CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ASSIGNMENT

November 22, 2022

For your assignment, read and make a case digest.

People of the Philippines Vs. Ronilo Jumarang y Mulingbayan

G.R. No. 250306
August 10, 2022

FACTS:

P02 Tanay testified that they received a tip from a confidential informant that marijuana plants
could be found in the De Lima residence located in Santiago, Bato, Camarines Sur. To verify the
tip, the police officers proceeded to the De Lima residence and conducted a surveillance where
they observed the house from the roadside. According to P02 Tanay, they were positioned at a
distance of ten meters from the house when they saw a man going downstairs holding a potted
plant. According to P02 Tanay, since their confidential informant already told them that the
person had some marijuana plants, they already assumed that the potted plant was marijuana.
Thus, they called the man and instructed him to come down from the stairs and they asked him
about the plant he was carrying.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the warrantless arrest was unlawful and the search effected on the accused-
appellant was unlawful. (Yes)
2. Whether the marijuana plants seized from accused-appellant is admissible in evidence.
(No)

RULING:

Yes, after a careful review of the evidence on record, the Court finds that the warrantless
arrest was unlawful. Consequently, the search effected on accused-appellant was also unlawful.

In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the law requires that there must first be a lawful arrest
before a search can be made; the process cannot be reversed.

In warrantless arrest made pursuant to Section 5(a), two elements must concur: ( 1) the person
to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

In an arrest made in flagrante delicto, it is required that the apprehending officer must have been
spurred by probable cause to arrest a person caught. Probable cause refers to "such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent [person] to believe that
an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. "

The Court finds that accused-appellant's arrest could not be justified as an in flagrante delicto
arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ASSIGNMENT
November 22, 2022
Here, in effecting the warrantless arrest, the police officers relied solely on the tip that they
received from the confidential informant. It is settled that reliable information alone is
insufficient to support a warrantless arrest absent any overt act from the person to be arrested
indicating that a crime has just been committed, was being committed, or is about to be
committed.

As stated above, when the police officers saw accused-appellant, he was simply going
downstairs while holding a potted plant. Accused-appellant was, at this moment, not committing
a crime and it was not even shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What
he was doing was descending from the stairs, and there was no outward indication that
called for his arrest.

Also, the fact that accused-appellant was holding a pot, which the police suspected to be a
marijuana plant is not a justification to effect the warrantless arrest. The Court has held that a
reasonable suspicion is not synonymous with the personal knowledge required under
Section 5(a) to effect a valid warrantless arrest. The facts of the case clearly indicate that P02
Tanay merely assumed that the plant he saw in the pot being carried by accused appellant was
marijuana based on the information relayed to them by their confidential informant. P02 Tanay
even admitted that said information was the sole basis in arriving at his conclusion. Clearly, P02
Tanay had no personal knowledge as to the type of plant that accused-appellant was holding, to
produce probable cause to believe that the plant was indeed a marijuana plant.

Moreover, P02 Tanay testified that they were positioned at a distance of 10 meters from the
house when they saw accused-appellant going downstairs holding a plant in a pot. At such a
distance, the police officers would not be able to discern as to the type of plant that accused-
appellant was holding. They cannot be said to be equipped with personal knowledge in the
commission of a crime.

In Dominguez v. People, the search made by a police officer on the accused, whom he had seen
from a meter away holding a plastic sachet, was acquitted of the charge of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs.

Applying the principle herein, the police officers, who were at a distance of 10 meters away from
accused-appellant, cannot be said to have properly determined the nature of the plant that he was
holding was a marijuana plant. As it turned out, he was merely descending the stairs while
holding a plant. Without any circumstance presented by the prosecution, it is doubtful how the
police officers were able to recognize that the plant accused appellant was carrying was a
marijuana plant. It bears noting that before resorting to a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the
existence of a crime must first be established. There being none, the search made on accused-
appellant cannot be considered as a valid warrantless search.

