CRIMINAL
LAW
3
RD
WEEK
College of Law
BAR REVIEWER
People of the Philippines vs. Manolito Opiana Y Tanael;
G.R. No. 200797, January 12, 2015; Second Division, Del Castillo, J.
Prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
What are the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of Dangerous Drugs, in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Acts of 2002?
For sale of illegal drugs the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence. The elements of illegal possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165 are to wit: (1) appellant was shown to have been in possession of shabu, a prohibited drug; (2) his possession was not authorized by law; and (3) he freely and consciously possessed the said illegal drug.
Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva vs. Elpidio Malicse Sr. and People of the Philippines; GR No. 190912, January 12, 2015; Third Division, Peralta, J.
Elements of an Attempted Felony/Crime
The accused were charged for the Attempted Murder where the victim was unarmed and drunk, while his attackers were all armed. However, it was averred that the inclusion of the phrase "not necessarily mortal" in the information means that there is an absence of intent to kill on their part, negating the attempt to murder. Are they correct?
No. Intent to kill is a state of mind that can be discerned only through external manifestations. The elements of an attempted felony are (1) The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; (2) He didn’t perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; (3) The offender's act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance; (4) The non-performance was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. What’s important is that all the elements of attempted murder are alleged and proven to be present.
People of the Philippines vs. Arnaldo Bosito y Chavenia; G.R. No. 209346, January 12, 2015; Second Division, Carpio, J.
Elements of Self-Defense
While watching a game, Bosito hacked Bonaobra with a bolo. The blow to Bonaobra’s head caused him to slump to the ground and while escaping, Bosito repeatedly stabbed Bonaobra. Bosito invoked self-defense as he was allegedly ganged up by Bonaobra’s group. Was there self-defense?
No. By invoking self-defense Bosito had the burden to prove that the killing was justified. The elements of self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense. Aside from Bosito’s self-serving
testimony, they didn’t present other witnesses to corroborate his testimonies. The means employed to prevent or repel the supposed unlawful aggression was beyond what’s reasonably necessary. The number, nature, and gravity of the wounds sustained by Bonaobra reveal a determined effort to kill, negating self-defense.
People of the Philippines vs. Jeric Pavia y Paliza @ "Jeric" and Juan Buendia y Delos Reyes @ "June"; G.R. No. 202687, January 14, 2015; First Division, Perez, J.
Prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
A confidential informant reported to the police that a pot session was taking place in a house in Laguna. The police proceeded to the area where they saw 4 people having a pot session in the living room. They were charged with violation of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002. What are the elements for Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings under RA 9165?
The elements under Sec. 13 of RA 9165 are to wit: (1) possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; (3) the free and conscious possession of the drug by the accused, and lastly, (4) the accused possessed the prohibited or dangerous drug during a social gathering or meeting, or in the company of at least two persons.
People of the Philippines vs. Nestor Suarez y Magtagnob; G.R. No. 201151, January 14, 2015 ; First Division, Perez, J.
Rape (Conducts of the Rape Victim)
Accused was indicted for raping his minor niece. The offender is a relative within the third civil degree by affinity and the victim is a minor under 18 years. Apellant countered that based on AAA’s testimony, there appears to be no significant resistance AAA who did not shout when appellant was allegedly defiling her. Is the accused correct?
No. It has been settled that in rape cases, the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance because it is not an element of rape. Not all victims react the same way. Some may appear to yield to the intrusion, others may offer strong resistance. The failure of a rape victim to offer tenacious resistance does not make her submission to accused's criminal acts voluntary. What is necessary is that the force employed against her was sufficient to consummate the purpose which he has in mind.
People of the Philippines vs. Palmy Tibayan and Rico Z. Puerto G.R. Nos. 209655-60, January 14, 2015; First Division, Perlas-Bernable, J.
Syndicated Estafa
Tibayan and Puerto were charged of Syndicated Estafa. They were engaged in a classic Ponzi scheme where they induced the public to invest by offering a very high monthly interest rate. However, the company later on closed down without the private complainants having been paid. Are they guilty of syndicated estafa?
Yes. All the elements of Syndicated Estafa, through a Ponzi scheme, are present: (a) the incorporators/directors of TGICI comprising more than five (5) people, made false pretenses and representations to the investing public - the private complainants - for a lucrative investment opportunity with TGICI to solicit money from them; (b) the said false pretenses and representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of fraud; (c) relying on the same, private complainants invested their hard earned money; and (d) the incorporators/directors of TGICI ended up running away with the private complainants' investments, to the latter's prejudice.
People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Morales Y Lam; G.R. No. 206832, January 21, 2015; First Division, Perez, J.
Effect of Death of the accused pending appeal of the Case
Alfredo Morales, after trial, was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, thereby violating RA 9165. He appealed the case to the Supreme Court. However, pending appeal, he died. What happens to the case?
The case is dismissed. The death of accused-appellant Morales pending appeal of his conviction, extinguishes his civil and criminal liabilities, pursuant to Art. 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code. However, there exists no civil liability in violations of RA 9165. Thus, there is no civil liability to extinguish.
People of the Philippines vs. Arnel Balute y Villanueva
G.R. No. 212932, January 21, 2015; First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Robbery with Homicide
While SPO1 Manaois was on board his owner-type jeepney with his wife and daughter during a heavy traffic, Balute, after poking a gun at the side of SPO1 Manaois and saying "putang ina, ilabas mo!", grabbed SPO1 Manaois's mobile phone from his chest pocket and shot him at the left side of his torso. SPO1 Manaois sustained mortal gunshot wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his death. Is the accused guilty of Robbery with Homicide?
