answer: No. The failure to secure the attendance of the elective official was not
justified. In the Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, it states that the elected public
official required to witness the inventory of the alleged seized evidence and photographing is
any incumbent public official regardless of the place where he/she is elected.

Here, while it is true that in the Joint Affidavit of the arresting officers, it was stated that they
sought "the assistance of the barangay officials to witness the inventory but to no avail," they
were not precluded from seeking assistance from local barangay officials. Therefore, the
authorities' allegation in the Joint Affidavit that they failed to secure the assistance of local
barangay officials is a lame and unconvincing excuse that deserves scant consideration.

People vs. Serad

G.R. No. 224894, October 10, 2018

Problem: On January 10, 2011, a confidential informant informed the police that Welito
“Wacky” Serad was engaged in the illegal sale of drugs. A buy-bust team was created, which
proceeded to the target area. The confidential informant introduced the poseur-buyer to Wacky,
who informed the latter of his intent to buy shabu. After receiving a plastic sachet containing
shabu, the poseur-buyer made the pre-arranged signal. Wacky, noticing the arrival of the back-

34
up team, fled. A chase ensued, with Wacky throwing the marked money. He was eventually
caught and brought back to the place of the sale. There, an inventory was conducted before a
media representative and a DOJ representative. While there was no elective official present
during the inventory, another inventory was conducted in the police station, together with the
elective official.

Was there sufficient compliance with the rule in Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165?

Suggested Answer: Yes. There is sufficient compliance with the rule in Sec. 21 of RA 9165.
It has been held that while the procedure in Section 21 should be strictly complied with, a
slight deviation from the said procedure is justifiable when the police have shown that
they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure.

Here, while the elected official was absent during the initial inventory at the place of arrest and
seizure of the items, the police nevertheless showed earnest efforts to comply with the
mandated procedure by conducting another inventory in the police station with all three
witnesses present.

People vs. Pacnisen

G.R. No. 234821, November 07, 2018

Problem: On September 18, 2012, around 1:00 in the afternoon, a confidential informant
reported that at around 3:00 pm on the same day, a certain Bobby Pacnisen will be selling
marijuana. A buy-bust operation was then immediately conducted and the appellant was
arrested. The agent then conducted a body search on Pacnisen and made an inventory of the
confiscated items in the presence of the buy-bust team, an elective official and a representative
of the media. Photographs were also taken. Later, the confiscated items tested positive for
shabu. During trial, the agent admitted that there was no DOJ representative present, but
explained that they tried contacting one but to no avail.

The RTC convicted Pacnisen of violation of Section 5 of RA 9165. On appeal, he posits that
the chain of custody was not properly established because there was no DOJ representative at
the conduct of the inventory.

Was the absence of the DOJ representative justified?

Suggested Answer: Yes. The absence of the DOJ representative was justified. The absence of
these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a
justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to
secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v.
Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in
contacting the representatives enumerated under the law.

Here, there was only a two-hour period from the time they received the information from their
confidential informant to the time that they needed to conduct the buy-bust operation. It was
likewise explained that they tried contacting a DOJ representative but there was no one

35
available. With the limited time they had to prepare for the operation, the apprehending team
was still able to secure the attendance of two of the three required witnesses. This fact alone
fortifies the testimony of Agent Esmin that they really did attempt to secure the attendance of
a DOJ representative but that there was no one available. The absence of a DOJ representative
was thus attributable to factors beyond their control. The officers in this case thus showed
earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure. They showed that they did their duties
bearing in mind the requirements of the law.

People vs. Ga-a

G.R. No. 222559, June 06, 2018

Problem: On May 9, 2011, a buy-bust team was formed against Aquila Adobar and his live-in
partner based on information from a confidential informant. The CI introduced the poseur-
buyer to Adobar as a friend who was interested to buy shabu. Upon receipt of the money,
Adobar excused himself to get the "item" inside the house. In less than a minute, Adobar came
back and handed to one heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance
suspected to be shabu. Thereafter, the rest of the team attempted to arrest Adobar. However,
Adobar was able to go inside his house and escape. The buy-bust team forced open the door
and found Jennifer Ga-a. Near her were seventeen pieces of transparent sachets containing
suspected shabu together with other drug paraphernalia.

Meanwhile, the seized item from Adobar was handed over to the arresting officer for marking.
Thereafter, the elected official, media representative and the DOJ representative were called to
witness the marking in the presence of Ga-a. Adobar remained at large until he was arrested on
February 13, 2012.

The RTC found Adobar guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. On appeal, the CA affirmed
in toto the trial court’s judgment.

Can Adobar be convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs?