This Court has held that the consent to a warrantless search and seizure must be "unequivocal,
specific, intelligently given, and unattended by duress or coercion. Mere passive conformity to
the warrantless search is only an implied acquiescence which does not amount to consent and
that the presence of a coercive environment negates the claim that [accused-appellant] therein
consented to the warrantless search. "
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ASSIGNMENT
November 22, 2022

Here, an inquiry into the environment in which the consent was given shows that at that time,
accused-appellant was in the company of two police officers. Thus, it can be said that accused
appellant act of allowing the police officers to enter the house was a mere passive conformity
due the presence of a coercive and intimidating environment. It should be noted also that P02
Tanay only asked if they could enter the house. However, there was no consent given to allow
them to search the premises of the house, like going to the rooftop where they discovered two
more pots of marijuana plant. Thus, assuming there is consent, accused-appellant consented only
for them to enter the house but not to search the entire premises of the house, specifically going
to the rooftop of the house.

Accordingly, there being no valid warrantless search under a search incidental to a lawful arrest
and a valid consented search, the marijuana plants seized from accused-appellant are rendered
inadmissible in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. As the seized
marijuana plants are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, accused-appellant must be
acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability.

For issue number 2: It bears emphasizing that the failure of accused-appellant to timely object
to the illegality of his arrest does not preclude him from questioning the admissibility of the
evidence seized. "The inadmissibility of the evidence is not affected when an accused fails to
question the court's jurisdiction over their person in a timely manner. Jurisdiction over the
person of an accused and the constitutional inadmissibility of evidence are separate and
mutually exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest."

People of the Philippines Vs. Henry M. Gelacio

G.R. Nos. 250951 and 250958
August 10, 2022

FACTS

Accused-appellant was the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of the Department of

Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Region XII, Kidapawan City. On April 28,
2015, two Informations for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and for violation of Sec. 7(d)
of R.A. No. 6713, were filed before the Sandiganbayan.

He was accused of allegedly soliciting and accepting, on separate occasions, the aggregate
amount of Pl20,000.00 and a whole tuna fish in consideration for his issuance of a temporary
restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) relative to a DARAB case
pending before him.

Sandiganbayan – found accused-appellant guilty in both charges.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in allowing accused-appellant to be prosecuted in both

charges.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ASSIGNMENT
November 22, 2022

RULING
Yes, the Sandiganbayan should not have allowed accused- appellant to be prosecuted for
both Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Sec. 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713 in view of the mandatory
import of Sec. ll (a) of R.A. No. 6713.

The Court notes that accused-appellant was charged under two separate Informations - one for
Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and one for Sec. 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713 - which allege substantially
the same facts and are identical to the other.

Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 penalizes a public officer who causes undue injury to any party
by giving unwarranted benefits or advantages, while Sec. 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713 penalizes a
public official soliciting or accepting any gifts or anything of monetary value in connection
with any operation or transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office. In
this case, accused-appellant was found guilty of committing manifest partiality and evident bad
faith which resulted in undue injury to the private complainant. As already discussed, manifest
partiality and evident bad faith were proven when accused-appellant extorted/solicited monetary
and non-monetary gifts to issue the provisional reliefs in private complainant's favor. These
same acts of the offender are used as basis to prosecute accused-appellant for the identical
violation of Sec. 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713. Evidently, both laws essentially penalize the same
violation of accused-appellant.

Again, if the violation under R.A. No. 6713 is punishable by a heavier penalty under another
law, such as Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the offender shall be prosecuted under the latter statute.
The prescribed penalty for violation of Sec. 3 (e) in R.A. No. 3019 is imprisonment of not less
than six 7(d) in R.A. No. 6713 prescribes the penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five (5)
years or a fine not exceeding P5,000.00, or both. As Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 prescribes a
heavier penalty, accused-appellant may only be prosecuted under the said law. The
criminal charge against accused-appellant for violation of Sec. 7(d) in R.A. No. 6713 should
be dismissed. He must be acquitted of that particular charge.

It a well-entrenched rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly against the State and liberally
in favor of the accused.57 Hence, as mandated by Sec. ll (a) of R.A. No. 6713, accused-appellant
shall only be prosecuted for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the offense with the heavier
prescribed penalty.

