ATTY. BRIAN GUERRERO (SPEAKER) Cognitive Jurisprudence

CERTIFIED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SPECIALIST (CCJS)
Cognitive Jurisprudence
Prepared by:
Atty. Brian B. Guerrero

Bachelor of Science in Criminology (Cum Laude)
Registered Criminologist (RCrim)
Master in Public Administration (MPA)
Juris Doctor (JD)
Member of Philippine Bar (IBP)
Former Dean, College of Criminology, Universidad de Manila (UDM)
Awarded as Outstanding Criminology Book Author of 2022
(Public Defender) Public Attorney’s Office
The presenter and IADALE Learning Center do not take credit for
production or ownership of all the photos and SC Decisions used in
this presentation.
Credit and recognition belong to the rightful owners!
Jurisprudence
From the Latin term juris prudentia,
which means "the study, knowledge,
or science of law”
Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Guerrero
Three Branches of Philippine Government

Guerrero

Guerrero

Guerrero

Guerrero

Guerrero

Guerrero
Executive Legislative Judiciary
Executive powers, Power to propose, Responsible for
including the amend, and pass interpreting laws
execution and laws, as well as to and ensuring their
enforcement of exercise oversight constitutionality.
laws, foreign over the Executive
relations, and the Branch. It exercises judicial
administration of review, settles
the bureaucracy. disputes between
branches of
government, and
safeguards the rule
of law.
Guerrero
Principle of Separation of Powers
The purpose of this separation of powers is
“to prevent concentration of authority in
one person or group of persons that might
lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its
exercise to the detriment of republican
institutions.”

Guerrero
Significance of Jurisprudence in
Criminal Justice
Jurisprudence will guide us the real-life

application of the provision of laws.

Guerrero
Survey of Supreme Court Decisions (Jurisprudence)
relevant to Criminal Law, Procedure, Evidence and
Human Rights

Guerrero
PASCASIO DUROPAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 230825 / June 10, 2020
Warrantless Arrest,
Searches and Seizures

Guerrero
PASCASIO DUROPAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 230825 / June 10, 2020
An in flagrante delicto arrest that does not

comply with the overt act test is constitutionally
infirm. Two elements must concur, the person to
be arrested must execute an overt act indicating
that he or she has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
and that such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer.

Guerrero
 [F]or a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be

affected, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he [or
she] has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer.
 Failure to comply with the overt act test renders an in

flagrante delicto arrest constitutionally infirm. Both
elements that justify an in flagrante delicto arrest were
absent in this case.
Guerrero
Article 125 Article 124 Article 267 or 268 Article 269

Delay in delivery Arbitrary Illegal detention Unlawful Arrest
of detained detention
person to proper
judicial authority
Failure to Warrantless Arresting officers are the arrest is for the
judicially charge arrest was not among those purpose of delivering
within the without any whose official duty the person arrested to
prescribed period legal ground gives them the the proper authorities,
renders authority to arrest but it is done without
any reasonable
ground or any of the
circumstances for a
valid warrantless
arrest

Guerrero
 A public officer whose official duty does not involve the authority to
arrest may be liable for illegal detention. Illegal detention, defined
under Articles 267 and 268 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes
"any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any
other manner deprive him [or her] of his [or her] liberty.
 A public officer who has no duty to arrest or detain a person is
deemed a private individual, in contemplation of Articles 267 and
268 of the Revised Penal Code. Even when a public officer has the
legal duty to arrest or detain another, but he or she fails to show
legal grounds for detention, "the public officer is deemed to have
acted in a private capacity and is considered a 'private individual.

Guerrero
 Kidnapping is not part of the functions of a soldier. Even if

a public officer has the legal duty to detain a person, the
public officer must be able to show the existence of legal
grounds for the detention. Without these legal grounds,
the public officer is deemed to have acted in a private
capacity and is considered a "private individual." The
public officer becomes liable for kidnapping and serious
illegal detention punishable by reclusion perpetua, not
with arbitrary detention punished with significantly lower
penalties.

Guerrero
 The trial court denied the motion to withdraw. It

examined the Pre Operation/Coordination Sheet
presented by the defense and found that it was
neither authenticated nor its signatories presented
in court. The defense failed to show proof of a
"legitimate police operation" and, based
on Santiano, the accused were deemed to have
acted in a private capacity in detaining the victims.
This Court affirmed the conviction of the police
officers for kidnapping.

Guerrero
 Itis not impossible for a public officer to be charged with

and be convicted of kidnapping
as Santiano and Trestiza illustrated. SSgt. Osorio's claim
that he was charged with an "inexistent crime" because
he is a public officer is, therefore, incorrect.
 Thus, public officers who have no duty to arrest or detain

a person, or those who may have such authority but fail to
justify the arrest or detention, may be indicted for
kidnapping or serious illegal detention or slight illegal
detention.

Guerrero
 Application of actual force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint or a
formal declaration of arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an intent on
the part of one of the parties to arrest the other and an intent on the part of the
other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary.
 Although denominated as requests, invitations from high-ranking officials to a

hearing in a military camp were deemed arrests. This Court characterized them
as authoritative commands which may not be reasonably expected to be defied.
 When the accused is in an environment made hostile by the presence and

actuations of law enforcers where it can be reasonably inferred that they had no
choice except to willingly go with them, then there is an arrest. The subjective
view of the accused will be relevant—which includes among others—their station
in life and degree of education.

Guerrero
 Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that
he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of
an offense. It is effected by an actual restraint of the
person to be arrested or by that person's voluntary
submission to the custody of the one making the arrest.
Neither the application of actual force, manual touching
of the body, or physical restraint, nor a formal
declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that there
be an intention on the part of one of the parties to
arrest the other, and that there be an intent on the part
of the other to submit, under the belief and impression
that submission is necessary.

Guerrero
 For valid warrantless arrests under Section 5(a) and (b),
the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of
the offense. The difference is that under Section 5(a),
the arresting officer must have personally witnessed the
crime; meanwhile, under Section 5(b), the arresting
officer must have had probable cause to believe that the
person to be arrested committed an offense.
 Nonetheless, whether under Section 5(a) or (b), the

lawful arrest generally precedes, or is substantially
contemporaneous, with the search.

Guerrero
 In direct contrast with warrantless searches incidental to
a lawful arrest, stop and frisk searches are conducted to
deter crime. People v. Cogaed underscored that they are
necessary for law enforcement, though never at the
expense of violating a citizen's right to privacy.
 "Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry

searches) are necessary for law enforcement. That is,
law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to
prevent the commission of offenses. However, this should
be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of
citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the
Constitution.
Guerrero
 The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness"
present in the situation where the police officer finds
himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on
the experience of the police officer. Experienced police
officers have personal experience dealing with criminals
and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the
ability to discern — based on facts that they themselves
observe — whether an individual is acting in a suspicious
manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the
police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must
observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit
act.

Guerrero
 Posadas v. Court of Appeals saw this Court uphold the warrantless
search and seizure done as a valid stop and frisk search. There,
the accused's suspicious actions, coupled with his attempt to flee
when the police officers introduced themselves to him, amounted
to a reasonable suspicion that he was concealing something illegal
in his buri bag. However, Posadas failed to elaborate on or
describe what the police officers observed as the suspicious act
that led them to search the accused's buri bag.
 Manalili and Solayao upheld the warrantless searches conducted

because "the police officers[,] using their senses[,] observed facts
that led to the suspicion." Furthermore, the totality of the
circumstances in each case provided sufficient and genuine reason
for them to suspect that something illicit was afoot.

Guerrero
 For a valid stop and frisk search, the arresting officer must have
had personal knowledge of facts, which would engender a
reasonable degree of suspicion of an illicit act. Cogaed
emphasized that anything less than the arresting officer's personal
observation of a suspicious circumstance as basis for the search is
an infringement of the "basic right to security of one's person and
effects."
 Malacat instructed that for a stop and frisk search to be valid,

mere suspicion is not enough; there should be a genuine reason, as
determined by the police officer, to warrant a belief that the
person searched was carrying a weapon. In short, the totality of
circumstances should result in a genuine reason to justify a stop
and frisk search.

Guerrero
 Chief Justice Bersamin cautioned against warrantless
searches based on just one (1) suspicious circumstance.
There should have been "more than one seemingly
innocent activity, which, taken together, warranted a
reasonable inference of criminal activity" to uphold the
validity of a stop and frisk search.
 Accordingly, to sustain the validity of a stop and frisk

search, the arresting officer should have personally
observed two (2) or more suspicious circumstances, the
totality of which would then create a reasonable
inference of criminal activity to compel the arresting
officer to investigate further.
Guerrero
 We are not averse to the aggressive protection of our environment,
especially of our diminishing mangroves. The zeal displayed by the
accused as barangay officials to comply with their duties is, to some
degree, commendable. However, there is a delicate line between
zeal in enforcement and disregard for the fundamental rights of our
citizens. Unfortunately, the accused clearly and unequivocally
crossed that line.
 Harvesting nipa indeed may be a leading cause for the deterioration

of our mangroves. Both the offended parties and the accused
however are fully aware that for many of our citizens in rural areas,
the humble nipa is still the affordable option to build their shelters
that will protect many of those who still live in poverty against the
harsh realities of our steadily deteriorating climate conditions.

Guerrero
 It is the poor who will harvest the nipa, not the rich.
 Therefore, our laws and regulations are humane enough to grant

licenses to some associations allowing them to harvest sustainably
and always mindful of the carrying capacity of our shared ecology.
 The accused should have been mindful of this reality. After all,
they are from the same locality. Their restraint could have been
an expressive gesture of social justice. As public officers, inquiry
into their authority would have been sufficient. Accosting the
offended parties was uncalled for under the circumstances.
Justice is better served. often by tempering it with mercy and a
humble dose of common sense.
 We affirm their conviction.
Guerrero
People v. Gerald Flores G.R. No. 262686
October 11, 2023
Drug Related Case

SC Acquits Accused in Drug Case for Law Enforcers’ Failure
to Comply with Mandatory Witness Rule

Guerrero
Without the insulating presence of the
mandatory witnesses during the seizure and
marking of evidence in warrantless drug
arrests, the evils of switching, planting, or
contamination of the evidence negates the
integrity and credibility of the seized items,
casting reasonable doubt on the guilt of the
accused.

