[ G.R. No.

241632, October 14, 2020 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- Appellee, VS. ANGELITO DAYRIT y HIMOR, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PERALTA, C.J.:

This is an appeal from the March 21, 2018 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06982, which affirmed
with modifications the July 28, 2014 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 269, Valenzuela City.

The Facts

Accused-appellant Angelito Dayrit y Himor (Dayrit) was indicted for two (2) counts of Murder as defined and penalized under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The accusatory portion of the Informations dated September 4, 2013 alleged:

Criminal Case No. 1218-V-13

That on or about August 31, 2013 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with another person, whose name, identity and present whereabouts are still
unknown, with deliberate intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, and while on board a motorcycle, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shot with a handgun one ARIEL SERENILLA y DE CHAVEZ, the latter not being armed and not
in a position to retaliate and defend himself due to the suddenness of the attack, hitting him on the neck, chin and chest, which
caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

Criminal Case No. 1219-V-13

That on or about August 31, 2013 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with another person, whose name, identity and present whereabouts are still
unknown, with deliberate intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, and while on board a motorcycle, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shot with a handgun one LOURDES SERENILLA y ESPELETA, the latter not being armed and
not in a position to retaliate and defend himself due to the suddenness of the attack, hitting her on the neck, which caused her
death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

In his arraignment, Dayrit pleaded not guilty5 to the offense charged in the Informations. Thereafter, trial on merits ensued.

The prosecution presented seven (7) witnesses, namely, PSI Jocelyn Cruz, PO3 Alexander Buan, SPO1 Alexander Manalo, victims'
son Aliven Serenilla, Lloyd Ontiveros, John Moises Vista and Joseph Emmanuel Soliman. The defense for its part presented four (4)
witnesses, including the accused Dayrit, Billy Bragais, Michael John Aquino and Joseph Cabero.

Version of the Prosecution

On August 31, 2013, at around 10 o'clock in the evening, minors Lloyd Ontiveros, John Moises Vista and Joseph Emmanuel
Soliman were playing along Anak Dalita Street, Barrio Bitik, Marulas, Valenzuela City. At that time, a man wearing a black jacket
and a helmet arrived on board a green and black motorcycle. This man alighted from his motorcycle and removed his helmet to wipe
off his perspiration, he is observing a group of persons and among them was Ariel Serenilla (Ariel)

Version of the Defense

On August 31, 2013, at around 8 o'clock in the evening, accused-appellant Dayrit was at home with his family in Magsaysay Street,
Manilas, Valenzuela City, watching television. His cousins, Michael John Aquino, Billy Joe Bragais and other relatives were also
there and were discussing about their children's performance in school. At around 11:30 in the evening, Dayrit went to sleep.

On July 28, 2014, the RTC convicted Dayrit of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the Decision states:

WHEREFORE, accused ANGELITO DAYRIT y HIMOR is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Murder
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for the death of Ariel Serenilla and Lourdes Serenilla; and is hereby imposed the
penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. The accused is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victims P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P50,000.00 as temperate damages, and P100,000 as moral damages.

The accused may be credited with the corresponding period that he has served under preventive imprisonment, in accordance with
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code and applicable rules.

Cost against the accused.

SO ORDERED.
[ G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020 ]

GINA VILLA GOMEZ, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

CONCURRING OPINION

DELOS SANTOS, J.:

The ponencia DENIED the instant petition after revisiting the case of Villa v. Ibañez1 (Villa), which is the basis of the prevailing rule
that makes paragraph (d) of Section 3,2 Rule 117 of the Rules of Court a jurisdictional defect like those in paragraphs (a), (b), (g),
and (i) under Section 93 of the same Rule.

Notably, the ponencia further declared that the pronouncement in Villa was clearly not sanctioned by any constitutional or statutory
provision. Hence, Villa is rendered unconstitutional for violating the basic principles of separation of powers.

Brief restatement of antecedents.

The petitioner was charged with corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 211-A
of the same Code. Trial on the merits ensued. After the case was submitted for decision, the trial court motu proprio dismissed the
case for lack of jurisdiction after finding that the Information was filed without written authority of the City Prosecutor.

The handling prosecutor has the

authority to file the Information.