Charita M. Chan Vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 238304
July 27, 2022

FACTS

Mayor Chan was charged for violation of RA 3019 for the following acts:

1. approving and granting a Mayor's Permit for the operation of the Babatngon Gallera, a
cockpit, in favor of the owner thereof, Nicomedes Alde, knowing fully well that said
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ASSIGNMENT
November 22, 2022
Nicomedes Alde is not legally entitled to such permit, being a government official who at
that time is a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Babatngon and President of the Liga
ng mga Barangay.

2. approving and granting a Mayor's Permit in favor of the Liga ng mga Barangay, a
juridical person not legally entitled to such license or permit as accused Mayor Charita
Chan very well knew that the holding of cockfights every Saturday is prohibited by law,
particularly, Section 5(d) and (e) of Presidential Decree No. 44.

Sandiganbayan: Chan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of RA 3019.

ISSUE

Whether Chan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of RA 3019.

RULING

Yes, Chan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of RA 3019.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving every element of the offense beyond reasonable
doubt, such that a verdict of conviction cannot merely rely on the weakness of the defense but
rather on the strength of the prosecution's evidence.

The Sandiganbayan correctly found Chan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged
in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0512. The prosecution proved each element of Section 3 (g) o
f R A 3019 which are as follows: (1) that the offender is a public officer; (2) that he/she
knowingly approved or granted any license, permit, privilege or benefit; and (3) that the
license, permit, privilege or benefit was granted in favor of any person not qualified or not
legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or in favor of a mere
representative or dummy of one who is not qualified or entitled.

The Court upholds the finding of the Sandiganbayan that Chan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt
in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0512 for knowingly granting a permit to hold cockfights in
favor of the Liga ng mga Barangay whose members are prohibited from having interest in any
cockpit operation pursuant to RA 7160. The penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan is likewise
affirmed as the same is within the statutory penalty set forth in Section 962 of RA 3019.

People of the Philippines Vs. Joel Fandialan y Bernaldez

G.R. No. 254412
July 6, 2022

FACTS

Joel was charged for violation of RA 9165 for the following acts:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ASSIGNMENT
November 22, 2022
1. selling and delivering one plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug; without the corresponding authority of law.
2. unlawfully and feloniously possessing one plastic sachet weighing 0.12 gram of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, without corresponding authority of
law.

Joel was apprehended when PO1 Lubrin posted as a poseur-buyer of shabu. PO1 Lubrin stated
that they conducted a physical inventory, took photographs, and marked the evidence at the
target location. The team then brought Fandialan and the seized items to their police station for
further investigation, where requests for drug tests and laboratory examination were prepared.
POI Lubrin stated that he informed Fandialan of his constitutional rights at their station.

RTC - found accused- appellant guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.

CA – affirmed the ruling of the RTC.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the violation of RA 9165.

RULING

No.

For a successful prosecution of the offenses of Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish with moral certainty not only the elements of
the crime but also the identity of the dangerous drug, which in itself constitutes an integral part
of the corpus delicti of the offenses.

Hence, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody from the
moment the dangerous drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the
offense.

In the chain of custody of the confiscated item, the links that should be established are the
following: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and
submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.

The fourth link of the chain was not established as nothing was mentioned regarding the
following necessary pieces of information: (1) condition of the specimens when FC Bombasi
received them; (2) description of the method utilized in analyzing the chemical composition
of the drug samples; (3) whether she resealed the specimens after examination of the
content and placed her own marking on the drug items; and (4) manner of handling and
storage of the specimens before, during, and after the chemical examination. There was
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ASSIGNMENT
November 22, 2022
likewise no showing that she took precautionary measures after examination of the seized drug
items to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value.

Leo Abuyo y Sagrit Vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 250495
July 6, 2022

FACTS

Sometime in 2011 when petitioner Leo and his wife were heading home on board their
motorcycle, Leo saw Cesar Tapel and his son, Charles Tapel, who were armed with a fan knife
and a gun. Cesar and Charles followed Leo. Cesar attacked and stabbed Leo’s father, Leonardo .
Leo chased Cesar who pursued Leonardo with a fan knife. In their confrontation, Cesar tried to
stab Leo. As a defense, Leo got hold of a bolo on top of the table and hacked Cesar's right hand.
Cesar was able to pick up the fan knife, but Leo stabbed him in the lower part of his stomach
once more. Cesar died later as a result of a stab wound on his left abdomen and multiple
lacerated wounds on his right hand.