Guerrero
Flores and Francisco, along with Louie
Truelen (Truelen), were charged in 2016 for
the sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu following a buy-bust operation
conducted by the Quezon City Police
Department (QCPD).

Guerrero
 The evidence for the prosecution included a Chain of
Custody Form and Inventory of Seized/Confiscated
Item/Property Form accomplished by the arresting
officers. At the bottom of the latter form, appear the
names and signatures of the following insulating
witnesses: Jun E. Tobias (Tobias), a senior reporter for
the media outlet Hirit/Saksi, and Nelson N. Dela Cruz
(Dela Cruz), a barangay kagawad. The press
identification card of Tobias was also attached. However,
no other document identifies Dela Cruz as kagawad.

Guerrero
 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 77 found the
accused guilty, noting that the validity of the buy-bust operation
was not affected by the fact that there was no preparatory
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. The
RTC also held that the police officers’ actions enjoyed the
presumption of regularity absent any showing of ill motive or
intent on the part of the police officers to illegally incriminate the
accused.
 The RTC was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the

present petition from Flores and Francisco. As to Truelen, his
criminal liability was extinguished in 2021 following his death
while in detention.

Guerrero
 In granting Flores and Francisco’s appeal, the Court
stressed the importance of complying with the
mandatory insulating witness rule under Section 21 of RA
9165, which requires the apprehending team to conduct
a physical inventory of the seized items and the
photographing of the same immediately after seizure and
confiscation, to be done in the presence of the accused,
his counsel or representative, a representative of the
Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, and an elected
public official. These witnesses shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy.

Guerrero
 The Court further held, as laid down in its 2018
ruling in People v. Tomawis, that the required
witnesses should already be physically present at
the time or near the place of apprehension—a
requirement that can easily be complied with by
the buy-bust team considering that the operation
is by nature a planned activity.

Guerrero
 The rationale, the Court said, is that “it is at the time of arrest—
or at the time of the drugs’ seizure and confiscation—that the
presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their
presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would
insulate against the police practice of planting evidence.” Indeed,
the insulating presence of such witnesses preserves an unbroken
chain of custody of the seized items, said the Court.
 The Court clarified, however, that as stated in the 2022 case of

Nisperos v. People, the mandatory insulating witnesses are not
required to witness the arrest and seizure or confiscation of the
drugs or drug paraphernalia but need only be readily available to
witness the immediately ensuing inventory.

Guerrero
 Applying the foregoing to the present case, the Court
found there is uncertainty regarding the time of the
actual conduct of the inventory and the presence of the
mandatory insulating witnesses due to the deficiencies in
the inventory form.
 Further, admissions from the police officers show that

the insulating witnesses were not readily available for
performance of their statutory functions, since it took
them a significant amount of time to arrive at the police
station.

Guerrero
 The Court also ruled that it was incumbent upon the prosecution
to prove the identities and credentials of the mandatory insulating
witnesses, along with their presence at the inventory of the
confiscated items.
 However, there is nothing from the records that could establish
that Dela Cruz was a barangay kagawad. As to Tobias, there is a
glaring discrepancy between the signature of the media
representative on the inventory form and that on the media
representative’s presented identification card. Finally, the police
officers themselves admitted that no other proof of the said
witnesses’ presence during inventory is present in the record,
aside from their supposed signatures on the inventory form.

Guerrero
 Thus, due to the lack of conformity with the
relevant rules on evidence, including the failure
to prove the basic fact of at least one mandatory
insulating witness having acted as an elected
public official by witnessing the inventory and
signing the inventory form in his official capacity,
the prosecution failed to prove the key element
of compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, which
is deemed included as an element of any relevant
offense in the said law.

Guerrero
 Overall, given the uncertainty as to the actual time of the conduct
of the inventory, the unexplained and significant tardiness of the
supposed insulating witnesses, and the magnified uncertainty of
their actual participation vis-a-vis the preparation of the inventory
form, it is as if there were no mandatory insulating witnesses at
all, said the Court.
 While non-compliance will not automatically render the seizure of

the items void and invalid, this is true only when (1) there is a
justifiable ground for the non-compliance and (2) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

Guerrero
 In the present case, however, no justifications were
offered by the police officers and the prosecution as to
why the inventory form was prima facie accomplished at
around the same time the buy-bust operation was about
to commence, or as to why the supposed insulating
witnesses were late for their witnessing of the inventory,
or even why the identities and credentials of the persons
who appeared and presented themselves as the
mandatory witnesses were not subject to a simple
screening process.

Guerrero
 The Court also warned that there exists a serious danger
for law enforcement officers and personnel to feign
compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 by “simply pulling
any Tom, Dick or Harry off from the street and coercing
said person to sign the inventory form without further
need to adduce proof of identity or credentials. Worse
off, law enforcement officers and personnel may even
supply the names and signatures themselves and pass off
the doctored inventory form as legitimate enough to be
attached to the indictment along with other supporting
documents.”

Guerrero
 Thus, despite the “understandable deluge of drug
cases that occupy the judiciary’s dockets and
valuable time, this Court must yet again repeat
its fundamental admonition to law enforcement
agencies, prosecution offices, and especially trial
and appellate courts that they assiduously apply
all standing precedents and regulations relative
to Section 21 of RA 9165.”

Guerrero
 The Court concluded that while it remains its duty to be
the arbiter of final scrutiny when it comes to such
compliance (or lack thereof), everything begins at the
scene of the crime and the place of apprehension,
search, or seizure. “
 The frontliners of the Philippine criminal justice system
would do well to remember their important roles in the
administration of our anti-drug laws, in order that they
may see the value of their functions and duties in
keeping our streets and communities safe from the
menace of illegal substances, and that they may do their
work in strict and faithful accordance with their
mandates and their institutional principles.”
Guerrero
Tijam and Bacsid v. People G.R. No. 251732, July 10, 2023
Circumstantial Evidence,
Presumptions and Equipoise Rule
SC Reverses Conviction for Cellphone Snatching for Failure to
Prove Act of Unlawful Taking

Guerrero
An accused shall not be deprived of life
and liberty on sheer conjectures,
presumptions, or suspicions, but only on
evidence that supports a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.

Guerrero
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence
must exclude the possibility that some other
person committed the crime.
 Thus held the Supreme Court’s Third Division, in a

Decision penned by Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan granting
the petition for review on certiorari filed by Julius Enrico
Tijam (Tijam) and Kenneth Bacsid (Bacsid). The petition
challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals which had
affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
convicting Tijam and Bacsid for Theft.

Guerrero
In resolving the petition, the Court stressed
that the burden to overcome the
presumption of innocence of the accused
lies with the prosecution. Thus, evidence
for the prosecution must stand or fall on its
own weight and should not draw strength
from the weakness of the defense.

Guerrero
 The Court added that in the absence of direct evidence,
circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction
if:
(1) there is more than one circumstance;
(2) the facts from which the inferences are derived
are proven; and
(3) the combination of all circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Guerrero
 Further, the circumstances must constitute an
unbroken chain that leads to one fair and
reasonable conclusion that points to the accused,
to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person.
 The circumstances must also be consistent with

the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and
inconsistent with any other hypothesis except
that of guilt, said the Court.

Guerrero
 On the lower courts’ finding that Tijam’s possession of
the cellphone proves that he and Bacsid conspired to
steal it from Mugot, the Court reiterated its ruling in the
2004 case of Mabunga v. People that courts should not
indiscriminately apply presumptions in criminal cases,
including the disputable presumption under Section 3(j)
of the Rules on Evidence that a person found in
possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act.

Guerrero
 Thus, before an inference of guilt arising from possession
of recently stolen goods can be made, the following must
be proven by the prosecution:
(1) that the crime was committed;
(2) that the crime was committed recently;
(3) that the stolen property was found in possession
of the defendant; and
(4) that the defendant is unable to explain his
possession satisfactorily.

Guerrero
 Applying this to Tijam and Bacsid, the Court held
that Tijam satisfactorily explained that he saw
the cellphone lying on the pavement, and thus
picked it up. “Such explanation is plausible in
view of Mugot’s own narration that there was an
onslaught of passengers rushing inside the bus,
which could have caused [Mugot] to drop his
cellphone.”

Guerrero
 The Court also noted that it was not proven that Mugot
saw Tijam inside the bus or anywhere near the bus when
the cellphone was lost or stolen. Neither was it
established that Bacsid had possession of the cellphone.
 “Tijam’s possession having been explained, the legal

presumption is disputed and thus, cannot be the sole
basis for the conviction. To hold otherwise, will be a
travesty of justice as criminal convictions necessarily
require proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt,” the
Court ruled.

Guerrero
 At best, the circumstantial evidence presented merely
arouses suspicion or gives room for conjecture, which is
not sufficient to convict. Overall, the circumstances do
not constitute an unbroken chain that points to the
petitioners, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty
persons. Worse, the facts from which the inferences are
derived have not been substantially proven and fail to
engender a moral certainty of guilt. Thus, the
petitioners' constitutional presumption of innocence
must prevail.

Guerrero
 Significantly, in Mabunga v. People,39 the Court
stringently warned against the indiscriminate application
of presumptions in criminal cases:
In criminal cases, however, presumptions should

be taken with caution especially in light of serious
concerns that they might water down the requirement of
proof beyond reasonable doubt. As special
considerations must be given to the right of the accused to
be presumed innocent, there should be limits on the
use of presumptions against an accused.

Guerrero
 Although possession of stolen property within a limited
time from the commission of the theft or robbery is not
in itself a crime, it being possible to possess the same
and remain innocent, such possession may be sufficient
for the formation of an inference that the possessor is
the thief unless the evidence satisfactorily proves that
the property was acquired by the accused by legal
means.

