UNDER THE LAW

People v bolongkoy
G.R. No. 251741
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/251741.pdf

cajatol v people
G.R. No. 259511
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/259511.pdf

domingo v ramos
G.R. No. 257136
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/257136.pdfotion for
RULE 65
domingo v ramos G.R. No. 257136
 FACTS
• Petitioner-Wife (Mary Ann Domingo)
• 12:30 AM
• Gunshot
• Luis (Husband) and Gabriel (Son) - Deceased
• 4:00 AM – no more yellow caution tape
• Stairs covered with blood
• Retrieval of Shells, Bullets, empty transparent
sachet and food receptacles.
• Missing : Wallet, Bracelet, Watch, Clothes,
Phones, Charger and Uniform.
 Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for the Military and Other
Law Enforcement Office
(OMBMOLEO) Ruling
• Finding probable cause for two (2) counts of
Violation of Article 249 of the RPC against
respondents P/MSGT. VIRGILIO Q. CERVANTES,
P/CPL. ARNEL C. DE GUZMAN, P/CPL.
JOHNSTON M. ALACRE, and P/CPL. ARTEMIO
S. SAGUROS, JR.

• It further held that the criminal complaint against

Duterte, Aniway, Olvefia, Sucgang, Saludes,
Villanueva, Ramos, De Leon, Chua, Daniel,
Dumaguing, and Harlem, should likewise be
dismissed as the records were bereft of any details as
to the acts imputed to them.
 PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

• Petitioner submits that the OMB-MOLEO acted

with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction when it
• (1) ruled that there is probable cause that the
crime of homicide was committed in the killings of
her husband and son, instead of murder, despite
the presence of the qualifying circumstances of
treachery and abuse of superior strength and
• (2) absolved exonerated-respondents from any
criminal liability.
(pg 10, domingo v ramos G.R. No. 257136 )
Court’s Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit.
Imposition of Civil
Indemnity even if
restitution were
satisfied:
cajatol v people
G.R. No. 259511
 Facts
• Complainant (Dr. Espinoza) hired the accused (Cajatol) as a stay out
errand boy.
• The former treated the latter as a family member.
• The latter was also hired as all around janitor in the petitioner’s office
• On May 30, 2015, complainant left for Manila to attend her daughter.
• A day before departure, she requested the accused to assist her in
bringing home some items from her office.
• On May 31, 2015, she returned home and found out that her doors were
open, window panes were removed, side wall of the kitchen were
forcibly opened, and two cabinets were broken into and some items
were missing.
• Complainant reported the incident to Baranggay and to the Police
Station.
• Day after, Complainant proceeded to her office where she met the
accused who appeared ill-at-ease and speechless.
• She instructed the latter for his daily routine but never return back to
the office.
• Complainant called the Aunt and asked for the accused’s whereabouts.
• Aunt visited the dormitory of the accused and found him including the
stolen items.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
FOUND THAT THE
ACCUSED:

Is criminally liable for ROBBERY under Art.

299 of RPC
And
Is hereby ordered to indemnify (civil indemnity)
the total value of the items taken from the
complainant in the amount of Php 325,000
 Is the Civil Indemnity
Amounting to Php325,000
proper?
 Court Ruling
• This is erroneous. Civil indemnity ex delicto is "the indemnity
authorized in our criminal law for the offended party, in the
amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and apart
from other proven actual damages, which itself is equivalent to
actual or compensatory damages in civil law.“ It is intended as a
kind of monetary restitution or compensation done to the victim
"for the damage or infraction that was done to the latter by the
accused."

• Undeniably, while all persons criminally liable are also civilly

liable, the trial court does not have absolute discretion in what
may be awarded. Under Article 105 of the RPC, restitution of
the things subject of the crime must be made whenever possible.
If restitution is not possible, reparations may be awarded based
on the prices of the items and the special sentimental value to
the injured party, if any. Additionally, indemnity may be
awarded for any consequential damages suffered by the victim,
their family, or by third persons. 60 In all cases, evidence must
still be adduced to prove the extent of damages suffered by the
injured party.
When the chain of custody
was not absolutely complied

(Ra 9165)
People v bolongkoy
G.R. No. 251741
 Facts
• PO3 Avila and the rest of the team then
proceeded to the Provincial Intelligence
Branch/Special Operations Group (PIB/SOG) of
the Negros Oriental Provincial Police Office
(After the successful Buy Bust Operation).
There, he conducted the inventory of the items
which he signed as seizing officer, together with
the insulating witnesses Kagawad Zema, media
practitioner Neil Rio, and DOJ Representative
Benlot. After the inventory, he prepared a letter
request for qualitative examination and turned it
over to PO3 Manaban at the crime laboratory,
together with the seized items. 18
 Motion for Reconsideration of the
Accused-Appellant
• In his Motion for Reconsideration38 dated
June 17, 2022, accused appellant pleads anew
for his acquittal. He assails the regularity of
the buy bust operation, asserting that the
chain of custody was breached and the
subsequent presence of the required
witnesses during the inventory did not cure
the irregularities as the integrity of the seized
items had already been compromised at the
inception when the insulating witnesses were
not present at the site of arrest and were
merely called when the inventory was done
at the police station.
Issue : Was there a breach
of Chain of Custody under
RA 9165?
 Court Ruling
• We grant reconsideration

• In the recent case of People v. Casa, the Court settled

that, in case of warrantless seizures, the inventory and
taking of photographs generally must be conducted at the
place of seizure. The exception to this rule-where the
physical inventory and taking of photographs of the
seized item may be conducted at the nearest police station
or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer or
team-is when the police officers provide justification that:

• ( 1) it is not practicable to conduct the same at the place

of seizure; or
• (2) the items seized are threatened by immediate or
extreme danger at the place of seizure.