Leo voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities and plead not guilty. Leo contended that he
merely acted in self-defense and defense of a relative.

RTC – convicted Leo of Homicide ruling that he failed to prove all the elements of self-defense.

CA – affirmed RTC’s ruling.

ISSUE

Whether the means employed by Leo were reasonably necessary to repel the unlawful
aggression.

RULING

Yes.

In this case, the Court finds that Leo used reasonable means to defend himself and his father. The
facts show that even after Leo hacked Cesar's right hand, Cesar's unlawful aggression did not
cease when he regained possession of the knife. At that point, Cesar's determination to kill Leo
and Leonardo was aggravated - more imminent and more dangerously real - into a fixed mindset
to subdue Leo's opposition. The CA and the RT's reasoning that Leo could have grabbed Cesar's
knife when it fell off, and that Leo could have escaped and run away is unfathomable to a person
juxtaposed in the same pressing situation. For one, there is no indication that the knife was
remotely displaced from Cesar's location. In fact, Cesar immediately regained possession of his
knife. The weapon did not fall far from Cesar's control. Cesar only lost grip of the knife
momentarily.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ASSIGNMENT
November 22, 2022
Unlike magistrates, Leo, at the narrow crossroads of survival and death, had no equanimity to
think, calculate, and make comparisons that can easily be made in the calmness of reason.
Confronted with immediate threat and danger to his life and his father's life, and terrorized by a
looming vicious attack, he had no choice but to defend himself and his father against their
wounded yet more angered assailant. Moreover, Leo's father was already wounded at that time.
Leo's fear was compounded by such sight. The unavailability of any help from Leonardo doubly
impelled Leo to adopt whatever means available to him to defend their lives against Cesar and
Charles. Fear of death, and not criminal intent, is the powerful cause that moved Leo to struck
wildly at their would-be killer. Leo stabbed blindly, thinking only to save his life and his father's.
If it appeared later that Leo had wounded Cesar in a vulnerable body part, it was not because he
was a cruel and bloodthirsty killer. The only reason was that Leo was fighting desperately for his
very life and the life of his father.

Leo was animated only by his mortal fear of the unyielding aggressor. Leo moved like a wild
beast by the elemental instinct of survival, obviously but understandably undiscerning of the
situs of his strikes.

To reiterate, the measure of rational necessity is to be found in the situation as it appeared to Leo
at the time of the incident. The law does not require that Leo should mete out his blows in such
manner that, upon a calm and deliberate review of the incident, it will not appear that he
exceeded the precise limits of what was absolutely necessary to put his antagonist hors de
combat, or that he struck one blow more than what was absolutely necessary to save his own life,
or that he failed to hold his hand so as to avoid inflicting a fatal wound where a less severe stroke
might have served the purpose." Under such conditions, Leo cannot be expected to reflect coolly
nor wait after each blow to determine its effects.

More importantly, three crucial facts reveal that Leo was impelled by the instinct of self-
preservation rather than the homicidal urge of one bent on killing. First, Leo never took
advantage of the opportunity to race off an attack against the disarmed Cesar who lost grip
of the knife. Leo could have preempted Cesar's repossession of the knife with swift, successive,
and injurious blows. Rather, Leo held his ground and was forced to act only when Cesar
repossessed the fan knife. Second, there was a threatening presence of Charles who was
holding a gun that could be fired at any given moment during the incident. If Leo was
actuated by homicidal intentions, he would have persisted in his attack against Cesar and
thereafter, he would have also raced off an attack against Charles to preempt a possible gunfire.
Leo would have attempted to kill Charles as well, but he did nothing of that sort. Leo only acted
reactively and retaliated blows only against the striking aggressor. Third, Leo voluntarily
surrendered himself to the authorities after the incident. As the Court repeatedly observed,
unexplained flight is an indication of guilt. The guilty flee when no man pursueth but the
innocent are as bold as a lion.