Guerrero
 Before an inference of guilt arising from possession of recently
stolen goods can be made, however, the following basic facts need
to be proven by the prosecution: (1) that the crime was
committed; (2) that the crime was committed recently; (3) that
the stolen property was found in the possession of the defendant;
and (4) that the defendant is unable to explain his possession
satisfactorily.
 For purposes moreover of conclusively proving possession, the

following considerations have to be emphasized: (1) the possession
must be unexplained by any innocent origin; (2) the possession
must be fairly recent; and (3) the possession must be exclusive.

Guerrero
 It bears stressing that the fact of possession alone,
wholly unconnected with any other circumstances,
cannot be used as a ground to convict. Clearly, the
disputable presumption cannot prevail over the
petitioners' explanation. Tijam's possession having been
explained, the legal presumption is disputed and thus,
cannot be the sole basis for the conviction. To hold
otherwise, will be a travesty of justice as criminal
convictions necessarily require proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Guerrero
 Given that the disputable presumption relied
upon by the lower courts was sufficiently
rebutted, and that the totality of the
circumstances failed to point to Tijam and
Bacsid, to the exclusion of all others, as the
malefactors, the Court concluded that the guilt
of Tijam and Bacsid had not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt, entitling them to acquittal.

Guerrero
 The equipoise rule in criminal cases ordains that
when inculpatory facts are susceptible of two or
more interpretations, one that is consistent with
the innocence of the accused, and the other
consistent with his/her guilt, then the evidence
fails to hurdle the test of moral certainty
required to support a conviction. Consequently,
where the evidence is evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the
scales in favor of the accused.
Guerrero
Treachery /alevosia
PEOPLE v. Nady Magallano, Jr. Y FLORES et. Al.
G.R. No. 220721, December 10, 2018

Guerrero
 "The essence of treachery is the swift and
unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without
the slightest provocation on his part."
 For treachery to be appreciated as a qualifying
circumstance, two (2) things must be proven:
(1) that
during the attack, the victim could not have
defended himself or herself from the offender;
and
(2) thatthe offender deliberately chose a form of
attack which would render him or her immune
from risk or retaliation by the victim.

Guerrero
INFORMATION
 That on or about the 1st day of October 2005, in the
municipality of San Miguel, province of Bulacan, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
[abovenamed] accused, armed with a hard object and bladed
weapon and with intent to kill one [1] Ronnie Batongbakal
with evident premeditation[,] treachery[,] and conspiring
with each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously attack[,] assault, hit with a hard object[,] and
stab with the said bladed weapon they were then provided
(sic) the said Ronnie Batongbakal, hitting the latter in
different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him
serious physical injuries which directly caused his death.
Contrary to law.

Guerrero
 There is treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the
offended party might make

Guerrero
 The Court of Appeals found that treachery attended
Batongbakal's killing because accused-appellants
continued to hit him even when he was defenseless and
unable to strike back. It held:
 In this case, records show that when the victim was

already on the ground, appellant Magallano who
deliberately armed himself with a piece of wood
continued to hit and maul the victim. At this juncture,
the victim, being completely helpless and unarmed[,]
certainly had no effective opportunity to defend himself
and to strike back at his assailant.

Guerrero
 Moreover, when the victim was already crawling,
appellants further pursued the victim by throwing and
hitting the latter with big stones and if only to ensure
the success of their criminal design, appellant Tapar also
cornered the victim to prevent him from crawling.
Clearly, from all indications, appellants consciously and
deliberately adopted their mode of attack to ensure the
accomplishment of their criminal objective without risk
to themselves which the victim might make.

Guerrero
The Court of Appeals is mistaken.
 In People v. Abadies, this Court held that "[t]he essence

of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the
unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his
part." It further provided that two (2) conditions must be
established by the prosecution for a killing to be properly
qualified by treachery to murder: "(1) that at the time of
the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself[;] and (2) that the offender consciously adopted
the particular means, method[,] or form of attack
employed by him.

Guerrero
 The prosecution failed to show the presence of treachery
as a qualifying circumstance. Pineda's testimony began
when accused-appellants were in the middle of mauling the
victim, and there was no testimony to prove that the victim
did not provoke them or expect their attack.
 The prosecution did not present evidence that would show
that accused-appellants reflected on and decided on the
form of their attack to secure an unfair advantage over the
victim. Even when accused-appellants returned after
chasing the screaming woman and hit the crawling victim
with rocks, treachery is still absent. This is because the
second attack was not a surprise, as shown by the victim's
attempt to go back to the safety of his own house.
Guerrero
People v. Tigle stated that for treachery to qualify a killing
to murder, it must be present at the inception of the
attack:
 For treachery to be appreciated, it must exist at the
inception of the attack, and if absent and the attack
continues, even if present at the subsequent stage,
treachery is not a qualifying or generic aggravating
circumstance. The prosecution must adduce conclusive
proof as to the manner in which the altercation started
and resulted in the death of the victim. If the
prosecution fails to discharge its burden, the crime
committed is homicide and not murder.

Guerrero
 The prosecution thus only proved that accused-
appellants committed homicide, not murder.
Nonetheless, the conspiracy between accused-appellants
was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "[a]

conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it." Conspiracy may be proven by
direct or circumstantial evidence that show a "common
design or purpose" to commit the crime.

Guerrero
 In the case at bar, conspiracy was manifestly shown through the
concerted and overt acts of appellants which demonstrated their
actual cooperation in the pursuit of a common purpose and design.
The trial court correctly observed that conspiracy consisted the
following acts of accused-appellants:
 (1) while Magallano was hitting the victim with a [dos por dos], Tapar
was watching them;
 (2) they both chased Cristina Varilla;
 (3) they both returned and continued mauling the victim;
 [4] Magallano threw stones at the victim while Tapar cornered the
victim to prevent him from crawling;
 [5] they helped each other in loading the victim into the tricycle; and
 [6] Magallano drove the tricycle while Tapar stayed with the victim
inside the tricycle as they fled from the crime scene.

Guerrero
ARTICLE 249. Homicide. -Any person who,
not falling within the provisions of Article
246 shall kill another without the
attendance of any of the circumstances
enumerated in the next preceding article,
shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be
punished by reclusion temporal.

Guerrero
 WHEREFORE, the December 12, 2014 Decision of
the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED. Accused-
appellants Nady F. Magallano, Jr. and Romeo C.
Tapar are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code.

Guerrero
Rape through sexual assault
RICHARD RICALDE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 211002 / January 21, 2015

Guerrero
INFORMATION
 That on or about January 31, 2002, in the Municipality of
Sta. Rosa, Province of Laguna, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Richard
Ricalde, prompted with lewd design, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously inserting [sic] his
penis into the anus of XXX who was then ten (10) years of
age against his will and consent, to his damage and
prejudice.
 CONTRARY TO LAW.

Guerrero
The facts as found by the lower courts follow
 On January 30, 2002, XXX requested his mother to pick up Ricalde
at McDonald’s Bel-Air, Sta. Rosa at past 8:00 p.m.9 Ricalde, then
31 years old,10 is a distant relative and textmate of XXX, then 10
years old.11
 After dinner, XXX’s mother told Ricalde to spend the night at their
house as it was late.12 He slept on the sofa while XXX slept on the
living room floor.13
 It was around 2:00 a.m. when XXX awoke as "he felt pain in his
anus and stomach and something inserted in his anus."14 He saw
that Ricalde "fondled his penis."15 When Ricalde returned to the
sofa, XXX ran toward his mother’s room to tell her what
happened.16 He also told his mother that Ricalde played with his
sexual organ

Guerrero
 XXX’smother armed herself with a knife for self-defense
when she confronted Ricalde about the incident, but he
remained silent. She asked him to leave.
 XXX’s mother then accompanied XXX to the barangay hall

where they were directed to report the incident to the
Sta. Rosa police station. The police referred them to the
municipal health center for medical examination. Dr. Roy
Camarillo examined XXX and found no signs of recent
trauma in his anal orifice that was also "NEGATIVE for
[s]permatozoa."

Guerrero
 On February 4, 2002, XXX and his mother executed their
sworn statements at the Sta. Rosa police station, leading
to the criminal complaint filed against Ricalde.
 Ricalde denied the accusations. He testified that he met

XXX during the 2001 town fiesta of Calaca, Batangas and
learned that XXX’s mother is the cousin of his cousin
Arlan Ricalde. He and XXX became textmates, and XXX
invited him to his house. On January 30, 2002, XXX’s
mother picked him up to sleep at their house. He slept at
10:00 p.m. on the living room sofa while XXX slept on the
floor. He denied the alleged rape through sexual assault.

Guerrero
 The Regional Trial Court in its Decision dated
June 20, 2011 found Ricalde guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of rape through sexual assault

Guerrero
ISSUES
 Petitioner argues the existence of reasonable

doubt in his favor. First, the medico-legal
testified that he found "no physical signs or
external signs of recent trauma [in XXX’s] anus,"
or any trace of spermatozoa. He contends that
physical evidence "ranks high in [the court’s]
hierarchy of trustworthy evidence."

Guerrero
 Second, XXX did not categorically say that a penis was inserted
into his anal orifice, or that he saw a penis or any object being
inserted into his anal orifice. XXX was also able to immediately
push him away. Thus, no push and pull movement happened that
would explain XXX’s alleged stomach ache. Petitioner submits that
the alleged stomach ache was an attempt to aggravate the charge
against him.
 Petitioner argues that XXX’s inconsistent testimony raises

reasonable doubt on his guilt. XXX claimed that he immediately
pushed petitioner away, but in another instance, he testified as
follows: "I felt that he was inserting his penis inside my anus
because I was even able to hold his penis. He was also playing with
my penis." XXX also stated in his salaysay that "the penis reached
only the periphery of his anal orifice
Guerrero
 Third, XXX testified that after he had pushed
petitioner away, he saw that petitioner was
wearing pants with the zipper open. Petitioner
submits that performing anal coitus while wearing
pants with an open zipper poses a challenge —
the risk of injuring the sexual organ or having
pubic hair entangled in the zipper. Petitioner
argues that the court must consider every
circumstance favoring the innocence of an
accused.