Suggested Answer: No. Adobar cannot be convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The
escape of the accused serves as a waiver of his right or his counsel or representative to be
present during the initial custody requirements, such as the physical inventory and
photographing, provided that reasonable efforts were made to apprehend him. However, the
buy-bust team must still secure the presence of the insulating witnesses, and the
prosecution must still prove such presence, not only during the inventory and photographing
but likewise at the time of and at or near the intended place of confiscation and seizure of the
subject drugs.

Here, Adobar is deemed to have waived his right to be present during the initial custody
requirements having eluded arrest. However, none of the witnesses were present during the
seizure and confiscation of the subject drugs. Considering that at the point of seizure,
irregularities were already attendant, the chain of custody had already been broken. Therefore,
Adobar cannot be convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

36
 People vs. Otico
G.R. No. 231133, June 06, 2018

Problem: After conducting surveillance, it was confirmed that a certain Otico was engaged in
the sale of illegal drugs. Thus, a buy-bust team was organized. When they were at the target
area, Otico approached the civilian poseur buyer which was seen by the policemen who were
10 meters away. The policeman saw the poseur-buyer give the money to Otico, who, in
exchange, handed to the latter a plastic sachet. When the signal was given by the operatives
immediately held Otico and announced his authority as a police officer while PO1Villasurda
took the plastic sachet from the poseur-buyer. An inventory of the seized items was made in
the presence of Otico and a municipal councilor. The items were photographed and then
marked. PO1 Villasurda personally delivered the request and the specimen to the laboratory
examination.

The RTC found Otico guilty of violating Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165. The CA affirmed the ruling
of the RTC.

Can Otico be held liable for violating Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165?

Suggested Answer: No. Otico cannot be held liable for violating Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165.
There are serious lapses in the police officers’ compliance with Section 21, Art. II of RA 9165
and its IRR. The inventory and photograph taking were not done immediately after
seizure and confiscation in the place of operation. Except for the elected official, the
required witnesses were not present during the inventory and photograph taking. Only
one of the three third-party witnesses was present. The police officers did not present justifiable
grounds for their non-compliance with the required procedure and proof that the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by them.

People vs. De Vera

G.R. No. 218914, July 30, 2018

Problem: Henry offered to sell shabu to a Confidential Informant (CI). The CI did not have
enough money but said that he would bring along another interested buyer. Upon arrival at the
meeting place, the CI introduced him to the buyer, SPO2 Dolinta. SPO2 Dolinta brought the
buy-bust money and Henry brought out a purse containing a crystalline substance. After
assessing the item as shabu, SPO2 Dolinta caused the back-up officers to respond to the scene
and help in arresting Henry.

The prosecution submitted as evidence photographs of Henry and the witnesses signing the
Inventory Form. The RTC convicted Henry of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, ruling that the
integrity and identity of the seized items were preserved. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

Were the photographs submitted sufficient to comply with Sec. 21 of RA 9165?

Suggested Answer: No. The photographs submitted were not sufficient to comply with Sec.
21 of RA 9165. The photographs required by law to be taken are those of the articles

37
confiscated during the buy-bust operation, particularly the seized illegal drugs, consistent
with the law's purpose to ensure that their integrity and identity are preserved. Thus, the
photographs submitted in evidence are, by themselves, defective as they were not of the seized
illegal drugs.

People vs. Angeles

G.R. No. 237355, November 21, 2018

Problem: On October 31, 2013 at around 5:00 in the afternoon, a text message was sent by a
concerned citizen as regards the illegal-drug selling activity of an alias “Panget.” After
confirming the information with their informant, a buy-bust team was created. On November
1, 2013 at around 3:00 in the afternoon, a Pre-Operation Report and a Coordination Form was
submitted to the PDEA. Upon arrival at the target place, the informant and the poseur-buyer
approached Angel Angeles. After the transaction, the poseur-buyer gave the pre-arranged
signal. The rest of the buy-bust team moved in to arrest Angeles. As a result of his
apprehension, Angeles was subject to a laboratory examination. Examinations showed that the
confiscated items and Angeles tested positive for shabu.

The RTC convicted Angeles of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and illegal use of dangerous
drugs. The RTC held that despite the non-compliance, the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items were nevertheless preserved. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

Did the RTC and the CA err in convicting Angel of the crimes charged?

Suggested Answer: Yes. The RTC and CA erred in convicting Angel of the crimes charged.

As to the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, none of the three required witnesses was
present at the time of seizure and apprehension and even during the conduct of the inventory.
The apprehending team had more than ample time to comply with the requirements, as
it received the information from its confidential informant at 5:00 p.m. on October 31, 2013,
and it executed the buy-bust operation at 3:00 p.m. the following day. It thus had around 22
hours to secure the attendance of the required witnesses.

