TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BOOK I [ARTICLES 1-99 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE (RPC)]

A. FELONIES
1. Circumstances affecting Criminal Liability
• People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. 191759, March 02, 2020 ........... 1
• Talabis vs. People, G.R. No. 214647, March 04, 2020 ............ 1
• People vs. Natindim, G.R. No. 201867, November 04, 2020 ... 1
• People vs. Gilbert Alegre y Nazaral, G.R. 254381 February 14,
2022................................................................................... 2
• People vs. Padilla, G.R. No. 247824, February 23, 2022 ......... 2
• People vs. Pereira, G.R. No. 220749, January 20, 2021 .......... 3
2. Persons Liable and Degree of Participation
• People vs. Camarino, G.R. No. 222655, December 09, 2020... 3
• People vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 234780, March 17, 2021 .......... 4

B. EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF SENTENCE

• Miguel vs. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, UDK-15368,
September 15, 2021 ............................................................ 4

II. BOOK II (ARTICLES 114-365 OF THE RPC) AND RELATED SPECIAL LAWS

A. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER (ARTS. 134-160)

1. Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act
• Paulo Castil y Alvero vs. People, G.R. 253930 ........................ 5

B. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST (ARTS. 161-187)

• People vs. Palma Gil-Roflo, G.R. No. 249564 & 249568-76, March
21, 2022.............................................................................. 5
• People vs. Partisala, G.R. No. 245931-32, April 5, 2022 .......... 6

C. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS

1. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 [RA 9165, as amended by
RA 10640; Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
only]
• People vs. Addin, G.R. No. 223682, October 09, 2019 ........... 6
• People vs. Baluyot, G.R. No. 243390, October 05, 2020 ......... 7
• Uy y Sayan vs. People, G.R. No. 217097, February 23, 2022 .. 7
• People vs. Ortega, G.R. No. 240224, February 23, 2022 ........ 8
• People vs. Vinluan y Liclican, G.R. 232336, February 28, 2022 8
• People vs. Mariano, G.R. No. 247522, February 28, 2022 ....... 9
• CICL, XXX, CICL YYY, Solina y Solina and Barba y Apolonio, G.R.
No. 230964, March 02, 2022 ............................................... 9
• People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 258077, June 15, 2022 ......... 10
 • People of the Philippines vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 242520 ........... 10
• People vs. Batino y Evangelista, G.R. No. 254035, November 15,
2021................................................................................... 11
• Esteros y Pecardal vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No.
192332, January 11, 2021 ................................................... 12

D. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS (ARTS. 203-245)

1. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended)
• Villanueva vs. People, G.R. No. 218652, February 23, 2022.... 12
• People vs. Enojo, G.R. No. 252258 ....................................... 13
• Chan vs. People, G.R. No. 238304, July 27, 2002 .................. 13
• Radaza vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 201380, August 4, 2021 ..
.......................................................................................... 14
• Dominador G. Marzan vs. People, G.R. No. 226167, October
11,2021 .............................................................................. 14

E. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS (ARTS. 246-266)

• People vs. Galuga, G.R. No. 221428, February 13, 2019 ........ 15
• People vs. Cabales, G.R. No. 213831, September 25, 2019 .... 16
• People vs. Villegas, G.R. No. 218210, October 9, 2019 .......... 16
• People vs. Catig G.R. No. 225729, March 11, 2020 ................ 16
• People vs. ZZZ, G.R. No. 226144, October 14, 2020 .............. 17
• People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 246194, November 04, 2020........... 17
• People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 218277, November 09, 2020........... 17
• People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 257276, February 28, 2022 ............. 18
• People vs. XXX, G.R. 255491, April 18, 2022 ......................... 18
• People vs XXX, GR No. 225781, November 16, 2020............. 19
• People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 238405, December 07, 2020 ........... 19

1. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (RA 9208, as amended by RA

11862)
• People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 244048 February 14, 2022 .............. 19
• People of the Philippines vs. XXX, G.R. No. 248815, March 23,
2022................................................................................... 19
• People vs. Bawalan y Molina, G.R No. 232358, May 12, 2021 . 20
• People vs. XXX and YYY, G.R. No. 225288, June 28, 2021 ..... 21
• People vs Manalang, GR No. 198015, January 20, 2021 ......... 22
2. Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (RA 9262)
• XXX vs. People, G.R. No. 221370, June 18, 2021 ................... 23
• Sabado vs. Sabado, G.R. No. 214270, May 12, 2021 ............. 24
3. Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and
Discrimination Act (RA 7610, as amended)
• People vs. Pueyo, G.R. No. 192327, February 26, 2020 .......... 24
 • People of the Philippines vs. XXX, G.R. No. 233867, February 28,
2022 ................................................................................... 24

F. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY (ARTICLES 293-332)

• Grana vs. People, G.R. No. 202111, November 25, 2019 ........ 26
• People vs. Constantino, G.R. No. 251636 February 14, 2022 ... 26
• People vs. Liwanag, G.R. No. 217097, March 2, 2022 ............. 26
• Chua vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 214960, June 15, 2022 ..
........................................................................................... 27
• People vs. Mandelma, G.R. No. 238910 July 20, 2022 ............ 27
• Spouses Dulay vs. People, G.R. No. 215132, September 13, 2021
........................................................................................... 28
• Ricardo Albotra vs. People, G.R. No. 221602, November 16, 2020
........................................................................................... 28
• People of the Philippines vs. Bueza ,G.R. No. 242513, November
18, 2020.............................................................................. 29
• People vs. Al-Saad y Bagkat, G.R. No. 242414, March 15, 2021 .
........................................................................................... 29
• Pante y Rangasa vs. People, G.R. No. 218969, January 18,2021
........................................................................................... 30
• Horca vs. People GR No. 224316, November 10, 2021, .......... 31
• Debuque vs. Nilson, G.R. No. 191718, May 10, 2021, ............. 31
• Barlin vs. People, G.R. No. 207418, June 23, 2021, ................ 32

G. CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS (ARTS. 347-352)

• Pulido vs. People GR No. 2240149, July 27, 2021 .................. 32
1. Adelriza was awakened from her sleep when
a hard object hit her head. When she turned on
the lights, a man leaped on their bed and
repeatedly stabbed her husband, Cecil, on the
leg and chest. Cecil was able to kick the man
out of the room and even close the door.
Immediately thereafter, Cecil collapsed and fell
on the floor. Adelriza shouted for help and their
neighbor, Virgie, came to their rescue. Virgie
sought assistance from their neighbors, Noli
and Michael in bringing Cecil to the PGH.
Unfortunately, Cecil died while undergoing
treatment. Is treachery present in this
case?
______________________________________
YES. In order for the qualifying circumstance
of treachery to be appreciated, the following
requisites must be shown: (1) the employment
of means, method, or manner of execution that
would ensure the safety of the malefactor from
the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim,
and (2) the means, method, or manner of
execution was deliberately or consciously
adopted by the offender. The essence of
treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack,
affording the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to
escape. In this case, appellant's sudden attack
on Cecil while asleep in his own home amply
demonstrates treachery in the commission of
the crime. Cecil had no inkling of the impending
attack that night; or any peril to his person as
he felt secured in his home. He was not able to
put up an effective defense. Although he kicked
and pushed the appellant out of their room, this
did not negate the presence of treachery. The
appellant consciously and deliberately adopted
the particular means, methods or form of attack
in order to ensure the execution of the crime.
He stabbed Cecil several times so that he would
not be a risk to himself. He lodged a bladed
weapon on the victim's chest and back. Indeed,
the attack on Cecil was treacherous thereby
qualifying the killing to murder. (People vs.
Moreno, G.R. No. 191759, March 02, 2020, J.
Hernando)
2. Leonora and her husband, Galbones, noticed
that the pine trees planted at the edge of the
garden were missing. Eric and Raymundo then
informed Leonora and Galbones that four men
were cutting pine trees with the use of a power
chainsaw. From where she was standing near
the cutting site, Leonora saw Edwin, together
with two other male companions, cutting pine
trees. She also saw Edwin directing the man
holding a chainsaw, while the other accused
was pointing at certain trees to be cut. Edwin
Talabis was charged with Cutting, Gathering
and or collecting timber or other Forest
Products without license. Edwin voluntarily
surrendered. Is Edwin Talabis entitled to
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender?
______________________________________
NO. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated
as a mitigating circumstance, the following
elements must be present, to wit: (1) the
accused has not been actually arrested; (2) the
accused surrenders himself to a person in
authority or the latter's agent; and (3) the
surrender is voluntary. The essence of
voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the
intent of the accused to give himself up and
submit himself to the authorities, either
because he acknowledges his guilt, or he
wishes to save the authorities the trouble and
expense that may be incurred for his search
and capture. In this case, Edwin filed his motion
for reconsideration of the January 16, 2014
Decision of the CA where, for the first time, he
brought to the attention of the CA the
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender
and old age for the purpose of modifying and
imposing the proper penalty against him. In any
event, issues raised for the first time on appeal
is barred by estoppel. Failure to assert issues
and arguments "within a reasonable time"
warrants a presumption that the party entitled
to assert it either has abandoned or declined to
assert it. (Talabis vs. People, G.R. No. 214647,
March 04, 2020, J. Hernando)
3. Edimar and his companions lurked outside
Pepito's residence and waited for him to
appear. Pepito was unarmed. When Pepito
emerged from his window with a flashlight
which he used to focus on and determine the
1
people outside his house, Edimar immediately
shot him on the head with the use of a firearm.
Is treachery present in this case?
____________________________________
YES. The attack was done suddenly and
unexpectedly, leaving Pepito without any
means of defense. Pepito was unarmed and
looking out the window to ascertain the noise
outside when appellant Edimar shot him on his
head which consequently knocked him on the
floor. The prosecution also established that
appellants consciously and deliberately adopted
the mode of attack.
The essence of treachery is the swift and
unexpected attack on the unarmed victim
without the slightest provocation on the victim's
part. The two elements of treachery, namely:
(1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was
not in a position to defend himself or herself,
and (2) that the offender consciously adopted
the particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him or her. (People vs. Natindim,
G.R. No. 201867, November 04, 2020, J.
Hernando)
4. Tagle, Pascua, and Magpusao, were on duty
at Century Glass Center located in Valenzuela
City. A heated exchange ensued between
Alegre and Pascua. Tagle tried to pacify and
stop the squabble by leading Alegre out of the
premises. However, Alegre continued to shout
and curse at Pascua, who did not back down
and also shouted expletives against Alegre.
Alegre motioned to his waist area and drew his
.38 caliber gun. Pascua then told Alegre, “wag
mo akong daanin sa ganyan,” but Alegre still
pulled the trigger and shot him in the neck.
When Pascua dropped to the ground, Alegre
approached him, almost kneeled on top of him,
and proceeded to shoot him in the head.
Pascua instantly died from the shooting and
was later taken to Candido Funeral Homes. Is
the qualifying circumstance of treachery
applicable?
______________________________________
NO. Chance encounters, impulse killing or
crimes committed at the spur of the moment or
that were preceded by heated altercations are
generally not attended by treachery for lack of
opportunity of the accused to deliberately
employ a treacherous mode of attack. Stated
otherwise, there can be no treachery when the
attack is preceded by a heated exchange of
words between the accused and the victim, or
when the victim is aware of the hostility of the
assailant towards the former.
Here, Alegre had a heated altercation with
Pascua before he finally lost his patience and
shot him. When Pascua slumped to the ground
after getting shot in the neck, Alegre moved
closer and proceeded to shoot him in the head.
Upon realizing what he had just done, he ran
and attempted to escape, but was eventually
caught by Tagle.
Based on the attendant facts, Alegre's acts
were more of a result of a sudden impulse or a
spur of the moment decision due to his previous
heated altercation with the victim, rather than
a planned and deliberate action. There is no
showing that he consciously employed a
particular mode of attack in order to facilitate
the killing without any risk to himself. (People
of the Philippines v Gilbert Alegre y Nazaral,
G.R. 254381 February 14, 2022, J. Hernando)
5. After a drinking spree, Brothers Danilo and
Orlando, and Rhandy boarded the tricycle of
Antonio. Danilo, Orlando and Antonio involved
in a fight with Rhandy, with Danilo boxing
Rhandy, and Antonio stabbing the former, and
Orlando remaining on standby. Antonio and
Orlando disposed the body of Rhandy into the
Ravine. Randy sustained seven injuries
including a crack at the back of the head
possibly caused by a big stone and an open
wound in the abdominal cavity possibly caused
by a knife which led to his death. Danilo,
Orlando and Antonio all left together boarding
Antonio's tricycle when killing was finished with
nobody protesting or reporting the incident to
the authorities. The RTC convicted Danilo,
Orlando for the murder of Rhandy, with abuse
of superior strength but also implicated
Antonio as part of the conspiracy to kill Rhandy.
Is the RTC correct?
______________________________________
YES. A careful review of the records of the case
reveals that the conduct of the accused-
appellants before, during and after the
commission of the crime, together with that of
Antonio’s, showed conspiracy on their part, and
that they all had an equal hand in the killing of
Randy. It is readily apparent that they all
2
ganged up on him; they brought the victim at a
detour, fought and mortally wounded him;
participated in the disposing of the body; and
went home together after the gruesome
incident and not reporting the incident to the
authorities. These circumstances were all
geared towards the accomplishment of the
same unlawful object, indicating closeness of
personal association and a concurrence of
sentiment.
In Evasco, this Court held:
The determination of whether or not the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength was attendant requires the arduous
review of the acts of the accused in contrast
with the diminished strength of the victim.
There must be a showing of gross
disproportionality between each of them. Mere
numerical superiority on the part of the accused
does not automatically equate to superior
strength. The determination must take into
account all the tools, skills and capabilities
available to the accused and to the victim to
justify a finding of disproportionality; otherwise,
abuse of superior strength is not appreciated as
an aggravating circumstance.
To take advantage of superior strength means
to use purposely excessive force that is out of
proportion to the means of defense available to
the person attacked. In the present case, the
evidence gathered shows that the victim was
unarmed when he was attacked by accused-
appellants, who were not only superior in
number but had access to, and in fact used, a
weapon in form of a knife. Moreover, it was
established that when the victim was already
defenseless and weak from the stab wound and
the mauling, he was unnecessarily hit with a big
stone that ensured his death. Thus, the fact
that the victim was outnumbered without
means to put up a defense as he was taken to
a place where rescue would be close to
impossible and the fact that accused-appellants
and Antonio used weapons out of proportion to
the defense available to the victim, i.e. a knife
and a big stone, fully establish the qualifying
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength. (People vs. Padilla, G.R. No. 247824,
February 23, 2022, J. Hernando)
6. Bagan was watching television in his house
together with his wife and a neighbor when all
of a sudden, Pereira entered Bagan’s house and
stabbed him in the chest. Bagan was declared
dead on arrival at the hospital. Periera was
arrested at the house of his aunt but for his
part, claims that his act was made in self-
defense against Bagan who provoked him and
started the fight when Bagan came upon him
and tried to stab him. Perreira insists that he
was justified in killing Bagan who pulled a knife
on him which compelled him to defend himself
from the unprovoked attack. He adamantly
maintains that the elements of the justifying
circumstance of self-defense were present.
Is the justifying circumstance of self-
defense present in this case?
______________________________________
NO. We have consistently ruled that self-
defense is an affirmative allegation and offers
exculpation from liability for crimes only if
satisfactorily proved. It requires (a) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (b)
reasonable necessity of the means employed by
the accused to repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient
provocation on his part.16 By invoking self-
defense, the burden is placed on the accused
to prove its elements clearly and convincingly.
While all three elements must concur, self-
defense relies first and foremost on proof of
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If
no unlawful aggression is proved, no self-
defense may be successfully pleaded. In this
case, Perreira utterly failed to discharge the
burden of proving unlawful aggression. His
version of the events was uncorroborated, and
his testimony was not accorded any credence
by the trial court. On the other hand, the
eyewitness testimony for the prosecution was
positive, clear and categorical. (People of the
Philippines vs. Pereira, G.R. No. 220749,
January 20, 2021, J. Hernando)
7. At about 5 o'clock in the morning, victim
Romeo went to buy cigarette at the store.
Minutes later, his wife, Lucia heard gunshots
coming from the direction of the nearby plaza.
When the firing stopped, Lucia went out to
verify the report that her husband had been
shot. She proceeded to the store where she
saw her husband's body riddled with bullets.
3
Eugenio, the witness, recalled that when he
stepped out of his house in the early morning,
he heard successive gunshots coming from the
nearby plaza. He then saw about 17 persons
armed with armalite rifles, garand carbine and
shotguns firing indiscriminately at the direction
of Elito's house. He recognized them as Toto,
Fulderico, Janjen, Honorio, Fred Sentilan,
Sabelo, Lito, Dison Tuto, Arnold, Dennis and
Edjen, as they were his neighbors and relatives.
When the assailants left, he saw the body of
Romeo lying face down near the store. Was
there a conspiracy?
______________________________________
YES. It is very clear that conspiracy,
connivance and unity of purpose and intention
were present during the execution of the crime.
The prosecution was able to prove that at the
time of the attack, accused-appellants
simultaneously fired their long firearms at the
houses in the general direction of the plaza,
killing Romeo in consequence. Accused-
appellants' collective and individual acts
demonstrating the existence of a common
design is also evident from the unrebutted
testimony of Eugenio that he heard one of the
accused-appellants order his companions to
retreat, which they all did, upon the arrival of
police reinforcement from Magsaysay,
Miarayon and Talakag. (People vs. Camarino,
G.R. No. 222655, December 09, 2020, J.
Hernando)
8. After having coffee with Johnny and on his
way back to his house, Artemio Sr. was shot
from the back. Artemio Jr. testified that when
he heard the gunshots, he instinctively looked
at the direction where the gunshots reports
came from and saw Santiago and Parris holding
firearms. During the investigation, only
Santiago tested positive on the paraffin test
resulting in his arrest. Did treachery
attended the commission of the crime
thus qualifying the offense to Murder?
________________________________
YES. In People vs. Calinawan, the Court
enumerated the following elements that must
be established for treachery to be appreciated:
(a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not
in a position to defend himself; and (b) the
accused consciously and deliberately adopted
the particular means, methods, or forms of
attack employed by him.
In this case, the fact that Santiago was
positioned at a particular location and particular
time while holding a rifle, showed that he
consciously and deliberately adopted the
means to commit the crime. Thus, Santiago's
sudden attack on Artemio, Sr. constitutes
treachery thereby qualifying the killing to the
crime of Murder. (People of the Philippines vs.
Santiago, G.R. No. 234780, March 17, 2021, J.
Hernando)
9. Miguel was found guilty of murder and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Pursuant to his conviction, Miguel
was delivered to the National Bilibid Prison in
Muntinlupa City. Alleging that his continued
detention no longer holds legal basis in view
of Republic Act No. (RA) 10592, otherwise
known as the "Good Conduct Time Allowance
Law" (GCTA Law). First, he asserted that
applying the GCTA Law, he has served a total
of "thirty-eight (38) years, ten (10) months,
and one (1) day" already. Second, he posits
that Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) caps the duration of the penalty of
reclusion perpetua at thirty (30) years.14
Having served a total of 38 years, which is
eight (8) years more than the supposed
maximum duration of reclusion perpetua,
Miguel concludes that he has fully served his
sentence and his detention no longer holds
legal basis. Is Miguel correct?
_______________________________
NO. The GCTA Law and the 2019 Revised IRR
have made it abundantly clear that persons
charged with and/or convicted of heinous
crimes are not entitled to the benefits under
the law.
While the definition did not expressly
enumerate crimes which are considered
heinous, it made reference to "crimes which
are mandatorily punishable by Death under
the provisions of RA 7659, as amended x x
x." Murder is considered a heinous crime in
so far as the GCTA Law is concerned, and
persons charged with and/or convicted of
such are disqualified from availing of the
benefits of the law.
4
Miguel further argues that Article 70 of the
RPC caps the duration of the penalty of
reclusion perpetua at thirty (30) years only.
He is referring to the last paragraph of said
provision, which states:
In applying the provisions of this rule the
duration of perpetual penalties (pena
perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years.
(As amended by Com. Act No. 217.)
Plainly, nowhere in the cited provision does it
state that perpetual penalties, such as
reclusion perpetua, are capped at thirty (30)
years. Instead, what it only provides is that in
applying the rules laid out in Article 70, such
as the three-fold rule, the duration of
perpetual penalties shall be computed at
thirty (30) years. The penalty of reclusion
perpetua requires imprisonment of at least
thirty (30) years, after which the convict
becomes only eligible for pardon, and not for
release. This is in stark contrast to Miguel's
claim that a convict meted with the penalty
of reclusion perpetua must serve only thirty
(30) years. (Miguel vs. Director of the Bureau
of Prisons, UDK-15368, September 15, 2021,
J. Hernando)
10. A confidential informant (CI) tipped off
Talipapa Police Station that a certain Young,
who had been a subject of past surveillance
operations on illegal drug activity in Quezon
City, was selling illegal drugs. The police chief
immediately formed a buy-bust operation team.
During the buy-bust operation, Young Young
rammed the car into a gutter and got stuck
after fleeing. Young was able to escape, while
Castil, the companion of Young and a police
officer. continued wrestling each other.[
The back-up officers then arrived and Castil
was apprehended. PO1 Rebustes conducted a
body search on Castil and recovered from his
waist a Norinco caliber 9mm gun loaded with
five pieces of live ammunition. Castil admitted
that he did not have a license to own or possess
a gun, or previously applied for such. However,
he contends that his admission is insufficient for
a conviction as there is a need for the
prosecution to submit a negative certification
from the PNP to prove the fact that he
possessed or owned the gun that does not have
the corresponding license for it. Is Castil’s
contention correct?
_____________________________________
YES. Petitioner's own judicial admission of his
lack of license to carry a firearm is sufficient to
establish the second element of the crime.
To be clear, there is no exact way of proving