Guerrero
 Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also
known as "instrument or object rape," "gender-free
rape," or "homosexual rape." The gravamen of rape
through sexual assault is "the insertion of the penis into
another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument
or object, into another person’s genital or anal orifice."
 Jurisprudence holds that "the findings of the trial court,

its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and
its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well
as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded
respect if not conclusive effect."

Guerrero
 The trial court found that XXX’s "straightforward,
unequivocal and convincing testimony" sufficiently
proved that petitioner committed an act of sexual
assault by inserting his penis into XXX’s anal orifice.
There was no showing of ill motive on the part of XXX to
falsely accuse petitioner. The Court of Appeals accorded
great weight to the trial court’s findings and affirmed
petitioner’s conviction.
 No cogent reason exists for this court to overturn the

lower courts’ findings.

Guerrero
 In a long line of cases, this court has given full
weight and credit to the testimonies of child
victims. Their "[y]outh and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity." XXX,
then only 10 years old, had no reason to concoct
lies against petitioner.
 This court has also held that "[l]eeway should be

given to witnesses who are minors, especially
when they are relating past incidents of abuse."

Guerrero
 Petitionercontends that XXX did not categorically say
that a penis was inserted into his anal orifice, or that he
saw a penis or any object being inserted into his anal
orifice.
 This contradicts petitioner’s earlier statement in his

appellant’s brief that "[a]lthough it is true that the
Supreme Court, in a long line of cases, did not rule out
the possibility of rape in cases where the victim
remained physically intact at the time she or he was
physically examined, still, it bears stressing that in the
instant case, the private complainant testified that the
accused-appellant’s penis fully penetrated his anus.
Guerrero
 InPeople v. Soria, this court discussed that a victim need
not identify what was inserted into his or her genital or
anal orifice for the court to find that rape through sexual
assault was committed:
We find it inconsequential that "AAA" could not
specifically identify the particular instrument or
object that was inserted into her genital. What is
important and relevant is that indeed something was
inserted into her vagina. To require "AAA" to identify
the instrument or object that was inserted into her
vagina would be contrary to the fundamental tenets of due
process.

Guerrero
 Second, petitioner’s reliance on the medico-legal’s finding of no
recent trauma in XXX’s anal orifice, or any trace of spermatozoa,
lacks merit. The absence of spermatozoa in XXX’s anal orifice does
not negate the possibility of an erection and penetration. This
result does not contradict the positive testimony of XXX that the
lower courts found credible, natural, and consistent with human
nature.
 This court has explained the merely corroborative character of
expert testimony and the possibility of convictions for rape based
on the victim’s credible lone testimony.
 In any case, the medico-legal explained that his negative finding
of trauma in the anal orifice does not remove the possibility of an
insertion considering the flexibility of the sphincter.

Guerrero
 XXX testified that he "felt something was inserted [into his] anus."93
The slightest penetration into one’s sexual organ distinguishes an act
of lasciviousness from the crime of rape. People v. Bonaagua94
discussed this distinction:
 It must be emphasized, however, that like in the crime of rape

whereby the slightest penetration of the male organ or even its
slightest contact with the outer lip or the labia majora of the vagina
already consummates the crime, in like manner, if the tongue, in an
act of cunnilingus, touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act
should also be considered as already consummating the crime of
rape through sexual assault, not the crime of acts of lasciviousness.

Guerrero
 Notwithstanding, in the present case, such logical
interpretation could not be applied. It must be pointed
out that the victim testified that Ireno only touched her
private part and licked it, but did not insert his finger in
her vagina. This testimony of the victim, however, is
open to various interpretation, since it cannot be
identified what specific part of the vagina was defiled by
Ireno. Thus, in conformity with the principle that the
guilt of an accused must be proven beyond reasonable
doubt, the statement cannot be the basis for convicting
Ireno with the crime of rape through sexual assault.

Guerrero
 People v. Bonaagua considers a woman’s private organ
since most if not all existing jurisprudence on rape
involves a woman victim.
 Nevertheless, this interpretation can apply by analogy
when the victim is a man in that the slightest
penetration to the victim’s anal orifice consummates the
crime of rape through sexual assault.
 The gravamen of the crime is the violation of the victim’s
dignity. The degree of penetration is not important. Rape
is an "assault on human dignity."

Guerrero
Grave oral defamation in relation to
Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610,
Specific intent to commit
Child Abuse
G.R. No. 254005, June 23, 2021
ASELA BRINAS Y DEL FIERRO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

Guerrero
INFORMATION
 "That on or about the 25th day of January 2010 in the afternoon, at the
Challenger Montessori School, Inc. in Brgy. Zone VI, Municipality of Iba,
Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent of bringing
16-year old Micolie Mari Maevis S. Rosauro and 16-year old Keziah
Liezle D. Polojan, into discredit, disrepute and contempt, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and publicly utter the following
defamatory words, to wit: "pinakamalalandi, pinakamalilibog,
pinakamahader[a] at hindot," "Mga putang ina kayo[."] and other
words similar thereto, which debased, degraded and demeaned Micolie
Mari Maevis S. Rosauro and Keziah Liezle D. Dolojan of their intrinsic
worth and dignity, and to the grave humiliation, embarrassment,
damage and prejudice of said minors Micolie Mari Maevis S. Rosauro
and Keziah Liezle D. Dolojan."
Guerrero
Version of the Prosecution
In the morning of January 25, 2010, the private

complainants and their classmates sent a text message to a
certain Charlene, one of their classmates. The message
said: "Hi cha ate Gale to kumusta na[?]" Apparently, the
person named Gale mentioned in said message was
Brigetes' daughter. After their recess period, Charlene's
mother arrived and got angry at the private complainants
and their classmates who sent the message for allegedly
quarrelling with her daughter.

Guerrero
 At around 2:30 in the afternoon, Briï¿½as called
the private complainants and their six other
classmates to the faculty room. There, in front of
the teachers and other students, Brigites shouted
at them and inquired as to who sent the text
message which used her daughter's name. The
private complainants and their classmates
admitted that they all planned to send the text
message to Charlene and that the sim card which
was used to send the same was owned by Micolle.

Guerrero
 Brigites then threatened to sue Micolle and said, "Idedemanda kita with
my iron hand with this evidence. I will serve it to you in a silver platter,
your (sic) defiant kung tutuusin kamaganak (sic) pa kita dahil sa
background mo pero hindi because you are disobedience (sic), nung
pumasok ka dito para kang birhen pero ngayon anong nangyari sa iyo
may demonyo na sa likod mo" and "I will sue you in court.
 Siguro [naiinggit] kayo sa anak ko kasi maganda, matalino at mayaman
ang anak ko, sabihin niyo sa parents ninyo gawing umaga ang gabi para
yumaman tulad ko, naturingan pa naman kayong pinakamagaganda,
pinakamatatalino, pinakamababait, pinakamalalandi, pinakamalilibog,
pinakamahadera at hindot" Brigites likewise raised her middle finger in
front of the private complainants, and said "ito kayo" and "mga putang
ina kayo. Sa ganyang ugali ninyo sinisigurado ko hindi ninyo mare reach
(sic) ang dreams ninyo at ngayon pa lang sinasabi ko na I hate your

Guerrero
 Later that day, Keziah narrated the incident
to her mother and said that she was
ashamed of going back to school and afraid
that she might not graduate. Micolle, on the
other hand, also informed her father of the
incident, saying that she felt scared and
disappointed as Briï¿½as was rebuking
them. Sometime in February 2010, the
private complainants reported the incident
to the police authorities.
Guerrero
 The private complainants were suspended for five days
and thereafter, or just two days before their graduation,
they were expelled. The private complainants' school
records were also withheld. Because of this, they were
delayed in enrolling for college and were then forced to
seek the help of the Department of Education (DepEd)
who, in turn, informed Challenger of the illegality of the
means taken by it. It was only then that Challenger
released the necessary documents for the private
complainants to enroll for college and the word
"expelled" was removed from their report cards.

Guerrero
 Christian testified that because of the incident, his
daughter Micolle suffered sleepless nights, fear,
and never regained her confidence. When she was
brought to the Department of Social Welfare and
Development, her hands were shaking out of
fear. Keziah, on the other hand, sought the help of
a psychologist from the University of Santo Tomas
(UST) for two months. Dela Cruz, the psychologist
who attended to Keziah, found her to be exhibiting
depression, anxiety attack and inability to sleep
with symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Guerrero
 Version of the Defense
 The defense presented Brigetes as lone witness. She narrated the

following:
 In 2010, Brigites was the directress of Challenger. On January 25, 2010,
she called the private complainants and their classmates to the faculty
room. She tried to remind them of their behavior in the school
considering that their graduation was fast approaching and she did not
want them to have problems therewith. Out of anger and a desire to
straighten their behavior for the children's welfare, she scolded them
and used the words "punyeta" and "malandi." The students remained
silent the entire time and immediately went to their classroom
thereafter She denied that the private complainants were expelled. In
fact, they were included in the graduation ceremony but they wrote
personal letters informing Brigetes that they were not interested in
attending the graduation rites.

Guerrero
 The Ruling of the RTC
 RTC In its Decision30 dated April 13, 2018, the RTC gave credence
to the prosecution's testimonies, found Brigites guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged but appreciated in her
favor the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. It
disposed of the case thus:
 WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused ASELA
BRIGITES y DEL FIERRO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of grave oral defamation in relation to Section 10 (a) of R.A.
No. 7610 and she is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty
of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional in its
medium period, as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor in its minimum period, as maximum.

Guerrero
 SC ruled that she was improperly convicted of a
crime which does not exist because grave oral
defamation under the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
and violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610 are
different and mutually exclusive offenses. Hence,
convicting her for one in relation to the other was
an error. She claims that she cannot be made
liable for child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A.
7610 because the same requires a specific criminal
intent to degrade, debase or demean the intrinsic
worth of a child as a human being which is lacking
in the present case.