In sum, the rule is that the reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent the
attack depends upon the imminent danger of injury. Cesar's act of attacking Leo and Leonardo
with a fan knife was a very real danger to their lives. Charles' possession of a gun, which could
be fired anytime during the stabbing commotion, exacerbates the danger that lurks on Leo and
Leonardo's mortality. Leo had to repel the best way he can especially that Leonardo, who was
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ASSIGNMENT
November 22, 2022
already injured, cannot be expected to aid in his defense. Lastly, that the stomach wound which
Leo inflicted upon Cesar proved to be fatal does not make the means he employed any less
reasonable under the circumstances. Taken together, Leo is entitled to an acquittal on the
grounds of self-defense and defense of relative.

Albert K.S. Tan II Vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 242866
July 6, 2022

FACTS

The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) approved an omnibus credit facility in favor of
AT Intergrouppe, Inc. (ATII), represented by their president, Tan, in the total amount of
P260,500,000.00, secured by a real estate mortgage over a property located in Parañaque City.

DBP later on filed a criminal complaint of estafa against Tan and the other officers. However
the City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint contending that the liability is civil in nature.
DBP filed a petition for Review in the DOJ Secretary and the complaint was later on reinstated.

Tan filed a Motion to Dismiss praying that the Information against him be quashed because his
right to speedy disposition of cases was violated, and that the transaction between ATII and DBP
was a simple loan transaction which is not criminal in nature.

RTC – granted the motion to dismiss.

CA – reversed RTC ruling.

ISSUE

1. Whether there was a long and oppressive delay in the resolution of the preliminary
investigation which violated Tan's right to speedy disposition of cases.
2. Whether double jeopardy had already set in in favor of Tan.

RULING

1. No. Tan failed to establish a violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases.

In this case, Tan's allegations and the records of this case, vis-a-vis the time periods
prescribed in Rule 112, are insufficient to support a finding that there was a violation of
Tan's right to speedy disposition of cases. Tan counts the supposed six (6)-year delay
from the filing of the Complaint Affidavit until the final resolution by the DOJ on the
appeal from the OCP Makati's resolution. This is precisely the "mathematical
reckoning" adverted to in Cagang. The six-year period Tan complains of does not take
into consideration the time periods allowed to the parties for filing their respective
pleadings, such as the respondent's Counter-Affidavit as required by Section 3 of Rule
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ASSIGNMENT
November 22, 2022
112, While enveloped within the entire process of preliminary investigation, such
periods of time set in favor of the parties should not be taken against the OCP
Makati nor the DOJ.

2. No. Double jeopardy had not set in.

For the proscription against double jeopardy to operate, the following requisites must be
present:
(1) a valid indictment, (2) before a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) the arraignment of
the accused, (4) a valid plea entered by him, and (5) the acquittal or conviction of the
accused, or the dismissal or termination of the case against him without his express
consent.

In Tan's case, the fifth requisite is lacking. It is clear that he was neither convicted nor
acquitted by the trial court, since the criminal case against him was not concluded in a
full-blown trial. Neither was the case dismissed or terminated without his express
consent. On the contrary, it was dismissed upon his instance, through his Motion to
Dismiss. Hence, double jeopardy does not attach.

The Court is not unaware of the rule that double jeopardy attaches even if the dismissal of
the case was upon the accused's own motion, when the dismissal is based upon
insufficiency of evidence or violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases. The
reason for this, however, is that such dismissals operate as acquittals based on the merits.
In contrast, the dismissal of the case against Tan was the RTC's baseless interpretation of
PD 115, without an analysis of the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence. The RTC's
Resolution was also silent on the supposed issue of violation of Tan's right to speedy
disposition of cases, which only goes to show that the dismissal of the case was not
premised thereon. Indeed, no such conclusion can be made in Tan's case, as will be
further discussed below.

Finally, the Court also observes that the RTC's dismissal of the case against Tan, in
disregard of the law and of prevailing jurisprudence, deprived the prosecution of an
opportunity to present evidence in support of its case. This all the more makes it
appropriate to reverse the RTC's dismissal of the case lest the Court sanction a
miscarriage of justice.

PEOPLE VS. VENTOCILLA JULY 27, 2022

PLEA BARGAINING

Mabunay case

Navarra vs. CA