the second element of Illegal Possession of
Firearms. What matters is that the courts,
including this Court, are convinced that the
element is proven beyond reasonable doubt
regardless of the kind of evidence offered to
prove it. Notably, RA 10591 and case law do not
provide for specific modes to prove the element
of lack of license to carry a firearm.
Hence, as proof of the second element, the
Court usually accepts the presentation of a
certification issued by the Firearms and
Explosives Office of the PNP showing that the
accused is not a licensed or registered holder of
a firearm, or the testimony to that effect of a
representative therefrom.
As it is not limited to the aforesaid negative
certification or testimony, the Court also
accepts the judicial admission of the accused or
his counsel that the accused is not a holder of
a license at the time of the commission of the
offense. (Paulo Castil y Alvero vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. 253930, July 13, 2022, J.
Hernando)
11. Jerico, Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona
allegedly made untruthful statements when
they indicated in their DTRs that they reported
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. when in truth, they
did not. While Roflo signed and certified as true
and correct the entries in the DTRs despite the
same being false. In their defense, the accused
narrated that their DTRs and ARs were
prepared by the Office of Roflo but they signed
the same personally. The said documents were
brought to them personally by Fidela,, the
private secretary of former Governor Palma-Gil
whenever she visits the satellite office twice or
thrice a week to monitor the job order
employees. They signed the DTRs reflecting
their time in and out as 8:00 o'clock a.m. to
5:00 o'clock p.m. as per the directive of the
Accounting Office, and that if they indicated a
different time, the same would be rejected and
5
returned to them for correction. Otherwise,
their salaries will not be processed and paid to
them. They believed that they are merely
required to render service for 40 hours per
week without need to comply with the
prescribed official time. Are the accused
criminally liable for the falsification of a
public document under Article 171 (4) of
the RPC?
______________________________________
NO. In Falsification of Public Documents, the
offender is considered to have taken advantage
of his or her official position in making the
falsification when (1) he or she has the duty to
make or prepare or, otherwise, to intervene in
the preparation of a document; or (2) he or she
has the official custody of the document which
he falsifies.
Settled is the rule that Falsification of Public
Documents is an intentional felony committed
by means of "dolo" or "malice" and could not
result from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill. Intentional felony
requires the existence of dolus malus - that the
act or omission be done willfully, maliciously,
with deliberate evil intent, and with malice
aforethought. This felony falls under the
category of mala in se offenses that requires
the attendance of criminal intent. In fine,
criminal intent is required in order to incur
criminal liability under Article 171 of the RPC.
In this case, the element of malicious intent on
the part of accused-appellants is sorely
wanting. Accused-appellants cannot be held
criminally culpable for Falsification of Public
Documents by making untruthful statements in
a narration of facts in the absence of a clear
showing that they acted with malicious intent
when they affixed their signatures on the
contested documents. To be sure, Jerico,
Norman, Derrick, Sergio, and Chona, were
acting in good faith and in the honest belief that
they were permitted to work outside the
agency's prescribed office hours pursuant to
CSC Resolution No. 020790, and as confirmed
by the HR Department.
In addition, they cannot be faulted for
indicating in their DTRs that they worked from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. because this was the
directive of the accounting office, otherwise,
their salaries would not be processed. While it
is true that the defense failed to present a
witness from the Accounting Office to confirm
this statement, We cannot just simply ignore
the fact that accused--appellants consistently
testified to this, which testimonies were
sufficiently corroborated by HR Manager Bicoy.
(People vs. Palma Gil-Roflo, G.R. No. 249564 &
249568-76, March 21, 2022, J. Hernando)
12. Vice Mayor Partisala and other public
officers make it appear that Sangguniang
Bayan Resolutions were validly enacted by the
Sangguniang Bayan of Maasin, Iloilo,
authorizing Mayor Mondejar to exercise his
emergency powers, entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement with Helen of
International Builders Corp., authorizing the
IBC to engage in massive quarrying in the guise
of rechanneling the Tigum River in Maasin,
Iloilo. In truth and in fact, they very well knew,
that said Resolutions were never taken up,
deliberated nor acted upon by the Sangguniang
Bayan of Maasin on regular session. Partisala
contended that to duly prove his guilt under
paragraph 2, Article 171 of the RPC, that is,
"that he falsifies a document by causing it to
appear that a person or persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not so participate," the prosecution must
produce the alleged original copy of the
minutes claimed to have been falsified. Is
Partisala correct?
______________________________________
NO. Contrary to Partisala's contention, there is
no need to present the alleged true copy of the
Minutes of the session held on June 21, 1996,
i.e., Exhibit "B," nor it be identified by Malaga
in order for him to be held liable for Falsification
of Public Documents. It is undisputed, and in
fact admitted by Partisala himself, that he took
part in executing Exhibit "8" and even signed it.
However, as per the testimonies of the SB
members Trojillo and Albacete, Exhibit "8"
contained items which were not discussed
during the session held on June 21, 1996,
thereby causing them to participate in a session
which approved the assailed Resolution Nos.
30-A and 30-B wherein fact they did not
participate.
Falsification of Public Document is committed
when the public document is simulated "in a
6
manner so as to give it the appearance of a true
and genuine instrument, thus, leading others to
errors as to its authenticity. The refusal of
Trojillo and Albacete to sign the falsified
minutes prepared by Tolentino after June 21,
1996 to legitimize the MOA entered into by
Mondejar, sufficiently proved that the minutes
did not reflect the true and actual proceedings
of the session held on June 21, 1996. Clearly,
Partisala's participation in the falsification of the
minutes cannot be denied, as he himself
persuaded Trojillo to sign it to make it appear
that there are two resolutions justifying the
MOA entered into by Mondejar with IBC.
(People vs. Partisala, G.R. No. 245931-32, April
5, 2022, J. Hernando)
13. Addin was charged with a violation of
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for selling and
delivering shabu. He was arrested through a
buy-bust operation conducted by the police
officers of QCPD. Addin avers that the
prosecution failed to establish the identity of
the seized item as it was not proven that the
marking of the sachet was done in Addin's
presence, and the other witnesses required
under the rules. He posits that the saving clause
under Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 does
not apply since the prosecution did not have
justifiable grounds for non-compliance and the
integrity of the seized item could not be proven
based on the chain of custody rule. Apart from
this, Addin alleges that the Section 21 of the
IRR of RA 9165 should be strictly complied with.
He also contends that the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duties by the
police officers should not apply in this case. In
view of these, he asserts that the equipoise rule
should be applied. Is Addin’s contention
tenable?
YES. The recent case of People vs. Lim
underscored the significance of the presence of
the three key witnesses, specifically a
representative from the DOJ, the media, and
any elected public official, at the time of the
physical inventory and the taking of
photographs of the confiscated items. It should
be reiterated that "in the event that the
presence of the essential witnesses was not
obtained, the prosecution must establish not
only the reasons for their absence, but also the
fact that serious and sincere efforts were
exerted in securing their presence. Failure to
disclose the justification for non-compliance
with the requirements and the lack of evidence
of serious attempts to secure the presence of
the necessary witnesses result in a substantial
gap in the chain of custody of evidence that
shall adversely affect the authenticity of the
prohibited substance presented in court.
In the case at bench, the prosecution failed to
at least allege and then prove any specific
reason to explain the absence of the
representative from the DOJ and any elected
public official present during the taking of
inventory and photographs. There was no
attempt at all to justify the absence of these
witnesses, especially given that they had
sufficient time to plan the buy-bust operation
even if it was conducted at nighttime. Surely,
while planning, they could have exerted efforts
to request for the attendance of the required
witnesses during the inventory. If nobody was
available, the police officers could have
adequately explained it on paper or even during
the trial of the case. (People vs. Addin, G.R. No.
223682, October 09, 2019, J. Hernando)
14. Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust
operation, Joel was convicted of violation of
Section 5, Republic Act 9165. Joel questioned
the admissibility of the evidence because the
PDEA officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation failed to mark immediately the
subject drugs after seizure and there were only
two witnesses during the marking. Is there a
failure of the drug enforcement officers to
observe the chain of custody rule?
______________________________________
YES. The PDEA officers failed to observe the
three-witness requirement during the marking
of the seized items. This lapse in procedure
warrants the acquittal of Alex. In this case, only
two (2) witnesses were present during the
marking of the seized items. The failure to
comply with the three-witness requirement
produces a gap in the chain of custody of the
seized items that adversely affects the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items. This
raises doubts that the integrity of the seized
items may have been compromised. (People of
the Philippines vs. Baluyot, G.R. No. 243390,
October 05, 2020, J. Hernando)
7
15. The members of the Philippine National
Police (PNP), set up a mobile check point
imposing the COMELEC gun ban. They flagged
down Uy Sayan. They asked Uy Sayan for the
Certificate of Registration (CR) and Official
Receipt (OR) of his motorcycle, however, he
failed to produce these documents. The police
officers then became suspicious and asked Uy
Sayan to open the tools compartment of his
motor vehicle. From the tools compartment, the
police officers found five bundles of marijuana
placed and wrapped in a cellophane. The police
officers further asked Uy Sayan to open the
compartment under the driver's seat. Petitioner
initially refused but he eventually relented. The
search of the compartment under the driver's
seat further yielded several bundles of
marijuana. He was brought to the police
station. Upon arrival at the police station, Uy
Sayan was interviewed by the police officers
and the confiscated dried marijuana leaves
were marked. The specimen was then brought
to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The result of the
examination yielded positive for the presence of
marijuana. Uy Sayan’s urine examination also
yielded positive for use of prohibited drugs.
Was the rule on Chain of Custody
complied with?
______________________________________
NO. The procedure laid out in Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165 is considered substantive
law and not merely a procedural technicality.
The law requires that the police authorities
implementing RA 9165 strictly comply with the
chain of custody procedure, although failure to
strictly do so does not, ipso facto, render the
seizure and custody over the illegal drugs as
void and invalid if: (a) there is justifiable ground
for such noncompliance; and (b) the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized evidence
were preserved.
In this case however, there was total lack of
compliance. An inventory report was not
accomplished by any of the police officers. In
fact, an inventory report was never mentioned
in all the transmittal documents accomplished
by the concerned authorities. Absent the
inventory report, the required presence of the
insulating witnesses cannot be considered to
have been complied with. (Uy y Sayan vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 217097,
February 23, 2022, J. Hernando)
16. PO2 Ganir received an information from an
asset that Ortega was looking for prospective
buyers of shabu. A team was formed to conduct
a buy-bust operation against Ortega. Ortega
arrived at the target area. The asset introduced
PO2 Diego to Ortega as his friend who was
interested in buying shabu. Ortega gave PO2
Diego a plastic sachet containing a white
crystalline substance. After receiving the plastic
sachet, PO2 Diego placed the same in his
pocket and gave Ortega the P 1,000.00-bill
marked money as payment. Once the
transaction was completed, PO2 Diego then
shouted the pre-arranged signal, "Pulis!
Arestado ka!” The back-up operatives
immediately rushed to the scene. PO2 Ventura
then handcuffed Ortega and informed him of
his rights and the reason for his arrest. Then,
PO2 Ventura conducted a body search upon
Ortega and recovered from him one leather
coin purse containing six plastic sachets of
white crystalline substance. The team
transferred to the police station where they
photographed, marked, and inventoried the
confiscated items in the presence of Ortega and
Barangay Captain Andres. They likewise
prepared the Confiscation Receipt and Request
for Laboratory Examination but were not signed
by Ortega or his counsel. A copy of the said
documents was not given to Ortega.
Afterwards, PO2 Diego and PO2 Ventura
brought the seized drugs to the crime
laboratory for examination. The forensic
chemist conducted the examination and found
that the items were positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Did
the police officers comply with the chain
of custody rule?
______________________________________
NO. While this Court has n1led that the
absence of the required witnesses does not per
se render the confiscated items inadmissible, a
justifiable reason for such failure or a showing
of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure
the required witnesses must first be adduced by
the prosecution. Any discrepancy should be
reasonably explained and accounted for,
otherwise, the regularity of the entire seizure
procedure would be put into question.
In the case at bar, the prosecution did not
adduce any explanation as to why the police
8
officers deviated from the procedure under
Section 21, or whether they exerted earnest
efforts in securing the presence of the required
witnesses. The. multiple breaches and the lack
of justification therefor effectively tainted the
integrity of the seized drugs presented in court;
thus, the very identity of the seized drugs
became highly questionable. (People vs.
Ortega, G.R. No. 240224, February 23, 2022, J.
Hernando)
17. Based on the report of the confidential
informant that Vinluan is engaged in the illegal
sale of marijuana leaves and fruit top, the police
officers conducted a buy-bust operation. The
seized items were marked at the place of the
incident in the presence of Vinluan. Meanwhile,
PO2 Damaso called for barangay officials. Upon
arrival of barangay kagawads, an inventory of
the items was prepared.PO2 Damaso also
frisked Vinluan. Photographs of the seized
items, the marked money, and Vinluan were
also taken. Thereafter, they went to the police
station. PO2 Damaso prepared a request for
laboratory examination. PO1 Cammayo then
delivered the seized items to the forensic
laboratory. PSI Bad-e conducted the qualitative
examination. The seized items tested positive
for the presence of marijuana. After which, PSI
Bad-e placed the items in a plastic bag that he
sealed with masking tape, and turned it over to
the evidence custodian.
Vinluan argued that the police officers failed to
observe the rules on chain of custody. There
were no representatives from the media and
Department of Justice (DOJ) during the
marking and inventory. Is Vinluan’s
contention correct?
______________________________________
YES. The law requires that the conduct of
inventory and taking of photographs of the
seized drugs must be done in the presence of
three witnesses: a representative from the
media, a representative from the DOJ, and any
elected public official. People vs. Baluyot
(Baluyot) teaches that this requirement seeks
to avoid frame ups or wrongful arrests of
persons suspected to be violators of the law.
The presence of the three witnesses protects
from the planting of evidence on the person or
effects of the accused. The prosecution must
therefore allege and prove that at the time of
the inventory of the evidence and the taking of
photographs, the three witnesses were present.
Here, the three-witness requirement was not
observed. Only two witnesses were present,
and they were both elected public officials:
barangay kagawads Hernandez and Laguisma.
There were no representatives from the media
and the DOJ. There was no attempt for the
prosecution to justify the absence of the
representatives from the media and DOJ as
required by the law. Nowhere in the records
does it show that the police officers employed
earnest efforts to procure the attendance of the
other required witnesses.(People of the
Philippines v Marnel Vinluan y Liclican, G.R.
232336,February 28, 2022, J. Hernando)
18. One plastic sachet containing what appears
to be shabu was the subject of the buy-bust
operation between Nora and PO3 Tutor and
another 40 pieces of elongated plastic sachets,
also believed to contain shabu, were recovered
from the possession of Nora. PO3 Tutor did not
immediately mark the said elongated plastic
sachets at the place of the apprehension but
only made the marking at the police station.
PO3 Tutor placed the seized items in separate
evidence pouches and kept them in his custody.
The sachets were mingled with each other and
the lack of marking thus made it impossible for
identify which item was subject of the sale, and
which sachets were confiscated from Nora's
possession. Did the police properly observe
the chain of custody rule?
______________________________________
NO. The chain of custody involves the duly
recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs from the time of seizure and
confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory, to safekeeping, and to presentation
in court for destruction. In People vs. Kamad,
this Court enumerated the four links in the
chain of custody that the prosecution must
establish: 1) the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from
the accused by the apprehending officer; (2)
the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating
officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination; and (4) the
turnover and submission of the seized and
9
marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist
to the court. In the case at bar, the prosecution
failed to establish the first, third and fourth
links. (People vs. Mariano, G.R. No. 247522,
February 28, 2022, J. Hernando)
19. An information that four young individuals
were about to have a "pot session" in a place
known as "Shabu Hotel '' led the law enforcers
to the location. Upon their arrival, the police
officers peeked through a slightly opened door.
They saw four individuals, XXX, YYY (YYY),Jed,
and Jonathan, seated on the floor facing each
other, with two transparent plastic sachets
containing suspected marijuana and an
improvised glass tube pipe laid out in front of
them. Subsequently, the police officers entered
the room and introduced themselves as police
officers. They confiscated the two sachets of
suspected marijuana and the glass tube pipe.
The police officers arrested the suspects,
apprised them of their rights, and brought them
to the Police Station. At the police station, the
arresting officers surrendered XXX, YYY, Jed
and Jonathan to the assigned investigator, PO2
Paule likewise relinquished his possession of
the seized items to PO2 Holanda who, in turn,
marked the same in front of the XXX, YYY, Jed
and Jonathan. PO2 Holanda prepared an
investigation report for the filing of charges and
turned over the confiscated items, along with
the request for the laboratory examination, to
the PNP Crime laboratory. Should the
accused be convicted for illegal
possession of marijuana and drug
paraphernalia?
______________________________________
NO. Although the elements of Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Drug
Paraphernalia were present, the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated items were
compromised because the police officers did
not follow the stringent requirements of Section
21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 as well as its IRR.
Based on the chain of custody rule, the
following links should also be established: "first,
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of
the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the
turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court."
Here, the links are riddled with abnormalities,
as the apprehending officer did not mark the
seized items immediately after seizure at or
near the place of arrest. Instead, the
investigating officer was the one who marked
the evidence even if he was not present during
the actual seizure. (CICL, XXX, CICL YYY,
Jonathan Solina y Solina and Jed Barba y
Apolonio, G.R. No. 230964, March 02, 2022, J.
Hernnado)
20. A buy-bust operation was conducted by the
police which led to the arrest of Hernandez who
was alleged to be engaged in selling drugs. The
necessary witnesses - an elective government
official, Manalo, and a member of the media,
Trinidad, were present during the conduct of
inventory, which was done immediately after
seizure. Both witnesses signed the Receipt of
Physical Inventory. POI Villarino took charge of
the seized items from the moment of
confiscation up to its submission to the crime
laboratory. The Request for Laboratory were
stamped received by PO2 Comia, the latter was
not presented in court to shed light on the
condition of the contraband when it was
received. Was the chain of custody rule
complied with by the police officers?
______________________________________
NO. Accordingly, absent the testimony of P02
Comia, the person who supposedly received the
illegal drugs from PO1 Villarino, makes the third
link in the chain of custody flawed. In the same
vein, the Supreme Court held that the
prosecution miserably failed to comply with the
fourth link in the chain of custody. The fourth
link refers to the tum-over and submission of
the dangerous drug from the forensic chemist
to the court. In drug-related cases, it is of
paramount necessity that the forensic chemist
testifies on the details pertaining to the
handling and analysis of the dangerous drug
submitted for examination, i.e., when and from
whom the dangerous drug was received; what
identifying labels or other things accompanied
it; description of the specimen; and the
container it was kept. Further, the forensic
10
chemist must also identify the name and
method of analysis used in determining the
chemical composition of the subject specimen.
(People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 258077, June
15, 2022, J. Hernando)
21. On a report by a confidential informant,
Police Inspector Yap set up a buy bust
operation. Yap instructed the confidential
informant to call alis “cris/kevin” and ordered
shabu worth P2,500. On the agreed area of the
meet up, Castillo showed 5 small transparent
sachets containing white crystalline substance
of suspected shabu. PO3 Lazo introduced
himself as a police officer and arrested Castillo
and frisked him, recovering the P2,500 buy-
bust money. Lazo alleged that the seized item
was in his custody while in transit back to their
office. The marking, inventory, and
photographing of the seized items were
conducted in the presence of Castillo, a
Barangay Kagawad, and a media
representative. Castillo argued that there was
no valid buy-bust operation. Did the police
officers complied the rule on chain of
custody?
______________________________________
NO. We find that the prosecution failed to
establish the apprehending team's compliance
with the chain of custody rule, particularly
regarding the required witnesses.
To establish the integrity and evidentiary value
of the corpus delicti, the proper handling of the
confiscated drug must be shown. When
substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody
as to raise doubts about the authenticity of the
evidence presented in court, the prosecution
does not comply with the indispensable
requirement of proving the corpus delicti.
Case law teaches that the seized item must be
immediately marked at the place of arrest to
obviate any possibility of tampering or
switching. This precautionary measure~
unfortunately, was blatantly disregarded by the
police officers. The records clearly show that
the police officers did not immediately mark the
seized items at the place of the arrest. Instead,
they brought the unmarked seized items to
their office on the pretext that they felt uneasy
marking the items at the place of arrest,
considering the happening of several shooting
incidents thereat.
Concededly, deviations from the clear-cut
procedure may be allowed, the same however
(1) must be satisfactorily explained by the
prosecution; (2) the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized evidence had been
preserved; and (3) the justifiable ground for
noncompliance is proven as a fact.34 Moreover,
it must be alleged and proved that earnest
efforts were made to secure the attendance of
the necessary witnesses.
In this case, the apprehending team's
explanation is hardly satisfactory. There was no
showing of an imminent danger to their life.
Also, the law enforcers' allegation that the place
was unsafe was self-serving. It was not
established as a fact. Hence, it does not merit
any credence. (People of the Philippines vs.
Castillo, G.R. No. 242520, Nov. 15, 2021, J.
Hernando)
22. Batino was arrested by the police officers
through a buy-bust operation. He was of the
belief that the chain of custody of the seized
items was broken; there was no mention of
who received the seized items for laboratory
examination. On the other hand, the police
argues that PO1 Bassig's testimony, as also
corroborated by PO1 Tan's Sinumpaang
Salaysay, clearly shows where the seized items
were placed and who had custody after the
marking. PO1 Bassig placed the seized items in
an evidence plastic bag and it stayed in his
custody during the whole operation until they
arrived at the police station. In the police
station, he did not turn over the seized items to
an investigating officer and he himself delivered
the items to the crime laboratory for
examination. Did the police followed the
chain of custody rule in the arrest of
Batino?
____________________________________
YES. The marking, inventory, as well as the
taking of photographs of the seized items
were immediately done after the arrest and
seizure in the presence of two required
witnesses, barangay chairman Dungo and
media representative Chavez, who likewise
signed the inventory. Pursuant to RA 10640,
having two witnesses, an elected public
official together with a representative from
the National Prosecution service or the
media, during the marking, inventory, and
11
taking of photographs of the seized items
would be compliant. After marking (and
before proceeding to Batino's house for the
search), PO1 Bassig placed the seized items
in an evidence bag. He was then able to
present the very same items to the
investigating officer when they returned to
the police station. Therefore, it can be safely
concluded that the seized items remained in
his possession during the whole operation,
from seizure to the forensic laboratory. He did
not turn over the seized items to the
investigating officer though, and he himself
brought them to the forensic laboratory.
Moreover, he was not cross-examined in this
matter, nor did the defense present evidence
to show otherwise. The Court, therefore,
agrees with the appellate court that the
seized items never left PO1 Bassig's
possession all throughout the operation. This
clearly resolves Batino's questions on who
and how the items were taken care of and
brought from the place of operation to the
police station and to the forensic laboratory.
More so, the acts of public officers such as
police officers that conduct anti-drug
operations enjoy presumption of regularity in
the absence of clear and convincing evidence
to rebut the same. (People vs. Batino y
Evangelista, G.R. No. 254035, November 15,
2021, J. Hernando)
23. Search warrant was issued against Emily,
Miguel and Josefina at their three-storey
residence in Quezon City. The police searched
the room in the third floor in the presence of
Emily and Miguel where SPO2 Conlu found a
plastic bag containing white crystalline
substance in one of the drawers of the
cabinet. SPO2 Conlu marked the confiscated
item with his initials "AC" and submitted it to
the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.
The results yielded positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Subsequently, Emily together with Miguel
and Josefina were charged with violation of
Section 16, Article III in relation to Section
2(e)(2), Article I of R.A. No. 6425, as
amended by R.A. No. 7659. Emily argues that
the prosecution must prove her constructive
possession by direct or circumstantial
evidence and by reasonable inference drawn
therefrom that she had knowledge of the
existence, presence and character of the drug
in the place under her control. Should Emily
and her co-accused be exonerated
because of non-exclusive possession of
illegal drugs?
NO. Constructive possession exists when the
drug is under the dominion and control of the
accused or when he has the right to exercise
dominion and control over the place where it
is found. Exclusive possession or control is
not necessary. The accused cannot avoid
conviction if his right to exercise control and
dominion over the place where the
contraband is located, is shared with another.
When a prohibited drug is found in a house
or other building belonging to and occupied
by a particular person, the presumption arises
that such person is in possession of such
drugs in violation of law. The fact of finding
the said illegal drug is sufficient to convict. In
other words, the finding of illegal drugs in a
house owned by the accused, or in this case,
the room occupied and shared by petitioner
and accused Miguel, raises the presumption
of knowledge and, standing alone, was
sufficient to convict. (Esteros y Pecardal vs.
Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192332,
January 11, 2021, J. Hernando)
24. A contract for the purchase of medicines
was awarded to AM-Europharma Corp. and
Mallix Drug while the accreditation was still
suspended by the Department of Health (DOH).
Rodrigo is the owner of both AM-Europharma
Corp and Mallix Drug. Together with the
members of the Bid and Awards Committee of
the Municipality of Janiuay, they were found
guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
Rodrigo averred that he cannot be convicted
under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 since he is a
doctor and a businessman by profession, and
not a public official. Is Rodrigo’s contention
correct?
______________________________________
NO. The issue on the liability of private
individuals under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 has
long been settled. In People vs. Go, the Court
has reiterated a private person's liability on
graft and corrupt practices, to wit: At the
outset, it bears to reiterate the settled rule that
private persons, when acting in conspiracy with
public officers, may be indicted and, if found
guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses
12
under Section 3 of R.A. 3019, in consonance
with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to
repress certain acts of public officers and
private persons alike constituting graft or
corrupt practices act or which may lead thereto.
This is the controlling doctrine as enunciated by
this Court in previous cases, among which is a
case involving herein private respondent.
Here, petitioner's participation in the bidding
and his acceptance of the bid award, despite
the overwhelming deficiencies in the bidding
process, which he must be familiar with
considering his record as a supplier of
medicines, demonstrated his conspiracy with
his co-accused public officers. (Villanueva vs.
People, G.R. No. 218652, February 23, 2022, J.
Hernando)
25. Enojo, a lawyer and public officer, went to
Dauin Police Station to make a request for a
conference with Hughes, his legal counsel Atty.
Violeta, and Regalado, to be held in the said
police station. He was met by SPO4 Briones,
who was at the time the station's "designated
Chief Investigator," and who had the
responsibility to investigate complaints and
record any untoward incident during his tour of
duty.SPO4 Briones knew that Enojo is an
attorney and a public official who was
connected or assigned at the Provincial Hall of
Negros Oriental. He received Enojo's request
and recorded the same in the police blotter.
After making the entries in the police blotter,
SPO4 Briones prepared and sent, through the
Radio Operator at Dauin Police Station, a radio
message to Dumaguete City Police Station. Did
Enojo violate the provisions of Sec. 3(a)
of the Anti-Graft and Practices Act?
______________________________________
NO. The elements of the crime under Section
3(a) of RA 3019 are the following:
(1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the
offender persuades, induces, or influences
another public officer to perform an act, or the
offender allows himself to be persuaded,
induced, or influenced to commit an act; and
(3) the act performed by the other public
officer, or committed by the offender,
constitutes a violation of rules and regulations
duly promulgated by competent authority, or
an offense in connection with the official duty
of the latter.
The second element of persuasion or
inducement is absent in the instant case. SP04
Briones testified that it was not because of Atty.
Enojo’s status or position that he performed the
said act. In other words, SP04 Briones made
the invitation on the mistaken belief that it was
his duty to do so, which necessarily negates the
presence of any undue influence. (People vs.
Enojo, G.R. No. 252258, April 6, 2022, J.
Hernando)
26. Chan, during her term as the Mayor of the
Province, approved and grant a Mayor's Permit
for the operation of a cockpit, in favor of the
Liga ng Mga Barangay, whose members were
barangay officials who are prohibited by
existing law from having any interest in cockpit
operation. Chan’s argued that she had no
intention to commit a wrong nor moved by evil
motive in issuing the permit. Hence, she must
be acquitted.
Is Chan’s contention tenable?
______________________________________
NO. There is no merit in Chan's contention that
she had no intent to commit the offense
charged. Criminal intent is not necessary in
mala prohibita offenses such as violation of
Section 3(j) of RA 3019. Luciano vs. Estrella
expounded the ratio:
In other words, the act treated thereunder
[Section 3(g), RA 3019 partakes of the nature
of a malum prohibitum; it is the commission of
that act as defined by the law, not the character
or effect thereof, that determines whether or
not the provision has been violated. And this
construction would be in consonance with the
announced purpose for which Republic Act
3019 was enacted, which is the repression of
certain acts of Republic officers and private
persons constituting graft or corrupt practices
or which may lead thereto. Note that the law
does not merely contemplate repression of acts
that are unlawful or corrupt per se, but even of
those that may lead to or result in graft and
corruption. (Chan vs. People, G.R. No. 238304,
July 27, 2002, J. Hernando)
27. During the preparation for the 2007 ASEAN
Summit to be held in Cebu, beautification
13
projects commenced in the preparation for the
event. Installation of street lighting facilities
and lampposts were one of the main projects.
Several organizations wrote to the office of the
Ombudsman-Visayas alleging anomalies in
pricing and called for the investigation of the
transactions. Radaza, the City Mayor of Lapu-
Lapu City was charged with violation of RA 3019
or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Radaza maintains that his mere signature on
the Program of Works and Detailed Estimates
(POWER) does not make him liable under RA
3019. Are the elements of violation of
Sec.3(a) of RA 3019 properly alleged?
________________________________
YES. The elements of violation of Section 3(e)
o f R A 3019 are:
(a) That the accused must be a public
officer discharging administrative,
judicial, or official functions, or a
private individual acting in conspiracy
with
such public officers;
(b)That he acted with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, or
inexcusable negligence; and
(c) That his action caused any undue
injury to any party, including the
government, or giving any private
party unwarranted benefits,
advantage, or preference in the
discharge of his functions.
On the other hand, Section 3(g) of RA 3019
requires the concurrence of the following
requisites:
(1) that the accused is a public officer;
(2) that he or she entered into a
contract or transaction on behalf of the
government; and
(3) that such contract or transaction 1s
grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government.
By the wordings of the assailed Information,
the Court finds all elements for both offenses
properly alleged by the prosecution. (Radaza
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 201380, August
04, 2021, J. Hernando)
28. Frustrated Homicide was filed against Cyrus
and Pascua, before the MTC of Bayombong.
Jail Officer Mando of the BJMP received custody
of Cyrus and Pascua. However, Cyrus and
Pascua were released from detention without
any court order but through a Recognizance
issued by Atty. Rupizan, counsel of Cyrus and
Pascua. Jail Officer Alberto then asked his
subordinate, Marzan about the details of the
said release and ordered him to re-arrest Cyrus