Guerrero
 There is no crime of grave oral defamation in relation
to Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610.
 Section 10(a), R.A. 7610 provides:
SEC 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or
Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the
Child's Development. (a) Any person who shall commit
any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to
be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the
child's development including those covered by Article 59
of [Presidential Decree] No. 603, as amended, but not
covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall
suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.

Guerrero
SEC 3. Definition of terms (RA 7610)
(b) "Child Abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or
not, of the child which includes any of the following:
 (1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual
abuse and emotional maltreatment;
 (2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human
being;
 (3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such
as food and shelter; or
 (4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured
child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and
development or in his permanent incapacity or death. (Emphasis
supplied)
Guerrero
SEC 3. Definition of terms (RA 7610)
(b) "Child Abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child
which includes any of the following:
 (1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and
emotional maltreatment;
 (2) Any act by deeds or words which debases,
degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being;
 (3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and
shelter; or
 (4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting
in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent
incapacity or death. (Emphasis supplied)

Guerrero
 Section 10(a) is clear in that it punishes acts of child
abuse which are "not covered by the Revised Penal
Code." Hence, on this point, Brigites is correct, she
cannot be convicted of grave oral defamation under the
RPC in relation to Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610. From the
plain language of Section 10(a), the acts punished under
it and those punished under the RPC are mutually
exclusive. Acts which are already covered by the RPC are
excluded from the coverage of Section 10(a).

Guerrero
 R.A. 7610 is a special law designed to provide
special protection to children from all forms of
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation,
discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to
their development. Children, such as the private
complainants, are under the protective mantle of
R.A. 7610 which supplies the inadequacies of
existing laws treating of crimes committed against
children such as the RPC, by providing for stronger
deterrence against child abuse and exploitation
through, among others, stiffer penalties for their
commission

Guerrero
 A conviction for child abuse under Section 10(a) in relation
to Section
3(b)(2) of R.A. 7610 requires the presence of intent to
debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of the child
as a human being.
 A study of relevant jurisprudence reveals that a specific intent to

debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of a child as a
human being is required for conviction under Section 10(a) of R.A.
7610 in relation to Section 3(b)(2). This is especially true if the
acts allegedly constituting child abuse were done in the spur of
the moment, out of emotional outrage

Guerrero
 "Debasement" is defined as the act of reducing the
value, quality, or purity of something;
"degradation," on the other hand, is a lessening of
a person's or thing's character or quality while
"demean" means to lower in status, condition,
reputation, or character.
 Hence, the prosecution must not only prove that

the acts of child abuse under Section 3(b)(2) were
committed, but also that the same were intended
to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth
and dignity of the minor victim as a human being.

Guerrero
 This requirement of specific intent was first established in
the case of Bongalon v. People (Bongalon). Therein, the
accused was charged under Section 10(a) because he
struck and slapped the face of a minor, after finding out
that the latter threw stones at the accused's own minor
daughters and burnt the hair of one of them.
 The Court therein ruled that the laying of hands against a
child, when done at the spur of the moment and in anger,
cannot be deemed as an act of child abuse under Section
10(a), as the essential element of intent to debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the
child as a human being is not present:

Guerrero
 Although we affirm the factual findings of fact by the RTC and the CA
to the effect that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand
and slapped Jayson on the face, we disagree with their holding that his
acts constituted child abuse within the purview of the above-quoted
provisions. The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that
his laying of hands on Jayson had been intended to debase the
"intrinsic worth and dignity" of Jayson as a human being, or that he
had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson.
 The records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have been
done at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his
being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the
personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just
suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss
of his self- control, he lacked that specific intent to debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as
a human being that was so essential in the crime of child
abuse.

Guerrero
 In Jabalde v. People41(Jabalde), the accused, after the
Court determined her to have lacked the specific intent to
debase the minor victim, was convicted only of slight
physical injuries under the RPC instead of child abuse
under R.A. 7610 for which she was charged. Therein, the
accused, after being informed that her daughter's head
was punctured, thought the latter was already dead. The
accused fainted and when she regained consciousness, she
slapped and choked the minor victim who she believed had
harmed her daughter. The Court held that the spontaneity
of the accused's acts and the fact that the victim suffered
only minor abrasions show that the laying of hands was an
offshoot of the accused's emotional outrage and a desire to
rescue her own child from harm; hence, there was no
specific intent to debase the intrinsic worth of the child.

Guerrero
 This specific intent was likewise found missing in Calaoagan v. People
(Calaoagan) wherein the accused inflicted injuries in the heat of an
argument, during an altercation between the accused's group and that
of the minor as they met on the street without any prior confrontation.
 Even in cases where the Court did convict the accused of violation of
Section 10(a), the Court highlighted the need for the prosecution to
prove specific intent to debase in child abuse.
 In Torres v. People, the Court affirmed the presence of this intent
when accused, with excessive force, whipped the child's neck with a
wet t-shirt, not just once but three times, causing the child to fall down
the stairs and sustain a contusion. The Court said that if the only
intention of the accused was to discipline the child and stop him from
interfering in the conciliation proceedings, he could have resorted to
other less violent means.

Guerrero
 While the mentioned cases requiring specific intent to debase, degrade
or demean the intrinsic worth of the child as a human being pertain to
child abuse by physical deeds, i.e., the laying of hands against the
child, the same treatment has been extended to the utterance of harsh
words against minors.
 In Talocod v. People (Talocod), the accused, right after being informed
by her own child that the minor victim had berated the former,
immediately confronted the victim and furiously shouted: "[h]uwag
mong pansinin yan. At putang ina yan. Mga walang kwenta yan,
[m]ana-mana lang yan!"
 The Court acquitted the accused of the charge of child abuse for failure
of the prosecution to prove that the utterances were specifically
intended to debase the child, they being only offhand remarks brought
about by the spur of the moment and out of parental concern for her
child

Guerrero
 Notably, case law qualifies that for one to be
held criminally liable for the commission of
acts of Child Abuse under Section 10 (a),
Article VI of RA 7610, "the prosecution
[must] prove a specific intent to debase,
degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth
of the child; otherwise, the accused
cannot be convicted

Guerrero
 While the aforementioned cases pertain to the commission
of child abuse by physical deeds, i.e., the laying of hands
against a child, the same treatment has also been
extended to the utterance of harsh words, invectives, or
expletives against minors.
 In Escolano v. People, which involved facts similar to the

instant case, the Court held that the mere shouting of
invectives at a child, when carelessly done out of anger,
frustration, or annoyance, does not constitute Child Abuse
under Section 10 (a) of RA 7610 absent evidence that the
utterance of such words were specifically intended to
debase, degrade, or demean the victim's intrinsic worth
and dignity

Guerrero
 Verily,based on the foregoing narration, there
appears no indication that petitioner deliberately
intended to shame or humiliate AAA's dignity in
front of his playmates. On the contrary, it is rather
apparent that petitioner merely voiced the alleged
utterances as offhand remarks out of parental
concern for her child. Hence, in view of the
absence of a specific intent to debase, degrade, or
demean the victim's intrinsic worth and dignity in
this case, the Court finds that petitioner cannot be
held criminally liable for committing acts of Child
Abuse under Section 10 (a), Article VI of [R.A.]
7610.

Guerrero
 Escolano v. People (Escolano) likewise involved the hurling of expletive
remarks at a child. Here, the Court acquitted the accused for child
abuse, noting that she lacked the intent to debase the child, her acts
having been done only in the heat of anger and in order to stop the
unruly behavior of the children who were throwing ketchup sachets at
her.
 As demonstrated by the cases above, the presence or absence of

specific intent to debase the child in child abuse cases may be drawn
from the circumstances of the case and the manner by which the
accused inflicted the physical or psychological injuries upon the minor.
For instance, lack of intent to debase may be proven by demonstrating
that the allegedly abusive acts were solely out of emotional outrage in
the spur of the moment, as the Court held in Bongalon, Jabalde,
Calaoagan, and Talocod.

Guerrero
 Another defense that may refute the attendance of
intent to debase the child is that the accused, in
committing the acts complained of, merely
intended to discipline or correct a wrongful
behavior of the minor. This holds especially true in
cases wherein the accused is legally entrusted with
the care and discipline of the minor victim such as
the latter's teacher.

Guerrero
 In Rosaldes v. People,49 similar to the present case, the accused was the school
teacher of the child victim, a Grade 1 student. The accused was drowsing off
on a sofa as the child entered and accidentally bumped her. The accused then
pinched the child on the thigh, held him in the armpits and threw him on the
floor causing the child to hit a desk and lose consciousness. Instead of feeling
any remorse, the accused then held the child by his ears and pushed him again
to the floor.
 The child sustained severe injuries. The accused interposed the defense that
she had no intention to debase the victim, her acts of maltreatment being
merely aimed at disciplining the child which she, as a schoolteacher, could
reasonably do under the doctrine of in loco parentis. The Court, while
recognizing the right of a teacher to discipline his or her pupils, nevertheless
convicted the accused of child abuse, ruling that her acts were unnecessary
and excessive which caused the child severe injuries. This effectively refuted
the accused's claim that she merely intended to discipline the child. Moreover,
the Court noted that such infliction of physical harm constitutes corporal
punishment which is expressly prohibited by the Family Code

Guerrero
 Applying the foregoing case law to the present case, the Court holds
that the CA and the RTC erred in finding Brigites guilty of violation of
Section 10(a) in relation to Section 3(b)(2) of R.A. 7610.
 In gist, Brigites argues that her defamatory remarks against the private
complainants were uttered in a fit of anger as a response to the
involvement by the private complainants of her child's name in a text
message which "appears to be a scheme on other students." Brigites
claims she was "deprived of x x x clear thinking [and] had intended no
more than telling (sic) off [the] private complainants, as students under
her supervision." As such, she did not have the required intent to
debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of the minors as human
beings. On this basis, she argues that she should only be convicted for
oral defamation under the RPC, if at all.