In motu proprio dismissing the instant case, the trial court found that the handling prosecutor had no prior written authority to sign
the Information, without giving credence to the Resolution dated September 21, 2010 issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor.

No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or
approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.

The cases of Villa and Turingan are

not applicable.

In its Order23 dated February 13, 2013, the trial court cited the cases of Villa and Turingan claiming that infirmity in the information,
such as absence of authority to sign the information, constitutes a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured.

The Regional Trial Court cannot

motu proprio quash the Information
and dismiss the criminal case.

Foremost, I share my observation with the ponencia that the motu proprio dismissal was done despite the fact that: (1) both the
accused and the prosecution had already adduced all their evidence, and both have rested their respective cases; and (2) the case
was already submitted for decision.

Section 1, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Time to move to quash. - At any time before entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or
information. (Italics supplied)

Relatedly, Section 2 of the same rule provides:

Section 2. Form and contents. - The motion to quash shall be in writing, signed by the accused or his counsel and shall distinctly
specify its factual and legal grounds. The court shall consider no ground other than those stated in the motion, except for lack of
jurisdiction over the offense charged. (Italics supplied)

In this case, the act of the trial court in dismissing the case motu proprio on the ground that the Information was not signed by the
city prosecutor was tantamount to quashing the said Information. As correctly pointed out, the summary act of quashing the subject
Information and perfunctorily dismissing the criminal case is an overt violation of Section 1, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.

Clearly, the quashing of an information can only be ordered by the trial court upon written motion of the accused, which must be
signed by him or by his counsel. In the case of Nitafan, the Court expounded the foregoing by ruling that: (1) the right to file a motion
to quash belongs only to the accused; (2) there is nothing in the rules which authorizes the court or judge to motu proprio initiate a
motion to quash if no such motion was filed by the accused; and (3) the filing of a motion to quash is a right that belongs to the
accused who may waive it by inaction and not an authority for the court to assume.
[ G.R. No. 241257, September 29, 2020 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BRENDO P. PAGAL, A.K.A. "DINDO," ACCUSSED-APPELLANT.

DECISION

GESMUNDO, J.:

"For there is but one essential justice which cements society, and one law which establishes this justice. This law is right reason,
which is the true rule of all commandments and prohibitions. Whoever neglects this law, whether written or unwritten, is necessarily
unjust and wicked."1

— Marcus Tullius Cicero

"In addition, the Court remains mindful of the fact that the State possesses vast powers and has immense resources at its disposal.
Indeed, as the Court held in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, the individual citizen is but a speck of particle or molecule vis-a-vis the
vast and overwhelming powers of government and his only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his fundamental liberties
under the Bill of Rights which shield him in times of need."2

This is an appeal from the Decision3 promulgated on May 8, 2018 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01521,
which annulled and set aside the October 5, 2011 Order4 of the Regional Trial Court of Hilongos, Leyte, Branch 18 (RTC) that found
Brendo P. Pagal (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder solely based on his plea of guilty. Accused-
appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the CA did not rule on the merits of the case but
remanded it to the RTC for further proceedings.

Summary

For the guidance of the bench and the bar, this Court adopts the following guidelines concerning pleas of guilty to capital offenses:

1. AT THE TRIAL STAGE. When the accused makes a plea of guilty to a capital offense, the trial court must strictly abide by the
provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 116 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. In particular, it must afford the prosecution an
opportunity to present evidence as to the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability. Failure to comply with these
mandates constitute grave abuse of discretion.

a. In case the plea of guilty to a capital offense is supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court shall enter a judgment
of conviction.

b. In case the prosecution presents evidence but fails to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court shall
enter a judgment of acquittal in favor of the accused.

c. In case the prosecution fails to present any evidence despite opportunity to do so, the trial court shall enter a judgment of acquittal
in favor of the accused.

In the above instance, the trial court shall require the prosecution to explain in writing within ten (10) days from receipt its failure to
present evidence. Any instance of collusion between the prosecution and the accused shall be dealt with to the full extent of the law.