and Pascua, their release being in violation of
Section 2(d), Article 13 of the BJMP Manual on
the Release of Detention Prisoners (BJMP
Manual). Thereafter, Cyrus and Pascua were re-
arrested. Marzan argues he did not allow
himself to be persuaded, induced or influenced
by Atty. Rupisan to release both Cyrus and
Pascua from detention in violation of Section
2(d), Article 13 of the BJMP Manual or that he
deliberately intended to do the same. He
asserts that he released them from detention
pursuant to the instruction of his superior,
Goyo, and not by virtue of Atty. Rupisan's
inducement or influence. Moreover, he claims
that if indeed he was persuaded, induced, or
influenced to release Cyrus and Pascua from
detention, it was through a private individual
Ciriaco, the father of Cyrus, who was a relative
of the town's Vice Mayor. Did Atty. Rupisan
and Jail Officer violated Section 3 (a) of
RA 3019?
YES. The crime of violation of Section 3(a) of
RA 3019 may be committed in either of the
following modes: (1) when the offender
persuades, induces or influences another public
officer to perform an act constituting a violation
of rules and regulations duly promulgated by
competent authority or an offense in
connection with the official duties of the public
officer; or (2) when the public officer allowed
himself to be persuaded, induced or influenced
to perform said act which constitutes a violation
of rules and regulations promulgated by
competent authority or an offense in
connection with the official duties of the public
officer.
In this case, Cyrus and Pascua were arrested
and detained on May 21, 2001 pending their
preliminary investigation for allegedly inflicting
injury on Butic during a commotion on that day.
Thus, Cyrus and Pascua were unlawfully
released when a preliminary investigation of
their case was still being conducted. On the part
of Atty. Rupisan, the Sandiganbayan found him
guilty under the first mode of Section 3(a) of
14
RA 3019 in view of his unauthorized
intervention in the processing of the release of
Cyrus and Pascua in the form of a Recognizance
despite the pendency of the preliminary
investigation.
Thus, in reference to the second mode of
Section 3(a) of RA 3019, it is immaterial
whether the one who induced him was likewise
a public officer or a private individual, such as
Ciriaco. (Dominador G. Marzan vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 226167, October 11,2021,
J. Hernando)
29. Renato approached AAA, a 12-year-old
minor girl and invited the latter to go to the
plaza but AAA refused. He then invited her to
the market place but, again, AAA refused.
Renato then forcibly pulled AAA towards the
market place. AAA tried to free herself from
Renato’s grasp but she was unable to escape.
At that time, there were about 12 people
nearby, but AAA did not cry out for help
because Renato threatened to kill her. Renato
managed to pull AAA towards a parlor in the
marketplace. The parlor was already closed and
had no lights on. Renato removed his clothes,
laid AAA on the ground, and started removing
her shorts and shirt. After removing AAA's
clothes, Renato went on top of her and
inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA tried to
push Renato away but was unsuccessful. At
the time of the incident, witness Marco saw
Renato pulling AAA towards the marketplace.
He immediately reported the incident to AAA’s
mother, Carmina. Carmina asked AAA what
happened, but the latter did not respond. Only
when a lady police officer arrived did AAA
disclose that she was raped by Renato. Renato
claims that the courts a quo erred in giving
credence to AAA’s testimony despite numerous
inconsistencies and contradictions in her
testimony. Renato highlights AAA’s failure to
immediately inform her parents that she was
raped. Are the elements of rape present?
______________________________________
YES. It is settled jurisprudence that testimonies
of child-victims are given full weight and credit,
since when a woman, more so if she is a minor,
says she has been raped, she says in effect all
that is necessary to show that rape was
committed. Youth and immaturity are generally
badges of truth and sincerity.
Here, AAA’s testimony was straightforward,
convincing, and consistent. Between accused-
appellant’s plain denial and AAA’s categorical
testimony, the Court gives weight to the latter,
especially because Renato admitted that he
was actually found together with AAA by AAA’s
father and witnesses. AAA could not have been
compelled by a motive other than to bring to
justice the despoiler of her virtue. There is no
standard behavior expected of rape victims.
Depending on the circumstances and their
personal and emotional situation, victims react
differently. (People vs. Galuga, G.R. No.
221428, February 13, 2019, J. Hernando)
30. 13-year-old AAA was awoken by Cabales’
kiss. When she tried to push Cabales away, the
latter pointed a knife at her neck and warned
her not to shout or move. He proceeded to
remove AAA’s jogging pants and panty,
undressed himself and had sexual intercourse
with AAA, ignoring the latter’s pleas for him to
stop. CCC witnessed the incident and asked
AAA what she was doing with Cabales. AAA
disclosed this was the second time she and
Cabales had sexual intercourse. She did not tell
anyone because Cabales threatened to kill her
family. It was highlighted that AAA failed to
push him away or escape and the medical
certificate did not state that AAA suffered
physical injury from his alleged use of force.
Cabales now questions the circumstances of the
alleged rape. He notes that AAA utterly failed to
thwart his advances despite her claim that it
was not the first time he violated her. AAA also
never tried to push him away or escape. CCC
was not even presented as a witness despite
the prosecution's allegation that CCC saw the
incident. AAA even denied the incident when
inquired upon by CCC. Cabales asserts that no
rape can be concluded even from the medical
findings of Dr. Prieto-Jabines, as her medical
certificate did not state that AAA suffered any
physical injury resulting from his alleged use of
force. From these observations, Cabales
theorizes that the sexual encounter between
him and AAA was unforced and consensual;
thus, rape therefrom is inconceivable. Is the
contention of Cabales tenable?
NO. There is no standard behavior expected by
law from a rape victim. She may attempt to
resist her attacker, scream for help, make a run
15
for it, or even freeze up, and allow herself to be
violated. By whatever manner she reacts, the
same is immaterial because it is not an element
of rape. Neither should a rape victim’s reflex be
interpreted on its lonesome. Absent any other
adequate proof that the victim clearly assented
to the sexual act perpetrated by the accused, a
victim shall not be condemned solely on the
basis of her reactions against the same. While
a medical certificate attesting to the victim’s
physical trauma from the rape has
corroborative purposes, it is wholly
unnecessary for conviction, if not a mere
superfluity. Jurisprudence has steadily held that
“no woman, least of all a child, would concoct
a story of defloration, allow examination of her
private parts and subject herself to public trial
or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim
of rape and impelled to seek justice for the
wrong done to her being.
Here, AAA's apparently passive conduct will not
negate the rape committed by Cabales against
her person. AAA readily yielded to police
assistance and medical examination when her
family found out about the incident. (People vs.
Cabales, G.R. No. 213831, September 25, 2019,
J. Hernando)
31. Villegas and AAA were neighbors and
sweethearts. A witness saw them at the vicinity
of the jetmatic pump and overheard the
accused convincing the victim to go with him to
the nearby mountain. Bloodstains were found
at the abandoned house where Villegas used to
sleep. AAA’s slippers were also found there.
Villegas' dark blue bag which contained his
tattered birth certificate, among others, was
also found there. That bag was seen by a
witness being carried by Villegas while he was
together with the victim at the vicinity of the
jetmatic pump. The white T-shirt owned by
Villegas which he was wearing when they were
seen by a witness at the jetmatic pump was
also found in the abandoned house along with
the blood-stained yellow slippers of AAA. The
last person seen in the company of AAA was
Villegas. Plaintiff-appellee argued that that the
circumstances surrounding the case established
the elements of rape with homicide and lead to
no other conclusion than that Villegas was
guilty of the crime charged. Is the plaintiff-
appellee correct that Villegas committed
the crime of special complex crime of rape
with homicide?
______________________________________
YES. The elements of the special complex
crime of rape with homicide are as follows: "(1)
the appellant had carnal knowledge of a
woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was
achieved by means of force, threat or
intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion
of such carnal knowledge by means of force,
threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a
woman."
In this case, the post-mortem examination of
AAA's body revealed that she had lacerations
on her private parts and that she recently lost
her virginity, which more likely meant that the
assailant had carnal knowledge of her.
Moreover, the contusions, abrasions, and
injuries on her body, and more importantly the
head injury, signify that such carnal knowledge
was achieved by means of force and
intimidation which eventually led to AAA's
death. The testimonies of the medico-legal as
well as those of the other prosecution
witnesses, when considered together,
inevitably lead to the conclusion that Villegas
committed the felony. (People vs. Villegas, G.R.
No. 218210, October 09, 2019, J. Hernando)
32. BBB gave instructions to AAA, a fifteen-
year-old minor who is also mentally retardate,
which the latter complied. Upon arriving at
BBB's house, the latter instructed her to go
inside and laid her on the bed, took off her
shorts and panty, touched her vagina, and
raped her. After he was done with his bestial
act, appellant gave AAA money and sugarcane.
AAA then went home. AAA was brought to the
Municipal Health Center for a physical
examination. Dr. Yap physically found hymenal
bleeding and laceration indicative of a recent
penetration of the victim 's vaginal canal. Is it
required that AAA undergo medical
examination to prove that she is a mental
retardee?
______________________________________
NO. It is not required for a rape victim to
undergo a comprehensive medical examination
so as to prove that he/she is a mental retardate.
We have repeatedly pronounced that mental
retardation can be proven by evidence other
16
than medical/clinical evidence, such as the
testimony of witnesses and even the
observation by the trial court. However, the
conviction of an accused of rape based on the
mental retardation of the victim must be
anchored on proof beyond reason able doubt of
the same. Dr. Yap also declared that AAA's
physical built clearly manifested that she is
indeed mentally retardate. (People vs. Catig
G.R. No. 225729, March 11, 2020, J. Hernando)
33. ZZZ accused, being the stepfather of one
AAA, a fifteen year-old minor, by means of
violence, and intimidation, and by taking
advantage of his moral ascendancy being the
stepfather of the said minor, with lewd designs
and actuated by lust, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of his said stepdaughter, against her
will and consent, thus debasing, degrading and
demeaning her intrinsic worth and dignity as a
child, to her damage and prejudice. AAA was
eight years old at the time of the commission of
the crime. Is consent relevant in statutory
rape?
______________________________________
NO. Sexual intercourse with a victim who is
under 12 years old, as defined under Article
266-A, Paragraph 1(d) of the RPC, is Statutory
Rape. Where the victim is below 12 years old,
the only subject of inquiry is whether carnal
knowledge took place. Under the law, carnal
knowledge is the act of a man having sexual
intercourse or sexual bodily connections with a
woman.
The victim's consent to the vile act holds no
relevance here - it is settled that a child's
consent is immaterial because of his or her
presumed incapacity of discerning evil from
good. (People of the Philippines vs. ZZZ, G.R.
No. 226144, October 14, 2020, J. Hernando)
34. An eight-year-old minor was called by her
grand uncle to his house and held her and
forcibly laid her down on the floor and removed
her short pants. He also removed his own shirt,
pants and brief. He then went on top of her and
inserted his private organ into hers. Thereafter,
she was brought for a medical examination
where it was found that her reproductive organ
had hymenal lacerations. Accused-appellant
highlights that private complainant failed to
offer any resistance when she was supposedly
raped and that she did not report the incident
right away. Are the elements of rape
present in this case?
______________________________________
YES. The elements of rape is present as
defined and penalized as follows under the RPC,
as amended:
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How
Committed. Rape is committed
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge
of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious; and
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority; d) When the offended party
is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
From the foregoing, it is clear that what only
needs to be established is that the accused had
carnal knowledge of the victim who was under
twelve (12) years old. Even if she did not resist
him or even gave her consent, his having carnal
knowledge of her is still considered rape
considering that she was only eight (8) years
old at that time. It must be remembered that
the accused is an uncle of the victim and has
moral ascendancy over her. To stress, there is
no standard form of behavior for a rape victim.
(People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 246194, November
04, 2020, J. Hernando)
35. AAA was instructed by her father to go up
to the bedroom and ordered her to remove her
shorts. After which accused-appellant inserted
his penis into her vagina which caused her pain.
He stopped but threatened her not to tell her
mother about what happened. After her father
left, AAA disclosed to her mother what her
father had done to her and revealed that it was
not the first time it happened since her father
has been sexually assaulting her since she was
five years old. AAA had a medical examination
where it was found that there was redness on
both sides of the labia minora and the hymen
was swollen which could have been caused by
an erect penis, a finger or a blunt object. What
17
was the crime committed by the father of
AAA?
______________________________________
The crime is Qualified Rape precisely
because of the concurrence of both the minority
of the victim and the relationship of the parties.
The elements of Qualified Rape are: "(1) sexual
congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force
and without consent; (4) the victim is under
[eighteen] years of age at the time of the rape;
and (5) the offender is a parent (whether
legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the
victim."
When the offender is the victim's father, as in
this case, there need not be actual force, threat
or intimidation because when a father commits
the odious crime of rape against his own
daughter, who was also a minor at the time of
the commission of the offenses, his moral
ascendancy or influence over the latter
substitutes for violence and intimidation.
(People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 218277, November
09, 2020, J. Hernando)
36. XXX is the brother of AAA’s father who live
with AAA’s family. AAA is a 7-year old minor.
With threat, XXX had carnal knowledge with
AAA. AAA’s mother saw the incident and
reported it to the police station. The medical
examination revealed that there was an
abrasion on the labia majora and an old healed
incomplete hymenal laceration at the 11:00
o'clock position, but her vaginal discharge did
not contain any spermatozoa. XXX pleaded not
guilty and maintained that his relationship with
AAA was not sufficiently proven. The RCT
convicted AAA of Qualified Rape but the Court
of Appeals modified the crime designation to
Statutory Rape. Was the accused properly
convicted by the RTC for the crime of
Qualified Rape?
______________________________________
YES. The allegation that accused-appellant is
the uncle of AAA, and a brother of AAA's father,
without specifically alleging that such
relationship was within the third civil degree, is
specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying
circumstance of relationship. In People vs. XXX,
the Court considered the qualifying
circumstance of relationship even without the
specific allegation that the same was within the
third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity,
since the information therein already described
the offender as the "maternal uncle" of the
victim. In the same manner, the Information in
the instant case contained a statement that
"the accused being the uncle of the victim
because the accused is the brother of the
victim's father." Hence, accused-appellant can
be properly convicted of Qualified Rape.
(People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 257276, February 28,
2022, J. Hernando)
37. At around 2:00 p.m. of March 13, 2007,
AAA, CCC and their other siblings were at their
house. While AAA was washing the dishes, her
father asked CCC to take his other siblings on a
stroll around their place. CCC heeded the
instruction of his father. XXX, the father of the
siblings, and AAA, 11-year old, were thus left
in the house. XXX ordered AAA to change her
clothes and to wear a skirt. Thereafter, the XXX,
taking advantage of his moral ascendancy, had
sexual intercourse with AAA. AAA testified that
her father’s bestial act of inserting his penis
inside her vagina and against her will similarly
happened in 2004 when she was still nine years
old, and in 2005, when she was 10 years old.
The medico legal officer found neither
laceration nor injury on AAA's vagina at the
time of the examination,
Is the absence of laceration or injury
indispensable in proving the crime of
rape?
______________________________________
NO. Officer Ebdane's findings of the absence of
laceration or injury in AAA's genitalia is not fatal
to the prosecution. It is settled that a medical
report is dispensable in proving the commission
of rape. In any event, Officer Ebdane even
confirmed that sexual abuse could not be
cancelled out even if no injuries or lacerations
were found.
People vs. Manaligod is instructive on this:
Moreover, even if the Court disregards the
medico-legal certificate, the same would still
not be sufficient to acquit accused-appellant. It
has been repeatedly held that the medical
report is by no means controlling. A medical
examination of the victim is not indispensable
in the prosecution for rape, and no law requires
18
a medical examination for the successful
prosecution thereof. The medical examination
of the victim or the presentation of the medical
certificate is not essential to prove the
commission of rape, as the testimony of the
victim alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict
the accused of the crime. The medical
examination of the victim as well as the medical