Guerrero
 Indeed, the evidence presented shows that Brigetes' acts were
only done in the heat of anger, made after she had just learned
that the private complainants had deceivingly used her daughter's
name to send a text message to another student, in what Brigetes
thought was part of a bigger and harmful scheme against the
student body. She had also then just learned that the mother of
the student who received the misleading text message had
confronted the private complainants for quarreling with the
former's daughter. It appears, thus, that Brigetes' acts were fueled
by her anger and frustration at the private complainants' mischief
which caused distress not only to her and her daughter but also to
another student and parent.

Guerrero
 The present case is similar to the above-discussed case of Talocod
wherein the accused shouted expletives at the minors as a
response to the latter's beratement of her own child. The cases of
Bongalon and Jabalde likewise come to mind, wherein the accused
parents physically laid hands on the minors, in the midst of
passionate anger and under the impression that their own children
were harmed by the minor complainants. In all these cases
showing that the physical or verbal mistreatments were
committed in the heat of anger out of parental concern for their
own children, the accused were acquitted of the charge of child
abuse under Section 10(a) for absence of intent to debase,
degrade or demean the minors.

Guerrero
Rape Sweetheart defense
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. WODIE FRUELDA Y ANULAO,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
[ G.R. No. 242690, September 03, 2020 ]

Guerrero
INFORMATION
 That on or about April 28, 2014 at around 8:00 in the morning at
Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
motivated by lust and lewd designs, and by means of force and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously insert his fingers into the genital organ of one [AAA]4
and thereafter have carnal knowledge to said [AAA], while the
said offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious
and against the latter's will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

Guerrero
Prosecution Version
 The private complainant testified that she is a member and a full-time worker of
Jesus the Anointed One Church in XXX City. She is in charge of the storeroom
where bars of soaps, coffee and other items used to generate funds for the
congregation were stored. On the other hand, Accused was the driver of the
church's Bishop Arthur Gonzales.
 At around eight o'clock in the morning of (8:00 A.M.) of 28 April 2014, she was
charging her cellphone inside the church premises when the accused arrived and
asked her where the storeroom was. After being pointed to where the storeroom
was located, the Accused asked private complainant to retrieve bar soaps for him
to which she obliged. Private complainant entered the storeroom through its main
door while the Accused trailed behind her.

Guerrero
 Inside, she pointed where the bar soaps were located. As
she was about to leave, the Accused asked her why some
of the expired fabric conditioners were still being kept.
While she was explaining that an inventory is required
before the items can be disposed of, the Accused
suddenly grabbed her breasts. Out of shock, private
complainant shouted. Although the Accused released her
breasts, he, however, immediately grabbed the front of
private complainant's pants directly over her private
part. She was shouting in pain as the Accused dragged
her further inside the bodega.

Guerrero
 The Accused then used his body to block and keep the
door shut behind him as he fondled her breasts and tried
to unzip her pants. When the Accused was able to open
the zipper of her pants, the Accused inserted his fingers
in and out of her vagina. All the while, private
complainant resisted and tried to protect herself by
crossing her arms in front of her in an "X" position
thereby incurring bruises in the process. The Accused
then pressed her onto the wall causing her to bump her
head which left her disoriented and dazed. She also felt
weakened by the pain that she was feeling all over her
body. The last thing she saw was the accused pulling out
his penis and she heard him saying "tumuwad ka".

Guerrero
 When she regained composure, private complainant
realized that she was already seated on the floor. She
saw that her pants as well as her underwear were pulled
down to her knees but the Accused was no longer to be
found. She also does not know how much time has
already lapsed after the accused told her "tumuwad ka".
Although it was already dark and she could not see
anything, private complainant gathered her senses,
pulled up her clothes and went out of the bodega. She
was bursting in tears when her fellow church member
Conchita Pandi saw her. She retrieved her cellphone and
called Edna Rabano Ilagan, her fellow member at
"Samahang Magdalo", to come to her aid.

Guerrero
 When Edna Rabano Ilagan arrived, they went to
Camp Miguel Malvar where the private
complainant filed her complaint. Pictures of her
and her bruises were also taken. She was
thereafter subjected to medical examination in
Camp Vicente Lim in Laguna. When they returned
to Camp Miguel Malvar to submit the results of
the medical examination, she was told to rest and
return the next day since she could not physically
bear to execute a sinumpaang salaysay.

Guerrero
 Edna Rabano Ilagan testified that she was acquainted
with the private complainant as they are both members
of Samahang Magdalo, a non-government organization.
On 28 April 2014, she was on her way to fetch her
granddaughter when she received a call from private
complainant who was crying on the line. Private
complainant was begging to be fetched as she was
allegedly raped. When she arrived at Jesus the Anointed
One Church, she saw private complainant crying and
shaking near the storeroom. She also noticed that private
complainant had bruises on her body.

Guerrero
 She then accompanied private complainant to the women's desk at
Camp Miguel Malvar where they were interviewed by P/Insp.
Julieta Magpantay. She observed that private complainant at times
could not answer the questions asked as she was crying and
trembling while other times she was shouting and crying. When
P/Insp. Julieta Magpantay noticed private complainant's bruises,
the police officer thought that a medico-legal examination is
needed. However, there was no SOCO personnel available at Camp
Miguel Malvar; thus, private complainant was brought to Camp
Vicente Lim. After the examination, private complainant was in
pain and since it was also heavily raining at that time, they were
told to come back to Camp Miguel Malvar the next day for the
completion of private complainant's statement.

Guerrero
 P/Insp. Julieta Magpantay testified that she is a member
of the criminal investigation and detection team of the
provincial police office. On 28 April 2014, she received a
complaint for sexual assault from private complainant
against the Accused. She interviewed private
complainant and asked her to fill up the complaint
sheet. She observed, however, that private complainant
was not physically and emotionally prepared to do so as
she was hysterical from time to time. Private
complainant also passed out while she was accomplishing
the complaint sheet.

Guerrero
 When she noticed that private complainant had a lot of bruises,
P/Insp. Julieta Magpantay took photographs. Thereafter, she,
together with one SPO3 Plerbert Mendoza, proceeded to the crime
scene for ocular inspection. They were then able to verify the
allegations of private complainant. Since the Accused was not
around, SPO3 Herbert Mendoza contacted Bishop Arthur Gonzales
and informed him of the complaint against the Accused. P/Insp.
Julieta Magpantay then accompanied private complainant and her
companion Edna R. Ilagan to SOCO Camp Vicente in Calamba City,
Laguna for medico-legal examination. When they went back to
Batangas CIDG, he saw the Accused seating in the kitchen. Upon
inquiry, she learned that the accused surrendered voluntarily.
When the statement of private complainant was completed the
next day, P/Insp. Julieta Magpantay assisted the parties at the
City Prosecutor's Office for inquest.

Guerrero
 Dr. Jerico Cordero testified that he is the Assistant Regional Chief
and Medico-legal Officer of Regional Crime Laboratory Office 4A –
CALABARZON. He was qualified and presented as an expert witness
to testify on Medical Report No. SA-0139-14 which was executed
by Dr. Dorothy Joy Collo based on the examination she conducted
on private complainant. Dr. Dorothy Joy Collo, however, can no
longer be presented as witness as she is no longer connected with
the Regional Crime Laboratory Office and has already moved
abroad. In any case. Dr. Jerico Cordero was asked to interpret the
findings in the Medical Report. He testified that the presence of
deep fresh hymenal lacerations indicate that the injuries were
inflicted within a 24-hour period. A blunt object, such as a finger
or penis, could have caused the injury by penetration. The medico
legal anatomic sketch also shows that the private complainant had
multiple abrasions (gasgas) on her jaw, neck, chest and forearms.

Guerrero
Version of the Defense
 For the defense, the following witnesses took the
witness stand: the Accused Wodie Fruelda
himself, Conchita Pandi and Romel Elida.
 Stripped of the non-essentials, the Accused
denied the imputations against him and anchored
his defense on the sweetheart theory.

Guerrero
 The Accused testified that he had been a member of Jesus the
Anointed One since 1991. Prior to being the personal driver of
Bishop Arthur Gonzales, he used to work for the church as part of
maintenance. He was acquainted with private complainant when
she joined the church in 1996. When he got married in 1999,
private complainant would usually ask him about his marital life.
As time went by, they became closer with one another until
private complainant became his mistress. As such, it was just
natural for the both of them to engage in sexual activities as they
did in the morning of 28 April 2014 inside the storeroom. After
their rendezvous, the Accused went out of the storeroom ahead of
the private complainant. However, he saw their fellow member
Conchita Pandi outside the storeroom. He then went inside to
retrieve soaps and handed to Conchita Pandi. Thereafter, he left
to drive for the Bishop to Manila.

Guerrero
 When he and the Bishop returned to the church, the
Accused was informed that there was a complaint against
him for rape filed by private complainant. The Bishop
then told him that they needed to go to CIDG at the PNP
Headquarters wherein a certain SPO3 Mendoza talked to
him. He was then told to remain at the police station
because of the complaint lodged against him. He stayed
at the police station for two (2) weeks before he was
brought to court and later to the city jail. He was
saddened because the reason why he went to the camp
was to explain his side that he did not commit the
charges hurled against him.

Guerrero
 Conchita Pandi testified that around seven thirty in the
morning (7:30 A.M.) of 28 April 2014, she was looking for
private complainant as she needed assistance in laying
foam to be used for the church activity to be held the
next day. She asked the security guard on duty, Romel
Eldin, of the whereabouts of private complainant. She
was told that private complainant was inside the
storeroom with the Accused. She went to the storeroom
but it was locked. She likewise did not find anybody
inside the storeroom but she still waited outside.

Guerrero
 After some time, the Accused went out of the storeroom and handed her some
soap for cleaning. She, however, did not take the soap as she was not supposed
to clean that day. She then saw private complainant peeping out of the door of
the storeroom. When she asked private complainant what she was doing inside
with the Accused, private complainant replied that the Accused locked her
there. She, however, pointed out the impossibility of being locked from the
inside considering that private complainant was able to open the door on her
own.
 Private Complainant thereafter broke down in tears. She then asked that their
HR be summoned in order to talk to private complainant. A woman thereafter
arrived and picked up private complainant from the church premises. Later that
day, private complainant and the woman returned with police officers who
were looking for the Accused allegedly for raping private complainant. As the
police officers were inspecting the storeroom, Conchita Pandi told them that no
rape occurred as she merely caught the private complainant and the Accused
together inside the storeroom.