2. AT THE APPEAL STAGE:

a. When the accused is convicted of a capital offense on the basis of his plea of guilty, whether improvident or not, and proof
beyond reasonable doubt was established, the judgment of conviction shall be sustained.

b. When the accused is convicted of a capital offense solely on the basis of his plea of guilty, whether improvident or not, without
proof beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution was not given an opportunity to present its evidence, or was given the
opportunity to present evidence but the improvident plea of guilt resulted to an undue prejudice to either the prosecution or the
accused, the judgment of conviction shall be set aside and the case remanded for re-arraignment and for reception of evidence
pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 116 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

c. When the accused is convicted of a capital offense solely on the basis of a plea of guilty, whether improvident or not, without
proof beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt despite opportunity to do so, the
judgment of conviction shall be set aside and the accused acquitted.

Said guidelines shall be applied prospectively.

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the appeal; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the May 8, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01521; ACQUITS accused-appellant Brendo P. Pagal a.k.a. "Dindo" of the crime of Murder, defined and
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, for failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt;
and ORDERS his IMMEDIATE RELEASE from detention unless he is confined for another lawful cause. Let a copy of this Decision
be furnished the Penal Superintendent, Leyte Penal Colony for immediate implementation and he is ORDERED to report the action
he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 224906, October 07, 2020

EMMA BUENVIAJE NABO AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER HER, Petitioner, v. FELIX C.
BUENVIAJE, Respondent.

DECISION

INTING, J.:

This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari with Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Injunction1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court praying that the Decision 2 dated March 30, 2015 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 136811 be reversed and set aside; and that the Decision 3 dated October
4, 2013 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), San Mateo, Rizal in SCA No. 106-2012 for ejectment with damages be
affirmed and reinstated.

The Antecedents

The case stemmed from a Complaint4 for Ejectment with Damages filed by Felix C. Buenviaje (respondent) against
Emma Buenviaje Nabo (petitioner) and all persons claiming rights under her.

In the complaint, respondent alleged the following:

He is the registered owner of a parcel of land (subject property) situated in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province
of Rizal covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-1777 5 issued by the Register of Deeds of the Province of
Rizal.6 The title was issued pursuant to a Decision7 dated February 7, 2003 issued by the same MTC in LRC Case
No. 070-2000 (LRA Record No. N-73603).

The Ruling of the MTC

On October 4, 2013, the MTC rendered a Decision 29 dismissing the complaint. In part, the MTC ruled that while
respondent sought to acquire physical possession of the subject property on the premise that he is the titled owner
and that his ownership carries with it his right to possess it, the plea, however, was unavailing in an ejectment
suit.30

The Ruling of the RTC

On July 10, 2014, Branch 77, Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Mateo, Rizal rendered a Decision 31 reversing and
setting aside the MTC Decision. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 04 October 2013 of the Municipal Trial Court of San Mateo,
Rizal is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is hereby rendered in favour of the plaintiff as
against defendant and all persons claiming rights under her as follows:cralawlawlibrary

1.Ordering the defendants to vacate the premises subject matter of this case and to immediately surrender
peaceful possession thereof to plaintiff[;] and

2.Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiff the amount of P4,000.00 per month from the time Demand was made
for her to vacate hereof, until she has fully surrendered possession of the same to the plaintiff and to pay plaintiff
the amount of P20,000.00 by way of Attorney's fees.

SO ORDERED.

The Ruling of the CA

On March 30, 2015, the CA rendered the assailed Decision 33 dismissing the petition for review filed by petitioner
and affirmed the RTC Decision. The CA ruled that respondent, being the registered owner, also has the
corresponding right to the recovery and possession of the subject property; and that petitioner, who is in physical
occupancy of the land belonging to respondent, has no right whatsoever to unjustly withhold the possession of the
subject property from the latter and she should immediately vacate it

The Issue

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ENTITLES HIM TO OUTRIGHT POSSESSION OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY UNDER RULE 70 OF THE RULES OF COURT WITHOUT NEED TO SUBSTANTIATE AND PROVE BY
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

On a final note, the Court reiterates itself that "the issue of possession between the parties will still remain. To
finally resolve such issue, they should review their options and decide on their proper recourses. In the meantime,
it is wise for the Court to leave the door open to them in that respect ."76

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 30, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 136811 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated October 4, 2013 of the Municipal Trial Court, San
Mateo, Rizal in SCA No. 106-2012 for ejectment with damages
is AFFIRMED and REINSTATED.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.