certificate is merely corroborative in
character.(People of the Philippines v XXX, G.R.
255491, April 18, 2022, J. Hernando)
38. BBB, mother of AAA was out having a
drinkith their neighbors while leaving AAA and
her siblings in their house. AAA’s sibling was
sleeping in the room while she slept in the
bench outside it. XXX who is BBB’s live in
partner that same night declared that he will go
to his ducks in the farm but returned back to
the house and raped AAA his minor
stepdaughter. AAA resisted but XXX poked a
bladed weapon on her neck and told her not to
tell anybody or else he would kill her and her
family. AAA stayed quite out of fear but XXX
again attempted to rape her but failed to do so
as he was caught in the act by BBB. AAA is 14
years old when XXX had carnal knowledge with
her, through force and intimidation. Is XXX
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape?
_____________________________________
YES. The gravamen of the crime of Rape is
carnal knowledge of a woman against her will.
The following elements must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt for the conviction of the
accused in the crime of Rape: (i) that the
accused had carnal knowledge of the victim;
and (ii) the act was accomplished (a) through
the use of force or intimidation; or (b) when the
victim is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; or (c) when the victim is 12 years
of age, or is demented.
In the instant case, the foregoing elements are
all present. The victim testified that accused-
appellant had sexual intercourse with her,
against her will, while pointing a bladed weapon
at her neck.She clearly recalled her horrendous
experience at the hands of accused-
appellant.(People vs XXX, GR No.
225781, November 16, 2020, J. Hernando)
39. XXX is the common-law husband of AAA's
mother, BBB. Sometime in September 2007,
AAA was lying naked on the floor inside the
room of their house when XXX laid on top of
her and twice inserted his penis into her
vagina, then threatened her not to tell her
mother.
On September 5, 2007, XXX summoned AAA,
who was eight years old at the time, inside
their house. Thereafter, XXX brought her
inside a room. He then removed her shorts
and placed his penis inside her mouth.
Thereafter, he inserted his penis into AAA's
vagina. Eventually, AAA confided to BBB
about the rape incidents, prompting the latter
to report the matter to the authorities which
led to the arrest of XXX. Is XXX guilty of
qualified rape?
____________________________________
YES. The elements of qualified rape are: "(1)
sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done
by force and without consent; (4) the victim
is under [eighteen] years of age at the time
of the rape; and (5) the offender is [either] a
parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or
adopted), [ascendant, stepparent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree, or the common-law spouse
of the parent] of the victim." Here, the
prosecution established that XXX is the
common-law husband of AAA's mother, BBB
and that the elements of rape are present.
(People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 238405, December
07, 2020, J. Hernando)
40. AAA and DDD were at the house of EEE to
fetch the latter as the three would attend their
friend FFF's birthday party. While waiting for
EEE, AAA and DDD were asked by EEE's
mother, GGG, if they would want to work as
waitresses in a bar to which the two
instantaneously acceded. Thereafter, AAA,
DDD, and EEE, went to FFF's birthday party.
AAA, DDD, and EEE went back to their
respective homes. AAA packed her things and
told her mother that she would work but
intentionally neglected to tell that she would be
working as a waitress at a bar. AAA, DDD, and
FFF went back to EEE's house. When they
arrived, they saw GGG talking to a woman who
was introduced as "Mama Diane" and was later
19
identified as XXX. XXX told AAA, DDD, EEE, and
FFF that the next day, she would bring them to
work as waitresses in a bar seven days a week
with a salary of P250 per day. XXX also told
them that if a customer approaches, they
should say that they were already 18 years old.
She added that they could go home every week
provided they sought her permission. Their
work includes: (a) entertaining the customers
by sitting beside and drinking with them in their
table, and allowing the customers to touch the
different parts of their body for a fee of P140;
(b) entertaining the customer in a room for a
fee of P850; and (c) allowing the customer to
bring them to a hotel or to take them out of the
bar to have sexual intercourse, for a fee of
P1,600, a.k.a. "bar fine." All the fees were
directly paid to XXX. Is XXX guilty of
Qualified Trafficking in Persons?
YES. As testified to by AAA, XXX hired or
recruited her and DDD, FFF, and EEE, on the
pretext of being waitresses in a bar but were
forced to entertain male customers, by
accompanying and drinking alcohol with them
in the bar or in a private room, to be subjected
to lascivious acts, and to engage in sexual
intercourse, all for a fee.
The crime of "Trafficking in Persons" becomes
qualified when, among others, the trafficked
person is a child. As to the failure of the
prosecution to present the original or certified
true copy of AAA's birth certificate, we have laid
down in People vs. Pruna the guidelines in
appreciating age as an element of the crime or
as a qualifying circumstance, thus:
In order to remove any confusion that may be
engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby
set the following guidelines in appreciating age,
either as an element of the crime or as a
qualifying circumstance.
xxx
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth,
authentic document, or the testimony of the
victim's mother or relatives concerning the
victim's age, the complainant's testimony will
suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused. (People vs. XXX, G.R.
No. 244048 February 14, 2022, J. Hernando)
41. 14-year-old AAA went with her friend, BBB,
to meet with the latter's "textmates” in a hotel.
BBB introduced AAA to XXX and an unidentified
man. XXX then asked AAA if she wanted to try
"enchang" or shabu and BBB eventually
convinced AAA to join in and try the substance.
XXX then brought AAA to another room then
turned off the lights, approached AAA and had
a carnal knowledge with her. AAA could only cry
in pain as she pushed XXX away. That night,
XXX ravished her twice. Three days later, XXX
promised AAA that he would give her a mobile
phone if she would go to bed with him. AAA was
forced to take drugs and have sex with him. On
one occasion, XXX told AAA and BBB to bring
four other minor females with them so that he
could match these girls with four of his male
friends. AAA and BBB did as instructed and
brought four girls to the hotel and all of them
took shabu. For the sexual service AAA
rendered, the customer paid XXX P2,000.00,
from which, XXX and BBB got P500.00 each,
while AAA received the remaining P1,000.00.
The same payment and sharing scheme applied
to the other girls who XXX paired with the other
male customers. AAA contended that he was
not the one who recruited AAA. He claimed that
he was only a customer and that the person
truly responsible for the crime was "Mommy
Lyn," who was the handler or pimp of AAA. He
also asserted that AAA, having been influenced
by BBB, entered into the prostitution trade by
her own volition because she needed the
money. He further claimed that the presence
of force, threat, or intimidation is lacking since
AAA disclosed in her sworn statement that she
needed money and willingly went with BBB
after finding out that the latter earned money
by prostituting herself. He also asserted that,
"while AAA admitted that she had sexual
intercourse with the accused-appellant, she did
not say that she was forced, threatened, or
intimidated. Besides, the fact that AAA met with
the accused-appellant and had sexual
intercourse with him more than once is
indicative that she did so willingly. Is XXX
criminally liable?
______________________________________
XXX is guilty for the crime of Trafficking in
Persons and Rape. In People vs. Casio, the
Court identified the elements of Trafficking in
Persons, as follows:
20
(1) The act of "recruitment, transportation,
transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with
or without the victim's consent or knowledge,
within or across national borders;"
(2) The means used which include "threat or
use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or
of position, taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or
receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over
another;" and
(3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation
which includes "exploitation or the prostitution
of others or other forms of sexual exploitation,
forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or
the removal or sale of organs."
Furthermore, under Section 6(a),the crime of
Trafficking in Persons becomes qualified when
the trafficked person is a child, which refers to
a person below the age of 18 years old or above
18 years old but is unable to fully take care of
or protect himself or herself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or
condition.
Applying the foregoing law and jurisprudence in
the case at bar, the RTC and the CA correctly
convicted accused-appellant of Qualified
Trafficking in Persons. It was sufficiently proved
that all the elements of the crime are present.
Through the straightforward and credible
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
particularly AAA's, it was established that: 1)
accused-appellant recruited or hired AAA by
instructing her and BBB to bring other minor
females at the hotel and introducing them to
different customers on separate occasions; (2)
accused-appellant took advantage of AAA's
vulnerability as a minor child and as someone
who was in need of money; and (3) the purpose
of such acts was for AAA and the other minor
females to engage in sexual intercourse or to
render sexual services to several men in
exchange for money. Additionally, it is an
undisputed fact that AAA was only 14 years old
during the time when the incident occurred.
Article 266-A of the RPC provides:
ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed.
- Rape is committed -
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge
of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation; x x x
Based on the foregoing provision, the
prosecution must prove beyond reasonable
doubt the following elements: (a) that the
accused had carnal knowledge of the victim,
and (b) that the said act was accomplished
through the use of force, threat, or intimidation.
Here, the prosecution sufficiently established
that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of
AAA on September 8, 2011, through force and
intimidation by pulling her and pinning her
down, and inserting his penis into her vagina,
against her will and without her consent.
(People of the Philippines vs. XXX, G.R. No.
248815, March 23, 2022, J. Hernando)
42. Bawalan is facilitator of child prostitution
and she procured AAA. AAA is a 14-year-old
minor and she narrated that BBB, her mother,
and CCC, her mother’s live in partner, would
pimp her every time their family had nothing to
eat. There had been more than five instances
in the past when she was pimped by BBB and
CCC. In some of those instances, she was taken
to a motel to engage in sexual intercourse with
customers. Although she could no longer recall
their names, she stated that they were young,
about 17 to 19 years old. Whenever Bawalan
would get paid P200.00 by the customers, AAA
would receive P100.00. However, during the
subject incident, AAA did not receive any
amount since the police officers confiscated the
money. Is it correct to charge Bawalan
with Qualified Trafficking in Persons
under RA 9208?
________________________________
YES. The elements of the offense of trafficking
in persons were sufficiently established by the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. First,
AAA categorically stated that Bawalan
instructed her to go with PO1 Intoy, who was
then acting as a poseur-customer, after
Bawalan received money from the latter. This
fact was corroborated by Officer Pabion, who
saw PO1 Intoy hand the marked money to
Bawalan. AAA further stated it was not the first
time she was sexually exploited by accused-
21
appellants. According to her, it would happen
often, whenever their family had nothing to eat.
Taking into consideration the circumstances on
how AAA was sexually exploited, all three
accused-appellants conspired and acted
together in perpetrating the crime.
While the prosecution failed to prove the
victim's minority due to the absence of her birth
certificate, it however established that the
crime was committed by a group of three
persons, and by an ascendant and a person
exercising authority over the victim.
Consequently, the crime still falls under
Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Sections
6(c) and (d) of RA 9208. (People vs. Bawalan y
Molina, G.R No. 232358, May 12, 2021, J.
Hernando)
43. BBB conducted a surveillance operation to
verify a report from IJM Manila of prostitution
and human trafficking. BBB with 3 of his
colleagues went in, pretending to be customers
and were ushered by a certain YYY to a table
and told them of their entertainment services to
its guest such as young girls dancing naked and
provision for sex in their VIP rooms. YYY
reassured BBB as it might get him in trouble as
a police. A certain XXX, a police officer and the
owner allayed BBB's concerns of taking out
these girls for a certain fee, to have sex with
them specifically AAA who was only 16 years
old. XXX ensured BBB that AAA could just deny
her minority to ensure that there's no hitch.
BBB paid the fee then he was led inside the VIP
Room with AAA then he told her his real
intentions then AAA related to BBB that: (a)
the arrangement to take out girls and pay the
bar fine was the usual transaction and practice;
(b) she was paid on commission; and (c) she
had had sex with customers at least five times
in recent months. BBB's team went back to the
hotel securing the evidence that there's at least
10 young girls working at the bar, and accused
YYY approach PO3 Ong and offered him sex
with one of the girls in the VIP room which
confirms that prostitution is occurring in the
bar. XXX and YYY point out that PO3 Ong and
BBB do not have personal knowledge of
supposed sexual activities that occur inside the
VIP rooms. Further, they argue that had no
knowledge of AAA's minority and AAA was
some sort of an independent sex contractor.
Hence, their acts does not constitutes
Trafficking in Persons under RA 9208. Are XXX
and YY correct in their argument?
NO. The acts under Section 4 (a and e) of RA
9208 do not require proof of actual sexual
intercourse to establish the purpose of
prostitution or sexual exploitation. It is enough
that the act, transaction, scheme or design
involving the use of a person by another for
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in
exchange for a consideration is proven.
For the arguments of XXX and YYY that they
had no knowledge of AAA's minority and AAA
was some sort of an independent sex contractor
are decimated by our ruling in People vs.
Casio:
For liability under our law, [the] argument is
irrelevant. As defined under Section 3 (a) of
Republic Act No. 9208, trafficking in persons
can still be committed even if the victim gives
consent. The victim's consent is rendered
meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or
deceptive means employed by perpetrators of
human trafficking. Clearly, even without the use
of coercive, abusive or deceptive means, a
minor's consent is not given out of his or her
own free will. (People of the Philippines vs XXX
and YYY, G.R. No. 225288, June 28, 2021, J.
Hernando)
44. Manalang conspired and confederated with
an unknown cohort, represented herself to
have the capacity to contract, enlist and
transport Filipino workers for employment
abroad for a fee, recruited and promised
employment to several individual. Manalang
has not secured the required license or
authority from the Department of Labor and
Employment and without valid reasons and
without the fault of the aggrieved persons failed
to actually deploy them and continuously fail,
despite demands to reimburse the expense
incurred by the several individual in connection
with their documentation and processing for
purpose of their deployment. What are the
criminal liability of Manalang?
______________________________________
The elements for the crime of Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale were sufficiently
22
established in the instant case. The elements of
estafa by means of deceit, whether committed
by false pretenses or concealment, are the
following: (a) there must be a false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (b) such
false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud; (c) the offended party must have relied
on the false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to
part with his money or property because of the
false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means; and (d) as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damage.
In the instant case, the elements of deceit
and damage are present. Manalang, without
any license or authority to do so, promised
private complainants overseas employment,
then required them to undergo training and
collected fees or payments from them, while
continually assuring them that they would be
deployed abroad, but failed to do so.
Persuaded by these assurances given by
Manalang, the private complainants paid their
placement fees, albeit partially. Thus, her
representation induced the victims to part
with their money, resulting in damage. When
private complainants paid their placement
fees, Manalang issued receipts using the
fictitious name of "Tess Robles". In view of
the foregoing deceitful and illegal acts of
Manalang, the private complainants
undoubtedly suffered damage. (People vs
Manalang, GR No. 198015, January 20, 2021,
J. Hernando)
45. AAA and XXX got married. However,
during the last stage of AAA’s pregnancy,
they had an argument that made AAA decide
to leave XXX. Their son, BBB, was later
diagnosed with Congenital Torch Syndrome
which led AAA to ask for financial help from
XXX, but to no avail. Because of the
continued disregard of XXX to the cry of AAA
regarding their son’s condition and expenses,
AAA filed a complaint against XXX for
deprivation of sufficient financial support
under RA 9262. On the other hand, XXX
denied the charges and claimed otherwise.
Is XXX is guilty of economic abuse
under RA 9262?
______________________________________
YES. Economic abuse is one of the acts of
violence punished by RA 9262:
"Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or
attempt to make a woman financially
dependent which includes, but is not limited
to the following:
1. withdrawal of financial support or
preventing the victim from engaging
in any legitimate profession,
occupation, business or activity,
except in cases wherein the other
spouse/partner objects on valid,
serious and moral grounds as defined
in Article 73 of the Family Code;
2. deprivation or threat of deprivation
of financial resources and the right to
the use and enjoyment of the
conjugal, community or property
owned in common;
3. destroying household property;
4. controlling the victim's own money
or properties or solely controlling the
conjugal money or properties.