Guerrero
 Romil Elida corroborated the testimony of Conchita Pandi. He
testified that he was a volunteer security guard at the Jesus the
Anointed One Church of which the Accused and private
complainant were his co-members. He, however, treats the
Accused as his brother. On 28 April 2014, he was on duty when the
Accused arrived and asked for private complainant who was inside
the church premises. After about fifteen (15) minutes, Conchita
Pandi arrived and was looking for private complainant as well to
whom he responded that private complainant was inside. Conchita
Pandi, however, returned saying that she could not find private
complainant but he replied that he just saw private complainant
with the Accused. After a while, Conchita Pandi returned saying
that he caught private complainant and the Accused inside the
storeroom. He then saw private complainant crying outside the
storeroom.

Guerrero
 Both Conchita Pandi and Romel Elida also testified as to the
demeanor and interaction of the Accused and private complainant
prior to the 28 April 2014 incident. Romel Elida averred that he
had the notion that the Accused and private complainant was in
some sort of relationship as the Accused would usually ask him
about private complainant. He sees them flirting or joking with
each other. However, he only confirmed his suspicion on 28 April
2014 when he saw private complainant crying outside the
storeroom after Conchita Pandi told him that she caught the
Accused and private complainant inside the storeroom. As for
Conchita Pandi, she relayed to the court an incident she witnessed
between the Accused and private complaint which occurred three
to four years prior to 28 April 2014.

Guerrero
Ruling of the RTC
In a Decision dated August 31, 2016,
the RTC found Fruelda guilty of the
crime of rape

Guerrero
The trial court convicted Fruelda, thus:
 The accused in order to escape one's liability presented the idea
that he has [a] prohibited love affair with the complainant. The
Presiding Judge opted not to state in this Decision what the
accused narrated in order to prove his illicit relationship with the
complainant for fear that this formal Decision would be converted
into a pornographic reading material. What the accused wanted to
convey [was] that as lovers they had already [gone] to the extent
of performing the marital act. Worthy of note that as held by the
Supreme Court in the case of People versus Rommel Bello y De
Leon, G.R. No. 187075, July 5, 2010-The defense of consensual sex
must be established by strong evidence in order to be worthy of
judicial acceptance.

Guerrero
 Wherein it goes without saying, that such kind of relationship would be
established by proof as mementos, love notes or photographs depicting a sign
of special relationship between the loving couple. (People versus Corpuz, G.R.
No. 175836, Jan 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 465) x x x.
 The deaf/mute witness that never lies would be the document marked as
Exhibit "C" Medico Legal Report No. SA-0139-14 issued by PNP-Medico Legal
Officer, Police Senior Inspector Dorothy Joy Ortañez Collo, MD. The medico
legal report reveals deep fresh laceration at 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock and 9
o'clock position and the posterior fourchette has been lacerated as interpreted
by Dr. Jerico Cordero, Assistant Regional Chief of Regional Crime Laboratory
Office 4A. The Assistant Regional Chief of Crime Laboratory Office 4A,
explained that the vagina of the subject has been penetrated by a blunt object
which logically be an erect penis. The Physician further stated that the injuries
noted are what we refer to in tagalog as "gasgas".

Guerrero
 As testified to by Police Inspector Magpantay she
conducted an ocular inspection of the place
where the incident happened and she was
convinced that AAA has been telling the truth. It
may be proper to say that upon request of the
parties the Presiding Judge conducted an ocular
inspection of the place x x x. The place where
the incident happened is really a secluded place
and any banging sound could not be heard in the
adjacent room as a result of the ocular inspection
that has been conducted.

Guerrero
 The photographs marked as Exhibit "I", Exhibit "J", Exhibit "K",
Exhibit "L" and Exhibit "M" would convey an idea of a struggle.
The Medico Legal Report No. SA-0139-14 issued by PNP-Medico
Legal Officer, Police Senior Inspector Dorothy Joy Ortañez Collo,
clearly reveals that AAA was ravished because of the presence
of the fresh lacerations noted on the vagina of the victim and
the injuries noted. The Medico Legal Report No. SA-0139-14
does not reveal any old healed laceration on the vagina of the
victim logically pointing to a conclusion that the declaration of
Wodie Fruelda about his secret relationship with the victim that
they had already performed the marital act does not hold true.
 The CA affirmed Fruelda's conviction

Guerrero
Issues
Whether the CA erred in finding Fruelda
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of rape by carnal knowledge.
Whether the CA erred in finding that the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender cannot be appreciated in favor of
Fruelda.

Guerrero
The Court's Ruling
 The appeal is partly meritorious. Contrary to the findings of the
lower courts, Fruelda is guilty of the crime of sexual assault under
Article 266-A (2) of the RFC, not rape by carnal knowledge under
Article 266-A (1) (b).
 Based on the Information, Fruelda is charged with two crimes —
(a) sexual assault under Article 266-A (2); and (b) rape by carnal
knowledge under Article 266-A (1)(b) of the RPC. Although two
offenses were charged in just one Information, a violation of
Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,10
Section 3, Rule 120 of the same rules also states that:

Guerrero
 [w]hen two or more offenses are charged in a single
complaint or information but the accused fails to object
to it before trial, the court may convict the appellant of
as many as are charged and proved, and impose on him
the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the
findings of fact and law in each offense.
 Since Fruelda did not file a motion to quash the

Information, he can be convicted of the two offenses
charged therein: sexual assault and rape by carnal
knowledge.

Guerrero
Fruelda is guilty of sexual assault under Article 266-A (2) of the
RPC, not rape by carnal knowledge under Article 266-A (1) (b)
 In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by the following three
principles:
 (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove it is difficult though the
accused may be innocent;
 (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually
involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be
scrutinized with great caution; and
 (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and not
be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense. Corollary to these is the dictum that when a victim of rape says that
she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape
has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of
credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof

Guerrero
In the case at bar, as in most rape cases, the issue boils down to the credibility of the
victim. In this regard, the Court pored over the testimony of AAA and find that there is no
reason to overturn the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility. AAA recounted what
happened inside the storeroom, thus:
 Q: What did this Kuya Wodie of yours tell you when he approached you?
 A: He asked me "where is the bodega?", sir.
 Q: Why were you the person asked by this Kuya Wodie of yours where the bodega is?
 A: Because I was the one in charge of the bodega, sir. Because the stocks there which
were actually bar soaps were under my custody, sir.

Guerrero
 Q: So when asked you "ang bodega" what did you answer if you did?
 A: I told him it was there, that's what I told him, sir.
 Q: When you answer him "andun po" what did he do if any?
 A: He went there and I don't need to accompany him because he knew where its was and
I just look behind him.
 Q: After this Wodie went to the bodega and she were looking behind what happened?
 A: When I pointed to him the bodega he went inside the bodega and he went back to me
and asked me about the bar soaps, sir.

Guerrero
 Q: And what did you answer him?
 A: [Inutusan niya po ako "ikuha mo ako", sir.]
 Q: When this Wodie told you "ikuha mo ako", what did you do?
 A: I heeded to his request, sir.
 Q: Where did you go?
 A: I first went to the main door and then he followed me, sir. He locked the main door,
sir.

Guerrero
 Q: When you say the main door which door you are referring to?
 A: The main door going to the bodega, sir.
 Q: After you saw that this Wodie who followed you closed the main door what happened
next?
 A: I went inside the bodega and he followed me, sir.
 Q: Do you mean to say that when you enter the bodega was the bodega already open?
 A: Yes, sir.

Guerrero
 Q: And when you enter the bodega what happened?
 A: He followed me inside the bodega and I pointed to him the bar soaps, sir.
 Q: This bodega could you picture to us what are the things inside the bodega?
 A: Mga kaldero po, tulyasi, timba, baretang sabon po at fabric conditioners, toilet bowl
cleaner and the things used in the audio video presentation, sir.
 Q: So when you enter [sic] the bodega where was Wodie?
 A: He followed me inside the bodega, sir.

Guerrero
 Q: And what did you do to his request to find you some bar soaps?
 A: When I was able to point to him where the bar soaps were I turn [sic] my back going
out of the bodega, sir.
 Q: And when you were about to get out of the bodega what happened?
 A: When I was trying to turn my back out [sic] of the bodega he asked me again "why are
these things still here? These are already expired. It should not be here" so I faced him
back, sir.
 Q: What do you understand by the things that Wodie was referring to when he said "ba't
nandito pa ang mga ito, di ba expire [sic] na 'to?"
 A: He was telling me these fabric conditioners were [sic] already expired should already
be disposed, sir.

Guerrero
 Q: And what did you answer him?
 A: I was telling it is still needed in the inventory the reason why these are not yet already
disposed, sir.
 Q: So after you have answered him what happened?
 A: I was shocked as to what he did, sir.
 Q: What did he do to you?
 A: He immediately grabbed my two breasts, sir. It was not tender it was so hard, sir.
 Q: What did you feel when he grab [sic] held your breasts?
 A: I was shocked and I shouted because it was painful, sir.

Guerrero
 Q: So after he grab [sic] held your breasts which you said was painful and as a matter of
fact you shouted as a reaction x x x what happened next?
 A: When I shouted he released my breasts and he grab held my front, sir.
 Q: When you say "harapan" what are you referring to?
 A: My genitals, sir.
 Q: In what manner did he grab held your genitals?
 A: He grab [sic] held my genitals tightly, sir.
 Prosecutor Gajete: May we put it on record, Your Honor, that at this juncture the witness
is crying, Your Honor.
 The Court: Noted.
 Prosecutor Gajete: At this juncture, Your Honor, we would like to incorporate to the
record that aside from the fact that the witness is crying she is likewise shaking, Your
Honor.
 The Court: Noted.