[ G.R. No. 247348. November 16, 2021 ]

CHRISTIAN CADAJAS Y CABIAS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

LOPEZ, J., J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated
September 17, 2018 and Resolution3 dated May 9, 2019 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40298, which
affirmed with modification the August 7, 2017 Joint Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 270 (RTC) in
Criminal Case Nos. 215-V-17 and 216-V-17, finding Christian Cadajas y Cabias (petitioner) guilty of violating Section 4(c)(2) of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10175, in relation to Sections 4(a), 3(b) and (c)(5) of R.A. No. 9775.

The Antecedents

Petitioner, who was then 24 years old, met the victim, AAA,5 who was only 14 years old, in the canteen where he works. Their
relationship started when the younger sibling of AAA told petitioner that AAA had a crush on him. Petitioner tried to evade AAA, but
the latter started to stalk him. Later, AAA sent petitioner a request in his Facebook Messenger, which he accepted. The petitioner
and AAA would then exchange messages on Facebook Messenger and after some time, petitioner courted AAA for two weeks, until
they became sweethearts on April 2, 2016.

Criminal Case No. 215-V-17

The undersigned Associate Prosecutor Attorney II accuses CHRISTIAN CADAJAS of "Violation of Section 10(a) of R.A.
No. 7610" committed as follows:

That on or about November 16, 2016 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, acting with lewd design, and abuse of minority, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously coerced. [AAA]
(DOB: February 10, 2002) (POB: Valenzuela City), 14 years old, a minor, to send pictures of her breasts and vagina through
Facebook Messenger, which circumstances debased, degraded and demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a
human being, thereby endangering her youth, normal growth and development.

CONTRARY TO LAW.14

Criminal Case No. 216-V-17

The undersigned Associate Prosecution Attorney II accuses CHRISTIAN CADAJAS of Child Pornography Under
Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention of 2012, in Relation to Sections 4(a) and 3(b) and (c)(5) of R.A.
No. 9775", committed as follows:

That on or about November 16, 2016 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the accused,
the above-named accused, acting with lewd design, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously coerced,
induced [AAA], (DOB: February 10, 2002) (POB: Valenzuela City), 14 years old, to send him pictures of her vagina and
breasts, through Facebook Messenger using a mobile phone.

CONTRARY TO LAW.15

Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty to both charges during arraignment.16

After trial, the RTC acquitted petitioner of the charge for violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610, but found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. No. 10175 in relation to Sections 4(a), 3(b) and (c)(5) of R.A. No. 9775. As
such, petitioner was sentenced to reclusion temporal and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00.17

According to the RTC, petitioner was aware that AAA was still a minor when he obstinately prodded the latter to send him photos of
her private parts. This is an explicit sexual activity, a lascivious conduct, which the minor victim, AAA, could not have done were it
not for the persistent inducement of the petitioner.18 Moreover, petitioner's violation of R.A. No. 9775 is a malum prohibitum.19 As
such, his claim that he was in a relationship with AAA finds no relevance.

On the other hand, the RTC dismissed the charge against petitioner for violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 holding that AAA
is a city lass who was no longer innocent of the ways of the world. She herself attested that she was not affected by what happened.
As such, the RTC ruled that the protective mantle of R.A. No. 7610 is wanting.20 Thus, the RTC disposed the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

In Criminal Case No. 215-V-17, finding accused CHRISTIAN CADAJAS y CABIAS NOT GUILTY and is hereby acquitted.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond cavil of doubt all the elements of the offense as charged.

In Criminal Case No. 216-V-17, finding accused CHRISTIAN CADAJAS y CABIAS GUILTY of violation of Sections 4(a)
and 3(b) and (c)(5) of RA 9775 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal and to pay a FINE
of One Million Pesos.
SO ORDERED.

[ G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J:

Central in the resolution of the instant dispute is the appreciation of the principle of prejudicial question in the context of a final and
executory decision in a civil case that implicates on the core issue in dispute in several pending criminal cases.

Issues

The threshold issue before the Court is whether Criminal Case Nos. 2008-03-109 to 111 and 2001-07-482 to 484 are already barred
by res judicata.