As correctly found by the courts a quo, all the
elements of a violation of Section 5 (e)(2) of
RA 9262 are present, as it was established
that: (a) XXX and AAA were married after
being pregnant with BBB; (b) XXX
acknowledged BBB as his child; (c) he failed
to provide sufficient support for BBB; (d) he
withheld financial support for BBB due to the
ire he felt towards his wife; (e) he only
provided financial support after the complaint
against him in the Prosecutor's Office was
filed.
However, XXX, while one can understand his
annoyance at his wife, there is no justification
for him to terminate giving support to their
child on the basis of his anger toward his
spouse. In cases of support, the best interest
of the child must always be considered and if
the pattern of revenge shown by the
accused-appellant is condoned by this Court,
it would violate the State's mandate to
protect those that cannot protect themselves.
(XXX vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
221370,June 18, 2021, J. Hernando)
23
46. During the marriage of Jay and Tina, Jay
would accuse Tina of having an affair. At one
point, Tina and the children were kicked out
from the conjugal home and Tina was publicly
humiliated in front of her officemates while
Jay was demanding for an annulment. The
community funds were being spent by Jay on
his mistress. Eventually, Tina and the children
were abandoned and deprived of financial
support, and she suffered psychological and
emotional abuse. Tina prayed for the
issuance of Temporary Protection Order and
the eventual issuance of Permanent
Protection Order. The court sheriff made
several attempts to personally serve the
summons in his residence and in his office
only to be informed that he was deployed
abroad. The counsel of Jay received a copy of
the order.
What is the nature and purpose of a TPO?
_____________________________________
A protection order is not a procedural
mechanism, which is imperative for the
progression of an initiated action. Rather, it is
itself a substantive relief which "prevent[s]
further acts of violence against a woman or her
child specified in Section 5 of [the Anti-VAWC
Law] and granting other necessary relief." x x x
(Sabado vs. Sabado, G.R. No. 214270, May 12,
2021, J. Hernando)
47. Pueyo was doing welding work when he got
angry at the children who climbed a bulldozer
parked nearby. He instructed the children to go
down but AAA, a six-year-old child, did not
comply. Pueyo then approached AAA and poked
a welding rod into the latter’s vagina. Pueyo
was charged with the crime of violation of
Section 10(a) of RA 7610, otherwise known as
the “Special Protection of Children Against
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act”.
What is the crime committed by Pueyo?
_____________________________________
Pueyo is criminally liable under Section 10(a),
RA 7610, which require the following elements:
(1) AAA's minority; (2) the acts constituting
physical abuse committed by Pueyo against
AAA; and (3) the fact that the said acts are
clearly punishable under RA 7610. The fact of
minority of AAA is long settled, her being six
years old at the time of the incident and eight
years old when she took the witness stand. It
was likewise established that Pueyo physically
abused AAA when he poked her genitals with a
welding rod, an act that is plainly child abuse as
contemplated under Section 3(b) of RA 7610.
While all three requisites for violation of Section
10(a) of RA 7610 obtain against Pueyo, his
greater culpability for statutory rape by sexual
assault in relation to RA 7610 cannot be
overlooked. Successful prosecutions for
statutory rape charges falling under Article 266-
A(2) rely on only two requisites: (1) the victim
is a child, male or female, under 12 years of
age, and (2) that the accused inserted any
instrument or object into the genital or anal
orifice of the victim. In relation to Section 5(b)
of RA 7610, the apparent circumstances fit
squarely as sexual assault: AAA, 6 years young
at the time of the incident, received a
penetrating blow onto her vagina that almost
extended to her anus by a welding rod wielded
by Pueyo. The severity of the genital injury
inflicted upon AAA cannot be more telling of
Pueyo's abusive intent. AAA's consent to
Pueyo's vile act holds no relevance here - it is
settled that a child's consent is immaterial
because of his or her presumed incapacity of
discerning evil from good.(People vs. Pueyo,
G.R. No. 192327, February 26, 2020, J.
Hernando)
48. XXX was employed as a stay-in family
driver. The first incident, AAA, 14 years old,
testified that she was suddenly awakened when
the accused-appellant entered her room,
covered her mouth, then kissed her neck and
lips. She tried to resist and avoid his kisses, but
he was aggressive. He proceeded to insert his
hand in her shirt and mashed her breasts. He
then inserted his finger in her vagina. After the
act, the accused-appellant threatened AAA not
to tell anyone about the incident, otherwise, he
will kill her and her family. The second incident,
only a few days after the first incident, AAA
testified that she was awakened when the
accused-appellant again entered her room and
covered her mouth. He pulled up her shirt and
kissed her breasts, and then removed her
jogging pants and underwear. Afterwards, the
accused-appellant inserted his penis into AAA's
vagina for about five to 10 minutes. She tried
to stop him, but to no avail as he was much
stronger. When accused-appellant finished, he
again threatened her not to tell anyone or else
24
he will kill her and her family. The third incident,
AAA testified that the accused-appellant again
entered her room, locked the door and
proceeded to carry out his plans. AAA was
awakened when he kissed her lips and neck.
She again pleaded for him to stop, but to no
avail. He mashed her breasts. She tried to wake
BBB up who was sleeping on the other bed, but
was not successful. Accused-appellant
continued the assault and proceeded to insert
his finger in her vagina.
A medical examination on AAA was conducted
and found deep healed lacerations at the five
and seven o'clock positions on AAA's hymen,
which show clear evidence of blunt penetrating
trauma to the hymen. What was the crime
or crimes committed, if any?
______________________________________
It is undisputed that AAA was 14 years old at
the time of the commission of the three
offenses. This fact calls for the application of RA
7610. In instances where the lascivious
conduct committed against a child
covered by RA 7610, and the act is
covered by sexual assault under
paragraph two Article 266-A of the RPC,
the offender shall be liable for violation of
Section 5 (b) of RA 7610.
Tulagan, citing People vs. Caoili, provides for
the proper nomenclature of the crime of Rape
through sexual assault and the imposable
penalty if the victim is more than 12 years of
age but below 18 years of age:
In People vs. Caoili, the Supreme Court
prescribed the following guidelines in
designating or charging the proper offense in
case lascivious conduct is committed under
Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610, and in
determining the imposable penalty:
1. The age of the victim is taken into
consideration in designating or
charging the offense, and in
determining the imposable penalty.
xxxx
3. If the victim is exactly twelve (12) years
of age, or more than twelve (12) but
below eighteen (18) years of age, or is
eighteen (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,"
and the imposable penalty is reclusion
temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua.
xxxx
Whereas if the victim is 12 years old and under
18 years old, or 18 years old and above under
special circumstances, the nomenclature of the
crime should be "Lascivious Conduct under
Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610" with the
imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua, but it
should not make any reference to the
provisions of the RPC. It is only when the victim
of the sexual assault is 18 years old and above,
and not demented, that the crime should be
called as "Sexual Assault under paragraph 2,
Article 266-A of the RPC" with the imposable
penalty of prision mayor.
If the victim is 12 years old and under 18 years
old, and the acts committed fall under rape
through sexual assault under the RPC, the
proper nomenclature is "Lascivious Conduct
under Section 5(b) of RA 7610." The imposable
penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium
period to reclusion perpetua.
As for Rape through sexual intercourse, and the
victim is 12 years old and under 18 years old,
Tulagan again instructs that the proper
nomenclature is "Rape under Article 266-A (1)
in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC," and the
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.
In this case, all the elements of both offenses
as appropriately charged against accused-
appellant were present. AAA a credible witness
and in ruling that all the elements of both
offenses were present. AAA was able to identify
accused-appellant in open court as the
perpetrator in the three incidents. She was able
to narrate in a clear and straightforward
manner what had happened during the three
incidents that she was assaulted by accused-
appellant. (People of the Philippines vs. XXX,
G.R. No. 233867, February 28, 2022, J.
Hernando)
25
49. Teddy, Gil, Ricky, upon the order of Teofilo
and Olive and without Freddie Bolbes' consent,
entered the subject property by destroying the
iron fence, removing the cement foundation
and made diggings until it reached a portion of
the foundation of the apartment, thus,
exposing the property to the danger of being
destroyed in case of heavy rains. Teofilo
admitted that he dug a portion of the lot to
construct a perimeter fence for his and
Freddie’s mutual protection, but it did not push
through because Freddie stopped him. He
declared that he is the owner of the said parcel
of land and that he made some diggings and
destroyed the fence because Freddie built them
without his consent. Are the elements of
malicious mischief present in this case?
______________________________________
YES. The elements of Malicious Mischief have
been duly proven in this case, viz.:
1. Petitioners admitted in their "kontra
salaysay" that Teofilo deliberately destroyed
the fence and its cement foundation, and made
diggings in the subject property;
2. The destruction did not constitute arson or
other crime involving destruction; and
3. The act of damaging another's property was
committed merely for the sake of damaging it.
Under the third element, assuming that Teofilo
owned the property in controversy, he and his
co-accused were not justified in summarily
destroying the improvements built thereon by
Bolbes. They unlawfully took the law into their
own hands when they surreptitiously entered
Bolbes's enclosed lot and destroyed its fence
and foundation. Evidently, petitioners' actions
were made out of hatred, revenge or evil
motives. (Grana vs. People, G.R. No. 202111,
November 25, 2019, J. Hernando)
50. Constantino,et al are members of the White
Sand Bentol Fishermen Cooperative (WSBFC),
entered and occupied the foreshore area of
Brgy. San Pedro, Panabo City, Davao del Norte.
They constructed sheds, cottages, and other
structures, and operated sari-sari stores
without a DENR-approved foreshore lease
application or the necessary business permit
issued by the Licensing Section of their city.
Panabo City Government sent notices to vacate
the subject foreshore area. Constantino,et al
alleged that no one from the government
informed them of the need to secure a permit
but acknowledged the need to apply for a
foreshore lease with the DENR. However, they
contended that their occupation and economic
activities are lawful pending their foreshore
lease application. Are Constantino, et al
guilty of violating Article 91(B)(3) of PD
1067?
________________________________
YES. Article 91 (B)(3) of PD 1067 provides that:
B. A fine exceeding Three Thousand Pesos
(P3,000.00) but not more than Six Thousand
Pesos (P6,000.00) or imprisonment exceeding
three (3) years but not more than six (6) years,
or both such fine and imprisonment in the
discretion of the Court, shall be imposed on any
person who commits any of the following acts:
xxxx
3. Unauthorized obstruction of a river or
waterway, or occupancy of a river bank or
seashore without permission.
Accused-appellants constructed and occupied
various structures on the subject area classified
as a foreshore land without the necessary
permit. It is immaterial that the Information
adverted to “foreshore” instead of “seashore” in
charging them of violating Article 91(B)(3) of
PD 1067. What PD 1067 penalizes is the
unauthorized occupancy of the “seashore”
which necessarily includes the “foreshore”.
(People vs. Constantino, G.R. No. 251636
February 14, 2022, J. Hernando)
51. Mildred was convicted of illegal recruitment
in large scale for her acts of offering and
promising to deploy four persons to Japan o to
work as factory workers in a noodle factory, as
well as collecting money for passports, plane
tickets, visa processing, and placement fees.
Can the court convict her of the crime of
Estafa for the same acts?
______________________________________
YES. It is settled that a person, for the same
acts, may be convicted separately of Illegal
Recruitment under RA 8042 or the Labor Code,
and Estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC.
Case law holds that the same pieces of
evidence that establish liability for Illegal
26
Recruitment in Large Scale confirm culpability
for Estafa.
The elements of Estafa are: (1) the accused
defrauded another by abuse of confidence or
by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party
or a third party suffered damage or prejudice
capable of pecuniary estimation.
All the aforesaid elements are present in this
case. The prosecution sufficiently established
that accused-appellant defrauded the four
private complainants by making them believe
that she has the capacity to deploy them to
Japan as factory workers, even if she did not
have the authority or license for the purpose.
Because of the accused-appellant's promises to
deploy them to Japan, the victims willingly
parted with their money as processing and
placement fees to the accused-appellant.
Consequently, all the victims suffered damages
in the amount of P40,500.00 each as the
promised employment abroad never
materialized, and the said money they parted
with were never recovered. (People of the
Philippines vs. Liwanag, G.R. No. 217097,
March 2, 2022, J. Hernando)
52. EBC issued commercial letters of credit and,
thereafter, imported merchandise for the
account of NF ABC. The merchandise consisted
of peruvian fish meal and various kinds of
soybean meals for agriculture purposes. The
imported merchandise was delivered to NF
ABC. The trust receipts were payable within 90
days from their dates of execution. However,
NF ABC failed to pay its obligation under the
trust receipts when it became due. BDO
demanded payment from NF ABC of the
outstanding obligation under the trust receipts;
despite demand, however, NF ABC failed to
turn-over the proceeds of the sale of the goods,
or return the goods if not sold. The officers of
NF ABC alleged that NF ABC was severely
affected by the Asian Financial Crisis and by the
successive typhoons that hit the Philippines and
that the goods covered by the trust receipts
were perishable. They encountered difficulties
in looking for buyers so they had to sell the
goods at a non-profitable price, while some of
the goods perished. Chua,et al, as officers of NF
ABC, averred that NF ABC maintained and
continued its commitment to pay its debt. They
entered into negotiations with BDO and they
reached an agreement (which was later on
reduced into writing) with respect to the terms
of payment and interest. NF ABC then issued
post-dated checks for the period until April
2002, after which it proposed a revised
repayment schedule and issued new post-dated
checks until March 2004. The outstanding
obligation was ultimately reduced. Was
Chua,et al criminally liable for Estafa
under the RPC in relation to Trust
Receipts Law?
______________________________________
YES. The law punishes the entrustee's failure
to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the
goods covered, or to return the goods
themselves if not sold. Under Section 13 of the
Trust Receipts Law, such failure shall constitute
the crime of Estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 1(b) of the RPC. The offense of
violation of the Trust Receipts Law is malum
prohibitum: mere failure to turn over the
proceeds of the sale, or to return the goods
themselves if not sold, amounts to the violation.
Intent to defraud is immaterial.
Chua,et al. failed to turn over the proceeds of
the sale of goods or return the goods
themselves. By this mere failure, criminal
liability attaches under the law. They admitted
to this fact; this even resulted to the execution
of the contentious new schedule of payments.
Petitioners' defense that they were unable to
sell the goods at a profitable price due to the
financial crisis and successive typhoons is
unavailing as the offense is malum prohibitum.
They could have just returned the goods and
not insist on selling them for a lower price upon
the expiration of the term of the trust receipts.
(Chua vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No.
214960, June 15, 2022, J. Hernando)
53. Mandelma, Fhey, and Boyet , operating
under Mheyman Manpower Agency, had a
series of transactions that involved the
collection of money from at least 31 individuals
who were looking for employment abroad.
However, despite paying all the supposed fees,
none of these individuals were actually able to
go abroad. The trio was found guilty of Illegal
Recruitment committed in Large Scale and
Estafa. Is the court correct in convicting
the accused for Illegal Recruitment in
Large Scale and Estafa for the same acts?
27
______________________________________
YES. It is established that a person, for the
same acts, may be convicted separately for
Illegal Recruitment under RA 8042 (or under
the Labor Code) and Estafa under Article 315,
par. 2 (a) of the RPC. Arias vs. People
enumerated the following elements of this kind
of Estafa.
The elements of estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the RPC, are the following:
1. That there must be a false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission
of the fraud;
3. That the offended party must have relied on
the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means, that is, he was induced to part with his
money or property because of the false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
and
4. That as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.
In this case, all the elements of Estafa are
present. The testimonies of the private
complainants, coupled with the documentary
and object evidence, demonstrated that
accused-appellant, under the false pretense of
being a legitimate overseas worker recruiter,
fraudulently induced private complainants to
part with their money as part of the supposed
recruitment process. Given that none of the
private complainants was deployed abroad as
they were just being scammed, they clearly
suffered damage.
(People of the Philippines vs. Mandelma, G.R.
No. 238910, July 20, 2022, J. Hernando)
54. Spouses Dulay made false pretenses and
fraudulent misrepresentations to complainants,
the spouses Dulos, consisting of the following
untruthful claims: (1) that they owned the
subject property which they could sell, and