Guerrero
 Q: When he grab [sic] held the front part of your pants directly over your genitals, what
did he do next?
 A: I was shouting it's painful and he pulled me inside, sir.
 xxxx
 Q: When you were already inside after being pulled by Wodie, what happened next?
 A: He used his body to close the door, sir.
 Q: Was the door in fact close[sic]?
 A: He use [sic] to block the door. He pressed his body on the door to ensure that it is
locked, sir.

Guerrero
 Q: And after that what happened'?
 A: He mashed my breasts, sir.
 Q: What was your response in relation to this [sic] acts of Wodie mashing your breasts?
 A: I resisted, sir.
 xxxx
 Q: What did you do to resist?
 A: I placed my hands in an X position to protect my breasts, sir.

Guerrero
 Q: And when you put your hands in X position to protect your breasts what did he do
next?
 A: He was forcibly trying to remove my hands from X position, sir.
 Q: What did he do next?
 A: He was trying to open and remove my pants, sir. He was not able to open it but he
successfully opened my zipper of my pants, sir.
 Q: When your zipper was opened what did he do next to you?
 A: He inserted his lingers inside my panty, sir.

Guerrero
 Q: What did he do to his fingers?
 A: He inserted it in my vagina, sir.
 Q: And while his lingers was in your vagina what was he doing with it?
 A: He inserted it, sir. He was inserting his fingers in and out of my vagina, sir.
 Q: And what did you feel when he was doing it?
 A: It was so painful, sir.

Guerrero
 Q: At that juncture Ms. Witness, what did you do to resist?
 A: I was trying to resist, sir.
 xxxx
 Q: In contrast to your resistance, what did the accused do?
 A: He was trying to remove my hands in an X position in protecting my breasts he

pressed me to lean on the wall and "napauntog po ako", sir.
 Q: So while he was inserting his linger into your vagina, what happened next?
 A: He pulled out his penis, sir.

Guerrero
 Q: And when he already let out his penis what happened?
 A: I was shocked, sir. He massage [sic] his penis, sir.
 xxxx
 Q: I would like to go back to the point when you said he placed his fingers into your genitals
the vagina. Can you be specific as to which finger or which hand use [sic] with that finger?
 A: Left hand, sir.
 Q: So while his left hand was holding your vagina he use [sic] his finger to insert what was
he doing with his right hand if any?
 A: I was in X position in protecting my breasts and he was trying to remove the X position,
sir.

Guerrero
 Q: Now you mentioned that while Wodie was inserting his finger and moving in and out
of your vagina you experience [sic] pain. What did you do in relation to that?
 A: I was disoriented and dazed and I was weakened, sir.
 Q: And after you feel [sic] weak and disoriented or dazed what happened next?
 A: "Sabi po kasi niya tumuwad daw po ako", sir.
 Q: How did he say it?
 A: "Tumuwad ka", sir.

Guerrero
 Q: And did you heed his words?
 A: I was confused and I do not know what he was saying and I do not know what he was
trying me to do [sic], sir.
 Q: After that what happened?
 A: He was telling me "tumuwad ka" and I did not know anymore what followed and last
thing I heard of him saying was "tumuwad ka", sir.
 Q: Having heard "tumuwad ka" what happened next?
 A: Thereafter I only realize [sic] I was already seated at the floor, sir.

Guerrero
 A: Because I felt my buttocks were cold and my pants was [sic] pulled down up to my
knees, sir.
 Q: Only your pants were pulled down up to your knees?
 A: Including my panty, sir.
 Q: Where was Wodie at that juncture when you realized that your buttocks were already
cold?
 A: I did not know, sir.
 Q: You are trying to tell the Honorable Court that Wodie was no longer around?
 A: He was no longer there, sir.

Guerrero
 Q: When you said that was the last thing I remember can you
estimate how long you have no knowledge anymore of what
happened after you heard the word "tumuwad ka"?
 A: I do not know, sir, because I was so weak and I experienced pain
all over, sir.
 It is a well-settled doctrine that when the case pivots on the issue

of the credibility of the victim, the findings of the trial court
necessarily carry great weight and respect.13 This is because the
trial court's determination proceeds from its first-hand opportunity
to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and
attitude under grilling examination, thereby placing the trial court
in the unique position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to
appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.

Guerrero
 The RTC and CA, finding AAA's testimony credible,
convicted Fruelda of the crime of rape by carnal
knowledge. While the Court agrees with the lower courts
that AAA's testimony is indeed credible, the Court finds
that, on the basis of AAA's testimony, Fruelda can only be
convicted of sexual assault.

Guerrero
 AAA testified that while Fruelda was moving his
finger in and out of her private part through the
opening of her pants' zipper, he took out his penis
and massaged the same. Shortly thereafter, AAA
lost consciousness. When she woke up, she was
seated on the floor with her underwear and pants
pulled down to her knees. Based on the
foregoing, the crime committed by Fruelda is
sexual assault.

Guerrero
 Although it is possible that Fruelda had carnal knowledge of AAA
while the latter was unconscious, he cannot be convicted of the
crime of rape by carnal know ledge based on a mere possibility.
The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. To overcome
the presumption, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must
be established by the prosecution.15 Proof beyond reasonable
doubt means that mere suspicion of the guilt of the accused, no
matter how strong, should not sway judgment against him. Every
circumstance favoring the accused's innocence must be duly taken
into account.

Guerrero
 At this juncture, the question before the Court is this: Are there
other pieces of evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
Fruelda is likewise guilty of rape by carnal knowledge?
 There is none. The other evidence presented by the prosecution

merely corroborate AAA's testimony and strengthen this Court's
conclusion that Fruelda is guilty only of sexual assault.
 AAA suffered injuries on her face, neck, chest, arms, and forearms
that were photographed17 and described in the medico-legal
report

Guerrero
 The medical examination performed on AAA the same day as the
incident found blunt trauma to her labia minora and hymen
CONCLUSION:
 MEDICAL EVALUATION SHOWS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF RECENT BLUNT
PENETRATING TRAUMA TO THE HYMEN AND RECENT BLUNT
TRAUMA TO THE LABIA MINORA.
 The doctor presented to testify on the medical examination

testified that a blunt object, such as a finger or penis, could have
caused the injury by penetration.20 Between the two blunt
objects that could have caused the injury, the (insertion of a)
finger is the version supported by the testimony of AAA and
confirmed by Fruelda's sweetheart theory.
Guerrero
 For his defense, Fruelda admitted that in the morning of April 28,
2014, while he and AAA were inside the storeroom of Jesus the
Anointed One Church, he inserted his finger inside AAA's private
part and, thereafter, AAA fellated him.21 Fruelda, however,
claimed that these were all consensual as he and AAA were in a
relationship.
 To prove his relationship with AAA, Fruelda presented Romel Elida

(Elida) and Conchita Pandi (Pandi). Elida testified that he often
saw Fruelda and AAA flirting with each other. Pandi, on the other
hand, testified to how she had the impression that Fruelda and
AAA were in a relationship based on events that happened three to
four years prior to April 28, 2014.

Guerrero
 The Court is not convinced. Absent independent proof of his
alleged relationship with AAA, Fruelda's self-serving testimony and
the speculative testimonies of his witnesses, Elida and Pandi, fall
short of substantiating his sweetheart defense.
 The "sweetheart theory" is an affirmative defense often raised to

prove the non-attendance of force or intimidation.22 When an
accused in a rape case claims, as in the case at bar, that he is in a
relationship with the complainant, the burden of proof shifts to
him to prove the existence of the relationship and that the victim
consented to the sexual act. In People v. Bautista,23 the Court
held:

Guerrero
 In rape, the 'sweetheart' defense must be proven by
compelling evidence: first, that the accused and the
victim were lovers; and, second, that she consented to
the alleged sexual relations. The second is as important
as the first, because this Court has held often enough
that love is not a license for lust.
 For the Court to even consider giving credence to such a

defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The
defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in
support of the theory, as in the instant case.
Independent proof is required — such as tokens,
mementos, and photographs.
Guerrero
 No such proof was presented by the defense in this case.
Thus, the Court is left with the admission of Fruelda that
he inserted his finger inside AAA's private part and that
AAA fellated him — against her will. Fruelda's acts of
inserting his finger inside AAA's private part against her
will and forcing AAA to fellate him constitute two
different acts of sexual assault under 266-A (2).
 However, since the Information is silent as to the second
act admitted by Fruelda, that of forcing AAA to fellate
him, he cannot be convicted for it.

Guerrero
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision is
REVERSED. Wodie Fruelda y Anulao is NOT GUILTY OF RAPE BY
CARNAL KNOWLEDGE.
 He is found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME
OF SEXUAL ASSAULT under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code and shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum. He is
ordered to pay the private offended party Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00) as civil indemnity, Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00) as moral damages, and Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00) as exemplary damages.

Guerrero

ATTY. BRIAN GUERRERO (SPEAKER) Cognitive Jurisprudence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATTY. BRIAN GUERRERO (SPEAKER) Cognitive Jurisprudence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CERTIFIED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SPECIALIST (CCJS)

Atty. Brian B. Guerrero

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Jurisprudence will guide us the real-life

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

An in flagrante delicto arrest that does not

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 [F]or a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be

 Failure to comply with the overt act test renders an in

Article 125 Article 124 Article 267 or 268 Article 269

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 Kidnapping is not part of the functions of a soldier. Even if

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 The trial court denied the motion to withdraw. It

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 Itis not impossible for a public officer to be charged with

 Thus, public officers who have no duty to arrest or detain

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 Although denominated as requests, invitations from high-ranking officials to a

 When the accused is in an environment made hostile by the presence and

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 Nonetheless, whether under Section 5(a) or (b), the

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 "Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 Manalili and Solayao upheld the warrantless searches conducted

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 Malacat instructed that for a stop and frisk search to be valid,

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 Accordingly, to sustain the validity of a stop and frisk

 Harvesting nipa indeed may be a leading cause for the deterioration

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 Therefore, our laws and regulations are humane enough to grant

Drug Related Case

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 The RTC was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 The Court clarified, however, that as stated in the 2022 case of

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 Further, admissions from the police officers show that

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

 While non-compliance will not automatically render the seizure of

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.

Cognitive Jurisprudence Atty. Brian B.