The Court's Ruling

The Court finds the Petition lacking in merit, and finds that although Criminal Case Nos. 2008-03-109 to 111 and 2001-07-482 to
484 are not barred by res judicata, the innocence of respondents has nevertheless already been conclusively found in the prejudicial
factual finding made by a court of competent jurisdiction of the genuineness of the signatures in question in Civil Case No. 2001-09-
135. The continued prosecution of the pending criminal cases is therefore barred by operation of the doctrine of a prejudicial
question.

The deciding legal rules around which the present controversy turns are the principle of res judicata, and the doctrine of the
prejudicial question. The Court here resolves that although res judicata does not lie, a prejudicial question does exist and the
pending criminal cases must therefore be dismissed on this account.

Res judicata does not lie to

bar the prosecution of
Criminal Case Nos. 2008-
03-109 to 111 and 2001-07-
482 to 484

Res judicata literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment."72 It
rises from the underlying idea that parties should not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once, and that a right or
fact that has already been judicially determined by a competent court should be conclusive as to the parties.73 More than being a
technicality, the Court has long pronounced this as a fundamental precept designed to promote just, fair and speedy justice.

It is a fact that the transaction between private respondent and the spouses Bernardo was reduced into writing by way of a
document denominated "Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage." This document, admitted as signed by private respondent and
his wife, was duly notarized by Notary Public Pedro B. Binuya and had two instrumental witnesses. Being a notarized document, it
had in its favor the presumption of regularity, and to overcome the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more
than merely preponderant; otherwise the document should be upheld.

Finally, petitioner's submission that it must be allowed to present new evidence in order to establish the allegation of forgery which
was already conclusively found as without basis in Civil Case No. 2001-09-135, is to completely render nugatory the very premise of
a prejudicial question, for one, and the value of finality of judgments, for another.

Chiefly, the doctrine of a prejudicial question serves the following purposes: (i) to avoid multiplicity of suits; (ii) avoid unnecessary
litigation; (iii) avoid conflicting decisions; (iv) safeguard the rights of the accused; and (v) unclog the courts' dockets.115 Therefore, if
petitioner is allowed to effectively relitigate a point of prejudicial fact already tried and found by another court in a civil case, and
which has, in this case, already attained finality, then the above purposes of the doctrine of a prejudicial question will be wholly
defeated.

To be sure, the Court is not unmindful of the fact that there may have been failures on the discharge of proof of the plaintiffs in Civil
Case No. 2001-09-135. However, the Court cannot turn away from the pivotal fact that the said civil case already held as unfounded
the very same allegation of forgery that the pending criminal cases seek to prove. What's more, said factual finding in the Civil Case
No. 2001-09-135 had already obtained finality, when the decision of the RTC therein became final with the CA's Resolution dated
October 26, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV No. 00990.

Unfortunately for petitioner's cause, therefore, the Court finds no outweighing benefit in overturning the finality of RTC-Branch 9's
decision in Civil Case No. 2001-09-135, the core finding of which predisposes the Court now to dismiss the pending criminal cases.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated April 27, 2015 and Resolution dated September 23,
2015 of the Court of Appeals Former Eighteenth Division in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 01796 are
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that the Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City in Criminal Case Nos.
2008-03-109 to 111 against respondent Robert Lastrilla, and Criminal Case Nos. 2001-07-482 to 484 against respondent Camilo
Camenforte are AFFIRMED by virtue of the existence of a prejudicial question.

SO ORDERED.
[ G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021 ]

LUISITO G. PULIDO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

HERNANDO, J.:

May an accused indicted for Bigamy be exculpated on the basis of the judicial declaration of nullity of his first or second marriage?

Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 are the March 17, 2015 Decision2 and the August 18, 2015 Resolution3 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33008 which, affirmed with modification the June 22, 2009 Decision4 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 275 of Las Piñas City in Criminal Case No. 08-0166 which found petitioner Luisito G. Pulido (Pulido) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Bigamy.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

In its June 22, 2009 Decision,13 the trial court convicted petitioner of Bigamy and acquitted Baleda.