consequently transfer title, to the buyers; (2)
that they are processing the reconstitution of
title to the subject property; (3) that they are
the Isidro and Virginia Dulay, the registered
owners of the property, mentioned in TCT (4)
that Virginia and Elena are one and the same
person; (5) in the alternative to the third and
fourth claims, that Isidro and Virginia Dulay's
title is defective since Maria, from whom Isidro
and Virginia trace their registered title, revoked
the donation of the subject property; and (6)
that their predecessor-in-interest to the
property, Maria, is the adoptive mother of
petitioner Isidro Dulay who therefore validly
succeeds to the property. What crime/s did
Spouses Dulay committed?
____________________________________
The Estafa was committed under the Art. 315
of the RPC which carries a graver offense.
The essential elements of Article 316 of the
RPC must be established: (1) that the thing
be immovable, such as a parcel of land or a
building; (2) that the offender who is not the
owner of said property should represent that
he is the owner thereof; (3) that the offender
should have executed an act of ownership,
e.g., selling, leasing, encumbering, or
mortgaging the property; and (4) that the act
be made to the prejudice of the owner or a
third person.
In this case, while the subject of the estafa
involves real property, the offense committed
does not automatically pertain to Article
316(1) of the RPC.
Here, petitioners did not exercise acts of
dominion or ownership over the property
other than their false pretense and claim that
they owned it. Petitioners proffered a nominal
claim of ownership by showing a copy of TCT
No. T-2135 and pretending to be the same
persons indicated therein as registered,
owners of the subject property. The
fraudulent acts of petitioners in pretending to
own the real property and selling it is not
equivalent to an exercise of an act of
dominion or ownership which damaged and
prejudiced the real owner of the thing,
Carmencita, the daughter of Isidro and
Virginia Dulay. (Spouses Dulay vs. People,
G.R. No. 215132, September 13, 2021, J.
Hernando)
55. Olita gave Ramos ₱4,000.00 cash to buy
motorcycle parts. Ramos placed the money
inside his black bag together with one pair of
pants and a shirt. He then proceeded to Sogod,
Southern Leyte.
28
Upon his arrival in Sogod, Ramos dropped by
the store of Diego, who invited him inside his
house for coffee. Upon entering the house,
Ramos placed his bag on top of the washing
machine near the kitchen door. Shortly
thereafter, while Diego, Ramos, and Mercado
were having coffee, Albotra, a police officer,
entered the house and grabbed the bag of
Ramos which contained the ₱4,000.00 cash and
other personal items. Ramos immediately stood
up and attempted to retrieve his bag but
Albotra was already gone with the bag. Albortra
argued there is absence of the elements of
intent to gain and unlawful taking considering
that he only followed the orders of the his
superior, the Police Chief to bring the bag into
custody because the people inside Diego’s
house was engaged in illegal gambling
activities. Is Alborta criminally liable for
grabbing the bag of Ramos?
______________________________________
YES. The essential elements of Theft are: (1)
taking of personal property; (2) the property
taken belongs to another; (3) the taking was
done without the owner's consent; (4) there
was intent to gain; and (5) the taking was done
without violence against or intimidation of the
person or force upon things.
In this case, the prosecution satisfactorily
proved that Albotra took the bag belonging to
Ramos without the latter's consent and with
intent to gain. The taking was done without the
use of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things, thereby removing
the act from the coverage of the crime of
Robbery.
Albotra's contention that the prosecution failed
to establish the element of intent to gain in the
taking of the bag is without merit. Since intent
to gain is an internal act, it is presumed from
the unlawful taking of the bag in question.
(Ricardo Albotra vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 221602, November 16, 2020, J.
Hernando)
56. AAA was walking on her way home when
Bueza suddenly pulled her and pointed a knife
at her and declared a hold-up. Bueza took AAA’s
two phones and cash and was able to bring her
inside a public restroom where he raped AAA.
Only the robbery was reported to the police out
of AAA’s fear of embarrassment. Bueza was
arrested 1 month after and AAA underwent
physical and genital examination but there were
no evident signs of injuries at the time of
examination but it did not preclude the
possibility of sexual abuse. Bueza argues that
the medical examination conducted on the
victim revealed no physical injuries inflicted on
her, thus belying her accusations of Rape. Are
the elements of Robbery with Rape
present in this case?
______________________________________
Yes. The following elements must concur in the
crime of Robbery with Rape: (1) the taking of
personal property is committed with violence or
intimidation against persons; (2) the property
taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is
characterized by intent to gain or animus
lucrandi; and (4) the Robbery is accompanied
by Rape.
In this case, the prosecution sufficiently
established the elements of the crime of
Robbery with Rape, to wit: that on August 31,
2015, Bueza, while armed with a knife, forcibly
took private complainant's two (2) cellular
phones and wallet containing ₱4,000.00.
The absence of hymenal laceration does not
exclude the existence of rape. Such explanation
is also consistent with the well settled rule that
in rape cases, the absence of lacerations in
complainant's hymen does not prove that she
was not raped. Neither does the lack of semen
belie sexual abuse as it is equally settled that
'the absence of sperm samples in the vagina of
the victim does not negate rape, because the
presence of spermatozoa is not an element
thereof. (People of the Philippines vs. Bueza
,G.R. No. 242513, November 18, 2020, J.
Hernando)
57. Mae, together with a two (2)-year old baby
girl, requested that the tricycle driver pass by a
gasoline station to pick up a 4-liter can, and
later alighted a few meters away from their
house. Neri, a gasoline attendant, sold 4.189
liters of unleaded gasoline to Mae. Mae initially
asked to buy kerosene allegedly for her stalled
vehicle. Neri told Mae that gasoline, not
kerosene, is what a vehicle needs to run. So,
Mae purchased unleaded gasoline instead.
29
Later on, the house where Mae, her daughter,
her stepchildren, husband and house help
resides was burned down. The police noticed
spalling in some areas of the concrete wall,
usually caused by flammable substance. He
identified the dilapidated wiring installations at
the dirty kitchen area which remained intact,
which was reported by Mae to have sparked
before the fire. The broken wire in the ceiling
of the dirty kitchen was covered with cement
and there was no line going to the ceiling. An
electrical examiner of the BFP found no trace of
electrical short circuit. What crime did Mae
commit?
______________________________________
Arson is present when: (a) there is
intentional burning; and (b) what is
intentionally burned is an inhabited
house or dwelling.
In the case at bar, the trial court, as affirmed
by the appellate court, found that the
prosecution positively proved that accused-
appellant deliberately set fire to their house
which resulted in the deaths of its two
inhabitants. The case records clearly showed
that accused-appellant's acts before, during,
and after the fire established beyond
reasonable doubt her guilt of committing the
acts alleged in the Information. The
prosecution sufficiently established an
unbroken chain of events which led to the fair
and reasonable conclusion that she
intentionally set the house on fire. (People vs.
Al-Saad y Bagkat, G.R. No. 242414, March 15,
2021, J. Hernando)
58. Dawson Word lost his bundle of money of
around $4,550 and P27,000 when he alighted
from his vehicle upon arriving home. AAA, a
minor was the finder of the money and shared
the money with his cousin, also a minor, and to
Pante. Portions of the money and the things
bought with Word’s money were returned to
Word. And all the persons who shared the
money were all prosecuted for the crime of
theft against Word, Pante argued that there
was no unlawful taking of the money on his part
because the finder of the lost money was his
co-accused and not himself. Not knowing
where it came from, he averred that he did not
have any intent to take money belonging to
another. Is Pante liable for theft for
appropriating the found cash by the
minor?
YES. A "finder" under Article 308, par. 2(1)
of the RPC is not only limited to the actual
finder of the lost property since the gist of the
offense is the furtive taking and
misappropriation of the property found.
Pante was a "finder in law," if not in fact; and
his act in appropriating the money was of
precisely of the same character as if it had
been originally found by him. His criminal
intent to commandeer the money found was
altogether clear at that point.
The rationale for the "finder in law" concept
is not difficult to fathom. It is precisely to
protect the owner of the lost property in the
event the lost property is transferred from
one individual to another and to prevent the
"finder in law" from escaping liability by
claiming that he was not the actual finder
thereof but was merely entrusted custody
thereof by someone who had no intention to
appropriate the same. "Otherwise a person
knowingly receiving lost property from the
finder, who had no intent to steal, with the
felonious intent to appropriate it to his [or
her] own use, escapes punishment. In such
case, whether or not the person taking the
money is guilty of [theft] must be determined
on the same principles which govern in the
case of the actual finder.
Having obtained possession of Word's lost
money, Pante had the opportunity and the
obligation to return the lost property to its
rightful owner or to the local authorities, but
he unjustifiably refrained from doing so.
Assuming for the sake of argument that he
did not know that the money belonged to
Word, Pante would still be held liable for
Theft for failing to return the amount. This is
because the RPC does not require that the
thief must know the owner of the lost
property. This is precisely why the subject
penal provision gave the finder the option to
return the lost property not only to the owner
thereof but also to the local authorities.
(Pante y Rangasa vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 218969, January
18,2021, J. Hernando)
30
59. Sister Linda, a member of the Sisters of
Providence, which is a religious congregation
of women of the Roman Catholic Church
procured the services of Horca to be the
group's travel agent for a trip to Rome, Italy
scheduled in October 2001. A couple of
months before the trip, Sister Linda ordered
from Horca 19 airline tickets and issued two
BPI checks amounting to P502,813.25 each,
or in the total amount of P1,005,626.50, as
payment therefor. Although the agency,
through Horca, acknowledged and issued an
official receipt for the payment of the 19
tickets, Sister Reynolds only received four
and was informed that the other 15 tickets
were stolen and the four tickets could not be
used and had to be returned because the
flight covered by the said tickets was
cancelled. Sister Reynolds made several
demands for Horca to return the amount of
P1,005,626.50, however, despite Horca’s
promise to pay back Sister Reynolds the full
amount, she was only able to return
P90,000.00. Thus, prompting Sister Reynolds
to file a complaint of Theft against Horca. Is
Horca liable for theft?
____________________________________
NO. We find that there is reasonable doubt
as to the guilt of the petitioner because the
prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the
crucial element of taking with intent to gain.
Animus lucrandi, or intent to gain, an internal
act which can be established through the
overt acts of the offender and can be
presumed from the unlawful taking.
In the case before Us, however, the
prosecution failed to adduce any concrete
evidence which would show that Horca had
taken the cash for her own personal gain. On
the contrary, the records show that Horca
actually used the money covered by the
checks for its intended purpose, i.e., to
purchase the airline tickets, albeit only four
were initially delivered to Sister Reynolds.
(Horca vs. People GR No. 224316, November
10, 2021, J. Hernando)
60. Nilson while he was the Managing
Director of Tongsat, he met Atty. Debuque,
who was then the Chairman of DOMSAT.
They developed a professional relationship
and eventually became friends. Atty.
Debuque borrowed sizable funds from Nilson
numerous times. He also invited Nilson to join
him together with Ramon and others to
business venture, which the former alleged
would yield large profits. He promised Nilson
shares of stock in Investa Land equivalent to
the value of the numerous personal loans
extended to him by Nilson. Atty. Debuque
also induced Nilson to purchase various
commercial lots in partnership with him,
stating that the value of the lands will rise
exponentially, and that these will be
transferred in the name of ILC shares of
stock. Nilson alleged that they neither gave
him the promised ILC shares of stock nor
returned the funds that he contributed to the
venture. Are the elements of Syndicated
Estafa present in this case?
NO. The case of Remo vs. Devanadera
clarifies the standards on what constitutes a
syndicate under PD 1689, to wit:
1. [The group] must be at least five (5) in
number.
2. [The group] must have formed or
managed a rural bank, cooperative,
"samahang nayon," farmer's association or
any other corporation or association that
solicits funds from the general public.
3. [The group] formed or managed such
association with the intention of carrying out
an unlawful or illegal act, transaction,
enterprise or scheme i.e., they used the very
association that they formed or managed as
the means to defraud its own stockholders,
members and depositors. (Citations omitted)
Here, it was not shown that Ramon
performed any overt act in consonance with
Atty. Debuque's intent to defraud Nilson.
That Ramon and the other accused were
relatives of Atty. Debuque and incorporators
and officers of ILC, standing alone, would not
suffice to warrant the finding of implied
conspiracy absent the commission of an act
in furtherance of a joint purpose or
community of interest with Atty. Debuque.
Being incorporators and officers of a
corporation does not automatically connote
conspiracy. Therefore, there being no
syndicate in the first place, only Atty.
Debuque is to be held personally liable.
31
(Debuque vs. Nilson, G.R. No. 191718, May
10, 2021, J. Hernando)
61. After Barlin’s store was gutted by a fire,
Gacayan agreed to place orders of Triumph
products on behalf of Barlin through
Gacayan's credit line. Their transactions were
covered by Trust Receipt Agreements. The
parties agreed that Barlin would either pay
for the items or return them if unsold after 30
days from receipt thereof. Barlin religiously
returned the unsold items to Gacayan.
However, Gacayan claimed that Barlin failed
to pay on time for the other items with a total
value of P74,955.00. Barlin thus issued
checks to pay her obligations to Gacayan but
the checks bounced for having been drawn
against a closed account. Did Barlin
commit Estafa?
YES. The elements of estafa under Article
315 paragraph (1)(b) of the RPC are: (a) that
money, goods, or other personal properties
are received by the offender in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of, or to return, the same; (b)
that there is a misappropriation or conversion
of such money or property by the offender or
a denial of the receipt thereof; (c) that the
misappropriation or conversion or denial is to
the prejudice of another; and (d) that there
is a demand made by the offended party on
the offender.
In this case, first, there is no dispute that
Barlin received merchandise from Gacayan as
evidenced by TRAs signed and executed by
Barlin herself. Second, Barlin failed to turn
over the proceeds of the sale of the products
she procured from Gacayan upon the latter's
demand. Third, Barlin's misappropriation or
conversion of the proceeds of the sale of
Gacayan's products caused damage to the
latter. Lastly, Gacayan demanded payment
from petitioner under TRAs 0081 and 0083
which went unheeded. (Barlin vs. People,
G.R. No. 207418, June 23, 2021, J.
Hernando)
62. Pulido and Arcon got married in 1983 via a
civil ceremony at the Municipal Hall of Rosario,
Cavite solemnized by the Mayor and their
marriage was blessed with a child. They lived
together until 2007 when Pulido stopped going
home to their conjugal dwelling. When
confronted by Arcon, Pulido admitted to his
affair with Baleda. Arcon likewise learned that
Pulido and Baleda entered into marriage on July
31, 1995 which was solemnized by Reverend
Conrado P. Ramos. Their Marriage Certificate
indicated Pulido's civil status as single. Hurt by
the betrayal, Arcon charged Pulido and Baleda
with a crime Bigamy on December 4, 2007.
Pulido contends that there is absence of an
element of bigamy, i.e., that the offender's first
marriage be legally subsisting at the time he
contracts the second marriage, since his first
marriage with Arcon is void due to the absence
of a marriage license. Is a void ab initio
marriage a valid defense in the
prosecution for bigamy even without a
judicial declaration of absolute nullity?
________________________________
YES. We hold that a judicial declaration of
absolute nullity is not necessary to prove a void
ab initio prior and subsequent marriages in a
bigamy case. Consequently, a judicial
declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or
second marriages presented by the accused in
the prosecution for bigamy is a valid defense,
irrespective of the time within which they are
secured.
For one to be held guilty of bigamy, the
prosecution must prove the following:
a) that the offender has been legally married;
b) that the first marriage has not been legally
dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent,
the absent spouse could not yet be presumed
dead according to the Civil Code;
(c) that he or she contracts a second or
subsequent marriage; and
(d) that the second or subsequent marriage has
all die essential requisites for validity.
Clearly, when the first marriage is void ab initio,
one of the essential elements of bigamy is
absent, i.e. a prior valid marriage. There can be
no crime when the very act which was
penalized by the law, i.e. contracting another
marriage during the subsistence of a prior legal
or valid marriage, is not present. The existence
and the validity of the first marriage being an
essential element of the crime of bigamy, it is
but logical that a conviction for said offense
cannot be sustained where there is no first
32
marriage to begin with. Thus, an accused in a
bigamy case should be allowed to raise the
defense of a prior void ab initio marriage
through competent evidence other than the
judicial decree of nullity. With the above
mentioned facts presented Pulido, on the
absence of a “prior valid marriage” and the
subsequent judicial declaration of absolute
nullity of his first marriage he was acquitted
from the crime of bigamy charges against him .
(Pulido vs. People GR No. 2240149, July 27,
2021, J. Hernando)

33