G.R. No.

242101, September 16, 2019

XXX vs. People of the Philippines

Facts:
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.

Issue:
Was the penalty imposed by the RTC and CA correct?

Held:
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 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.

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

People of the Philippines vs. Callao

Facts:
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
lighter from Fernando who, after handing out a lighter, was unknowingly struck on thenape.
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, tookout 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..

Issue:
Is Callao liable for an impossible crime?
Held:
 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. Thus, Callao’s defense
of impossible crime is thus unavailing.

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

People of the Philippines vs. Espiritu

Facts:
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.

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

Held:
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
G.R. No. 225623, June 07, 2017
People of the Philippines vs. Raytos

Facts:
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 awayimmediately and surrendered himself to the barangay officials.

Issue:

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

Held:

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 oneself.
 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

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

Martel vs. People of the Philippines

Facts:
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.

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

Held:
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 (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

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 petition
-ers 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
G.R. No. 215748, November 20, 2017
People of the Philippines vs. Duran.

Facts:
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 rep
-lied 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.

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

Was treachery present?

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

The Court held that 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.

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.
G.R. No. 215104, March 18, 2021
Macairan vs. People of the Philippines

Facts:

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.

Issue:

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

Held:

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 evi-
dent 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 mis-
takes, or was negligent in his duties. There must be a clear showing that the accused was spu-
rred by a corrupt motive or a deliberate intent to do wrong or cause damage. Even if it were to
be conceded that the failure to conduct the requisite public bidding for the questioned tran
-sactions 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.

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

People of the Philippines vs. Gonzales

Facts:

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.
Issue/s:

Is there a valid self-defense?

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

Held:

No. There was no valid self-defense. A person who interposes self-defense must esta-
blish: (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 notreta-
liate after receiving a blow from Rene. Therefore, there was no valid self-defense.

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 atte-
nded 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.

G.R No. 231902, June 30, 2021

Luna vs. People of the Philippines

Facts:
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 ann-
ounced 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.

Issue:

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

Held:

No. Luna is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section11, Article II of
R.A. 9165.
 The court held that, despite the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs being
malum prohibitum, it is not enough to show that the accused knowingly and intentionally poss-
essed 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 domi-
nion over the 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.

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

People of the Philippines vs. Bagabay

Facts:

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. Gue-
varra 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 atten-
ded the killing of the victim.

Issue/s:
Can self-defense be appreciated in this case?

Was treachery present in this case?

Held:
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) unlaw-
ful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person resorting to self-defense.

The court held that 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.

No. Treachery was not present in this case. 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.
G.R. No. 219164, March 21, 2018
People of the Philippines vs. Luna

Facts:
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.

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

Held:
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. The court held that,
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. According-
ly, 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.

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

People of the Philippines vs. Tomawis

Facts:
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 tran-
saction, 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 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.

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

Held:
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 photo-
graphing of the seized drugs, the requirement of having the three required witnesses to be phy-
sically present at the time or near the place of apprehension is not dispensed with.

According to the Supreme Court, 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.
G.R. No. 226158, November 08, 2017
People of the Philippines vs. Pentecostes

Facts:
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.

Issue:
Should treachery be appreciated in this case?

Held:
Yes. Treachery should be appreciated in this case. It has been held by the court 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.
G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018
People of the Philippines vs. De Leon

Facts:
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. There-
after, 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 evid-
ence, 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 bec- ause of the weather condition. The RTC
convicted De Leon of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

Issue:
Was De Leon's guilt for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 proven beyond reason-

nable doubt?

Held:
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 imme-
diately 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 minu-
tes, 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.

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

People of the Philippines vs. Agramon

Facts:
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 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 circu-
mstances of treachery and evident premeditation, the CA found that only evident preme-
ditation was clearly established.
Issue:
Are the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation present in this
case?

Held:
No. The two qualifying circumstances were not proved by the prosecution with the requi-
red 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.

The court held that 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.
G.R. No. 218428, November 07, 2018
People of the Philippines vs. Bricero

Facts:
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, acco-
mpanied by the confidential informant, made the pre-arranged signal after receiving the sach-
et 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.

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

Held:

No. Bricero’s guilt for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 was not proven beyond reason-
nable 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 apprehens-
sion 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 photo-
graphs 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 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 conside- ration.
G.R. No. 227865, November 07, 2018
People of the Philippines vs. Magbuhos

Facts:
Rodel Magbuhos was charged with the crime of Murder for the killing of Enrique Casti-
llo. 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 assa-
ult was totally unexpected by the victim that the latter had no opportunity to defend
himself, much less retaliate.

Issue:
Did treachery attend the commission of the crime?

Held:
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 vic-
tim's family, because if the accused indeed consciously adopted means to ensure the facili-
tation 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 pres-
G.R. No. 227394, June 06, 2018
People of the Philippines vs. Sood

Facts:
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.

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

Held:
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.

The court held that, 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

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

People of the Philippines vs. Bulutano.

Facts:
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.

Issue:
Did the CA err in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery?
Held:
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.

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

People of the Philippines vs. Musor

Facts:

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 invent-
tory was conducted.

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

Held:
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 justif-
ication. 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.