In so ruling, the RTC dismissed Pulido's claim that both his marriages are void. As to the first marriage, the trial court noted that the
certifications issued by the Civil Registrar merely proved that the marriage license and marriage application could not be found, not
that they never existed, or were never issued. It held that the marriage certificate which reflected on its face the marriage license
number of Pulido and Arcon's marriage has a higher probative value than the certifications issued by the Civil Registrar.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

Pulido appealed his conviction to the appellate court on the ground that the first element of the crime, i.e., the subsistence of a valid
marriage, was absent. Pulido maintained that his first marriage to Arcon is void ab initio for lack of a marriage license while his
marriage with Baleda is also void since there was no marriage ceremony performed. In any case, his marriage with Baleda has
already been judicially declared as void ab initio even before the filing of the Information for Bigamy against him and Baleda with the
trial court.

Summary:

To summarize and for future guidance, the parties are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a
void ab initio first and subsequent marriages in order to raise it as a defense in a bigamy case. The same rule now applies to
all marriages celebrated under the Civil Code and the Family Code. Article 40 of the Family Code did not amend Article 349 of the
RPC, and thus, did not deny the accused the right to collaterally attack the validity of a void ab initio marriage in the criminal
prosecution for bigamy.

However, if the first marriage is merely voidable, the accused cannot interpose an annulment decree as a defense in the criminal
prosecution for bigamy since the voidable first marriage is considered valid and subsisting when the second marriage was
contracted. The crime of bigamy, therefore, is consummated when the second marriage was celebrated during the subsistence of
the voidable first marriage. The same rule applies if the second marriage is merely considered as voidable.

To our mind, it is time to abandon the earlier precedents and adopt a more liberal view that a void ab initio marriage can be used as
a defense in bigamy even without a separate judicial declaration of absolute nullity. The accused may present testimonial or
documentary evidence such as the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or subsequent void ab initio marriages in
the criminal prosecution for bigamy. The said view is more in accord with the retroactive effects of a void ab initio marriage, the
purpose of and legislative intent behind Article 40 of the Family Code, and the rule on statutory construction of penal laws.
Therefore, the absence of a "prior valid marriage" and the subsequent judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage,
Pulido is hereby acquitted from the crime of Bigamy charged against him.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The March 17, 2015 Decision and August 18, 2015
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33008 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Luisito G. Pulido
is ACQUITTED.

Let entry of judgment be issued.

SO ORDERED.
[ G.R. No. 254564. July 26, 2022 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. ERICK MONTIERRO Y VENTOCILLA, RESPONDENT.

To summarize the foregoing discussion, the following guidelines shall be observed in plea bargaining in drugs cases:
1.Offers for plea bargaining must be initiated in writing by way of a formal written motion filed by the accused in court.

2. The lesser offense which the accused proposes to plead guilty to must necessarily be included in the offense
charged.1a⍵⍴h!1

3. Upon receipt of the proposal for plea bargaining that is compliant with the provisions of the Plea Bargaining Framework
in Drugs Cases, the judge shall order that a drug dependency assessment be administered. If the accused admits drug
use, or denies it but is found positive after a drug dependency test, then he/she shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation
for a period of not less than six (6) months. Said period shall be credited to his/her penalty and the period of his/her after-
care and follow-up program if the penalty is still unserved. If the accused is found negative for drug use/dependency, then
he/she will be released on time served, otherwise, he/she will serve his/her sentence in jail minus the counselling period
at rehabilitation center.

4. As a rule, plea bargaining requires the mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the approval of the
court. Regardless of the mutual agreement of the parties, the acceptance of the offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is
not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court.

a. Though the prosecution and the defense may agree to enter into a plea bargain, it does not follow that the
courts will automatically approve the proposal. Judges must still exercise sound discretion in granting or
denying plea bargaining, taking into account the relevant circumstances, including the character of the
accused.

5. The court shall not allow plea bargaining if the objection to the plea bargaining is valid and supported by evidence to
the effect that:

a. the offender is a recidivist, habitual offender, known in the community as a drug addict and a troublemaker,
has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been charged many times; or

b. when the evidence of guilt is strong.

6. Plea bargaining in drugs cases shall not be allowed when the proposed plea bargain does not conform to the Court-
issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.