Consequently, the acquittal of Angeles in the charge of illegal sale likewise results in his
acquittal in the charge of illegal use of dangerous drugs. Since the apprehension of Angeles by
the police officers was illegal for non-compliance with the procedure provided by Section 21,
RA 9165, it therefore follows that the drug test conducted on him was likewise illegal for
it is an indirect result of his arrest.

People vs. Cabezudo

G.R. No. 232357, November 28, 2018

Problem: At about 9:30 in the morning, a confidential informant went to the PDEA and
informed them that Edwin Cabezudo is engaged in illegal drug trade. A buy-bust team was
formed for an entrapment operation against Edwin. At around 11:00 in the morning, the buy-

38
bust team went to the target place. The confidential informant approached Edwin and
introduced him to the poseur-buyer. After the sale was consummated, the buy-bust team
arrested Edwin. At the scene of the crime, the confiscated items were marked and photographs
were taken. Later, they transferred to the barangay hall where the barangay chairman, media
representatives and the DOJ representative signed the inventory report.

The RTC and CA ruled that Edwin is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation
of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Did the RTC and CA err in convicting Edwin of the crime charged?

Suggested Answer: Yes. The RTC and CA erred in convicting Edwin of the crime charged.
Section 21, RA 9165 and its IRR requires the apprehending team to conduct the physical
inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same in the presence of the
required witness, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof.

Here, while all three required witnesses signed the inventory receipt, none of them were
present at the time of seizure and apprehension.

Tuates vs. People

G. R. No. 230789, April 10, 2019

Problem: Bundang is a Jail Guard at the provincial jail. She was assigned to frisk women
visitors at the jail. Tuates went to the provincial jail to visit her boyfriend, who was charged
with Violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Bundang conducted a body search
on Tuates. She placed her hand on Tuates’ pocket as well as inside her pants. When Bundang
took out her hand from her pants, she was surprised when a plastic sachet containing a white
crystalline substance fell out. Bundang marked the seized item at the Office of the Provincial
Jail Warden. Thereafter, the dangerous drug was personally brought by Bundang to the SOCO.
After turning over the specimen to the crime laboratory, they delivered it to the police station
for investigation and preparation of the documents such as the sworn statements and the receipts
of the inventory.

In Bundang’s testimony, she admitted twice that she raised Tuates' shirt since she suspects her
involved with drugs like her boyfriend. However, the RTC convicted Tuates in Violation of
Section 11 of R.A. 9165. The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction of Tuates, holding that the
prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.

Did the CA err in affirming RTC’s decision?

Suggested Answer: Yes. The CA erred in affirming RTC’s decision. In this case, it is highly
doubtful that an inventory of the seized item was conducted. After confiscation, they
immediately submitted the seized item to the crime laboratory for forensic examination.
After turning over the specimen to the crime laboratory, they delivered it to the police station

39
for investigation and preparation of the documents such as the sworn statements and the receipts
of the inventory.

The foregoing thus casts doubt on whether an inventory of the seized item was even conducted.
There is thus doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item — the corpus
delicti of the crime. Thus, the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s decision.

[Here, the search was found to be irregular. Under the BJMP-SOP 2010-05, pat/frisk searches
and rub searches are to be done over the jail visitor’s clothing. What the jail guard did was do
a strip search. A strip search can only be done when there arises probable cause and after the
visitor agrees in writing.]

People vs. Buniag

G.R. No. 217661, June 26, 2019

Problem: Upon a tip by a confidential informant, a transaction for the sale of marijuana was
made between Ferdinand Buniag and a PDEA Agent. During the transaction, Buniag demanded
for the payment, but the poseur-buyer insisted to see the marijuana first. Upon seeing the drugs,
the poseur-buyer made a “miss-call”, the pre-arranged signal to arrest Buniag. The arresting
officers then arrested Buniag.

An information for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous
drugs) was filed against Buniag. However, the RTC found Buniag guilty only for attempting
to sell marijuana leaves. The RTC ruled that there was a mere attempt to sell, as the
consideration for the marijuana had not yet been given when the arrest was made. The CA
modified the RTC’s ruling, finding Buniag guilty under Section 26(b), Article II of R.A. 9165.

Was the charge of attempted illegal sale of dangerous drugs proper?

Suggested Answer: Yes. The charge of attempted illegal sale of dangerous drugs was proper.