7. Judges may overrule the objection of the prosecution if it is based solely on the ground that the accused's plea
bargaining proposal is inconsistent with the acceptable plea bargain under any internal rules or guidelines of the DOJ,
though in accordance with the plea bargaining framework issued by the Court, if any

8. If the prosecution objects to the accused's plea bargaining proposal due to the circumstances enumerated in item no.
5, the trial court is mandated to hear the prosecution's objection and rule on the merits thereof. If the trial court finds the
objection meritorious, it shall order the continuation of the criminal proceedings.

9. If an accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under RA No. 9165, other than for illegal drug trafficking or
pushing under Section 5 in relation to Section 24 thereof, then the law on probation shall apply.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 1, 2020 and the Resolution dated November 26, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 158032 and the Decision dated February 27, 2020 and Resolution dated October 27, 2020 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 158301 are SET ASIDE.

The respective cases of Cypher Baldadera y Pelagio and Erick Montierro y Ventocilla are REMANDED to the court of
origin to determine: (1) whether the evidence of guilt is strong; and (2) whether Baldadera and Montierro are recidivists,
habitual offenders, known in the community as drug addicts and troublemakers, have undergone rehabilitation but had a
relapse, or have been charged many times.

Furthermore, Baldadera and Montierro are ORDERED to submit to a drug dependency test pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-
16-SC.

The letter dated July 5, 2021 of the Philippine Judges Association and the memorandum dated October 8, 2021 from the
Court Administrator are hereby NOTED.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Solicitor General, the Office of the Secretary of Justice, the
Office of the Prosecutor General, the Public Attorney's Office, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the
Court Administrator for their guidance and information.

SO ORDER.
[ G.R. No. 236290, January 20, 2021 ]

JOURNEY KENNETH ASA Y AMBULO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; RESPONDENT.

DELOS SANTOS, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision2 dated August
30, 2017 and the Resolution3 dated December 13, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CR No. 39019, which affirmed the
Decision4 dated November 12, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite, Branch 21 in Criminal Case No. 8293-11,
finding Journey Kenneth Asa y Ambulo (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Intimidation of
Persons.

Antecedents

In an Information dated January 25, 2010 filed before the RTC, petitioner was charged with the crime of Robbery under Article 293
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 30th day of December 2010, in the City of Dasmariņas, Philippines, the above-named accused, with intent [to]
gain and by the use of intimidation, to wit: that said accused will expose publicly the memory card containing the intimate
relationship between the complainant Erica Dela Cruz Varias and her fiance, thereby causing fear upon said the complainant of
being exposed to public ridicule and humiliation, by did then and there unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away cash
money in the amount of Php5,000.00 belonging to and owned by said Joyce Erica DelaCruz Varias, without her consent, to the
damage and prejudice of the said offended party in the amount aforementioned.

Ruling of the RTC

In a Decision14 dated November 12, 2015, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, ruling
that all the elements of Robbery by means of Intimidation of Persons were present. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the CA

In the now assailed Decision15 dated August 30, 2017, the CA affirmed with the modification the Decision of the RTC. The CA
agreed with the RTC that petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery by means of Intimidation of Persons under Article
293 of the RPC.

The Issue

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA committed a reversible error in affirming the RTC's Decision convicting
petitioner of the crime ofRobbery with Intimidation of Persons.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is not meritorious. The Court stressed in Cu v. Ventura:

The Rules of Court requires that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45. This Court is not a trier of
facts. It will not entertain questions of fact as the factual findings of the appellate courts are "final, binding[,] or conclusive on the
parties and upon this [c]ourt" when supported by substantial evidence. Factual findings of the appellate courts will not be reviewed
nor disturbed on appeal to this court.

Relatedly, and even if the Court is to review the testimony of private complainant, she did not make contradictory and inconsistent
statements on the fact that petitioner demanded from her P5,000.00 in exchange of her private photos and so as not to post the
same publicly on Facebook. As explained, she refused to accede to the original demand of petitioner to have sex and offered money
instead in the amount of P5,000.00. Nonetheless, the acceptance of petitioner of the money effectively amended his demand into a
monetary one. Thus, it was not entirely inconsistent or contradictory at all for private complainant to say that she counter-offered to
give petitioner P5,000.00 instead of having sex with him while also saying that petitioner demanded P5,000.00 from her. At any rate,
even if the Court is to consider the statements of private complainant to be inconsistent, the same only refers to a minor detail,
which will not impinge on the integrity of private complainant's testimony in its material whole. As astutely observed by the OSG, the
issue of whether the amount of P5,000.00 was offered or demanded by petitioner is irrelevant in the prosecution against him for the
crime of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons. It does not change the fact that unlawful taking occurred as a result of petitioner's use
of intimidation on private complainant. As the Court consistently held, "[i]nconsistencies on minor details do not impair the credibility
of the witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant."26 Such
inconsistencies reinforce, rather than weaken, credibility.27

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 30, 2017 and the Resolution dated December 13, 2017 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39019, affirming the Decision dated November 12, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Imus,
Cavite, Branch 21, in Criminal Case No. 8293-11 finding petitioner Journey Kenneth Asay Ambulo guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
[ G.R. No. 246466, January 26, 2021 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYMAR MASILANG Y LACISTE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DECISION

PERALTA, C.J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated July 27, 2018, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09416, affirming with
modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gapan City, Branch 34, Nueva Ecija, which convicted accused-
appellant Reymar Masilang y Laciste of the crime of murder and imposed on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Accused-appellant Masilang was charged with the murder of Rose Clarita A. Yuzon (Rose Yuzon) on July 26, 2015 in an
Information2 which reads:

That on the 26th day of July 2015, at Brgy. Mangino, in the City of Gapan, Province of Nueva Ecija, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being armed with a bolo, with intent to kill, qualified by evident
premeditation as the attack was contrived and taking advantage of the minority of the victim and treachery, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of ROSE CLARITA YUZON Y
ADALLA, a minor 17 years old, as follows: while the victim was inside the cemetery with the accused and while being blind-folded,
and her back was turned against the accused, unarmed and completely unaware that she will be the subject of an attack by the
accused, thereby, placing said victim in no position to defend herself from the sudden and unexpected attack, suddenly was
attacked by the accused with the use of the said bolo by hacking the victim several times, hitting the latter on different parts of her
body and banging her head in the steel gate, thereby inflicting upon her person mortal wounds which directly caused her death, to
the damage and prejudice of the family of said victim.

As regards the award of damages, the Court of Appeals correctly rectified the trial court's failure to award damages to the heirs of
the victim because of the separate affidavits of desistance42 dated December 30, 2015 and February 11, 2016 executed by the
victim's parents, Juanestor and Rosalia Yuzon. The affidavits of desistance both stated that Juanestor and Rosalia Yuzon were
desisting from continuing with the case against accused-appellant upon knowing the whole story about the death of their daughter
and the filing of the case against appellant was due to a misunderstanding of what truly happened. Rosalia Yuzon also authorized
her husband to enter into an agreement on the civil aspect of the case, since she could not attend the hearings of the case on
February 2 and 12, 2016, because she was scheduled to leave the country on February 16, 2016.43 However, the defense failed to
present any of the affiants as witness; hence, no probative value can be given to the said affidavits.44 Significantly, the victim's
parents were not eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime. Moreover, there is no evidence on record of the alleged agreement
to settle the case for P100,000.00. It must be stressed that executing an affidavit of desistance is not one of the modes of
extinguishing criminal liability under Article 8945 of the RPC. Private complainants are not allowed to compromise or to waive the
criminal aspect of a case,46 which affects public interest. As the accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder, he is civilly liable for indemnification for consequential damages caused to the victim's family. Every person
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.47 Thus, when death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded:
(1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary
damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.48

In accordance with People v. Jugueta,49 the Court of Appeals correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim: (1) civil indemnity ex
delicto in the amount of P75,000.00 for the death of the victim; (2) moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00 for mental anguish
and wounded feelings suffered by the heirs of the victim; and (3) exemplary damages of P75,000.00 as deterrent from similar
conduct in the future.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 27, 2018, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09416,
finding accused-appellant Reymar Masilang y Laciste guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder is hereby AFFIRMED.
Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Rose Clarita A.
Yuzon P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. All damages
awarded shall be subject to an interest of six percent (6%) per annum to be computed from the date of finality of this Decision until
fully paid.

SO ORDERED.