A crime is attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution, which should produce the felony,
by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

Here, Buniag attempted to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the commission of the
intended crime. However, the sale was aborted when the poseur-buyer, upon confirming that
Buniag had with him the marijuana, made a "miss-call,” the pre-arranged signal, and the rest
of the team rushed to the area and placed Buniag under arrest. Hence, Buniag may only be held
liable for attempted illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

People vs. Manabat

G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019

Problem: The police decided to conduct a buy-bust operation upon receiving information that

40
a certain alias Mario is engaged in the selling of prohibited drugs. After proceeding to the place,
the confidential informant introduced the poseur-buyer to Mario. After agreeing to sell to the
poseur-buyer, Mario received the marked money and, in turn, handed over a sachet. The poseur-
buyer immediately held Mario and the arresting team closed in to arrest him. After handcuffing
Mario, the arresting team called for witnesses. In their presence, a body search was conducted
on Mario. Confiscated were sachets of white crystalline substance, which later tested positive
for shabu.

The RTC convicted Mario of the crimes charged. The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction of
Mario, holding that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the crimes charged.

Was the buy-bust operation conducted in accordance with law?

Suggested Answer: No. The buy-bust operation was not conducted in accordance with law.

The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but
more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the
presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and
confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized
drug

Here, the witnesses were contacted only after Mario was already arrested and handcuffed.
Therefore, Mario should be acquitted, the buy-bust operation not being in accordance with law.

Acibo vs. People

G.R. No. 228132, March 11, 2020

Problem: An informant came forward about a certain Mike and Pilo who were engaged in
illegal drug trade. Acting on said information, the police conducted a series of surveillance
operations on these two. Eventually, they were able to find out their real names as well as
confirm their involvement with the drug trade. They were also successful in conducting a test
buy. During the buy-bust operation, only Mike was arrested. For fear of retaliation from Mike’s
relatives who lived in the area, the buy-bust team decided to conduct the inventory at the police
station. There, the inventory was conducted in the presence of Mike, a barangay kagawad, a
DOJ representative and a media practitioner, all of whom signed the Receipt of the Property
Seized.

Thereafter, an information for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 was filed against
Mike. The RTC convicted him of the crime charged. On appeal, the CA affirmed his conviction.

Did the lower court err in convicting Mike for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165?

Suggested Answer: Yes. The lower court erred in convicting Mike for violating Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165.

The presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is

41
mandatory and serves a crucial purpose. This requirement on the presence of the insulating
witnesses at the time of seizure can also be easily complied with by the buy-bust team
considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity.

Here, the officers could have complied with the requirements of the law had they intended
to, as they had the time to conduct both surveillances and a test-buy prior to the actual
buy-bust. The fact that the apprehending team had days to plan and do surveillances renders
the absence of the insulating witnesses at the place of operation inexcusable. That the
prosecution failed to even acknowledge this lapse let alone justify it leaves excusing it unlikely.

People vs. Cabriole

G.R. No. 248418, May 5, 2021

Problem: The police conducted a buy-bust operation against Daniel Gumanit and Gabriel
Cabriole. PO1 Doño acted as the poseur-buyer. After receiving a plastic sachet from the two,
PO1 Doño executed the pre-arranged signal and walked away with the confidential informant.
Thereafter, the buy-bust team effected the arrest of the two. However, only Cabriole was
arrested. After a search by PO3 Javier, three plastic sachets believed to contain shabu were
found. The inventory was conducted in the presence of Cabriole, a media practitioner, and a
barangay kagawad. Thereafter, PO1 Doño delivered the seized item to PO3 Javier, who took
custody of the seized plastic sachets.

Accordingly, two informations were filed against Cabriole for violation of Section 5 (illegal
sale of dangerous drugs) and Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs) of R.A. 9165.
After trial, the RTC ruled that the prosecution established with certainty all the elements of
illegal sale of shabu and illegal possession thereof and that there was no break in the chain of
custody of the dangerous drugs taken from the accused-appellant. The CA affirmed the RTC’s
decision.

Did the CA correctly rule that the accused is guilty of violation of Section 5 and 11 of RA
9165?

Suggested Answer: No. The CA did not correctly rule that the accused is guilty of violation
of Section 5 and 11 of RA 9165. The accused is only guilty of violation of Section 11.

It has been held that the law enforcement officers' failure to immediately mark the seized
drugs or other related items would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus
delicti which calls for the acquittal of the accused.

In the present case, PO1 Doño had failed to immediately mark the plastic sachet allegedly
bought from accused-appellant. After receiving the shabu, he put the sachet inside his right
pocket before handing it over to PO1 Javier for marking and inventory. The belated
marking adversely affected the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug subject of the
sale. Therefore, the accused-appellant cannot be held liable for the sale of dangerous drugs.

42
However, as to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the conviction must be
sustained. PO3 Javier was able to immediately mark and do an inventory of the seized items,
held custody of the seized items after the operation and personally delivered the seized items.

43
 College of Law, New Era University
Professional Schools Building, No. 9 CentralAve., New Era, Quezon City, Philippines, 1107

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is
understanding.
(Proverbs 9:10)