Yes. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. All of these are present in the case. By poking a gun at Manaois and eventually killing him after the taking of the properties herein, such consummated the crime.
People of the Philippines vs. Chi Chan Liu @ Chan Que and Hui Lao Chung a.ka. Leofe Senglao; G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015; Third Division, Peralta, J.
Illegal Importation
The police forces of Mindoro went to the shore of Ambil Island where men were suspiciously transferring bags of suspected illegal drugs from one boat to another. In the boat, bags full of white crystalline substance were found. The accused, who were in the boat, were detained and charged with Importation of Illegal Drugs. They didn’t respond to questions by the police. Instead, they kept on telling the police that “big money” was waiting if they “called China.” They were convicted of importation. Was the conviction valid?
No. Importation necessarily connotes the introduction of something into a certain territory coming from an external source. If the article merely came from the same territory, there cannot be any importation of the same. The mere fact that the accused were from China does not establish, beyond reasonable doubt that the origin of the illegal drugs were from outside Philippine territory.
People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Dilla Y Paular
GR No. 200333, January 21, 2015; Second Division, Del Castillo, J.
Award of Damages for Criminal Cases
May the Supreme Court in a criminal case (murder) validly grant temperate damages in lieu of actual damages notwithstanding that the amount of the actual damages is less than the grant of the temperate damages?
Yes. When actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000.00, as in this case (as the actual damages with receipt only amount to 15,000), the award of temperate damages of P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. However, in the dispositive portion the decision, the grant of actual damages is DELETED and replaced with temperate damages to the amount aforestated.
People of the Philippines vs. Gerardo Enumerable y De Villa GR No. 207993, January 21, 2015; Second Division, Carpio, J.
Prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
What is the effect when the prosecution fails to sufficiently establish who had custody of the illegal drug from the moment it was allegedly transmitted from the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory until it was allegedly delivered to RTC?
The accused will be acquitted notwithstanding that he has been convicted both by the RTC and the CA. When the identity of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused is not the same dangerous drug presented to the forensic chemist for review and examination, nor the same dangerous drug presented to the court, the identity of the dangerous drug is not preserved due to the broken chain of custody. With this, an element in the criminal cases for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti, is not proven, and the accused must then be acquitted based on reasonable doubt.
People of the Philippines vs. Michael Joson y Rogando G.R. No. 206393, January 21, 2015; First Division, Perez, J.
Rape (Needed Degree of Force and Intimidation on the Victim)
Appellant was accused with raping his fourteen year old sister when they were left alone at home. Appellant argues that there can be no rape because AAA did not allege that she was threatened by appellant with the use of any firearm or any bladed weapon nor did appellant say anything to threaten or intimidate her. Furthermore, there was even no showing of any resistance on the part of AAA to his alleged sexual advances. Is the appellant correct?
No. It has been held that the force or violence that is required in rape cases is relative; when applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible. That it enables the offender to consummate his purpose is enough. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman voluntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. After all, resistance is not an element of rape.
Richard Ricalde vs. People of the Philippines;
G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015; Second Division, Leonen, J.
Variance Doctrine and the Penalty Imposable when the Victim is a Child
Appellant was charged with rape through sexual assault. He inserted his penis in the anus of a 10-year-old boy. He was found guilty. He averred that the variance doctrine should have been used in imposing his penalty. Is he correct?
No. When there’s a variance between the offense charged in the complaint and what’s proven and the offense charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged. Here, no variance exists between what was charged and proven. The prosecution established all elements of the crime. The gravamen is the insertion of the penis into another’s mouth or anal orifice. However, the penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal in its medium period under RA 7610, higher than the imposable penalty in the Revised Penal Code. A higher penalty is intended when the victim is a child.
Rogelio J. Gonzaga vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 195671, January 21, 2015; First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Imposition of Penalties for Complex Crimes
Dionesio was driving his motorcycle together with his children. While ascending the curving road, a car driven by Rogelio collided with the motorcycle. The children suffered injuries while Dionesio died. The lower courts found Rogelio guilty of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with Double Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property and sentenced him a higher indeterminate penalty of (4) years, (2) months of prision correccional maximum, as minimum, to (8) years and (1) day of prision mayor medium, as maximum. Is the penalty based from most serious crime reasonable?
Yes. The RPC provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime, in this case, Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, shall be imposed, in its maximum period.
Kyle Anthony Zabala vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. No. 210760, January 26, 2015; Third Division, Velasco, J.
Prosecution for Theft
Kyle was charged for theft. Marlyn his girlfriend testified that she saw Kyle climb through Randolph’s fence and enter his house. She later saw Kyle went out of the house with a big bulge in his pocket. They went shopping for a cellphone later that day. Is Kyle guilty?
No. The corpus delicti for the crime of theft is not proven in this case. In theft, corpus delicti has two elements: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking. While it was proven that the property was lost, it cannot be proven that such was lost due to a felonious taking and that it was the petitioner who committed the felonious taking. Marlyn's testimony does not show that when Kyle left the house, he had with him the money. She merely testified that there was a bulge in his pocket.
People of the Philippines vs. Amy Dasigan y Oliva G.R. No. 206229; February 4, 2015; First Division, Perez, J.
Prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Amy was apprehended for selling illegal drugs in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act during a buy-bust operation. There, she delivered the shabu but she only saw the money and didn’t receive it. Are the elements of illegal sale of Dangerous present?
No, hence, she is not liable for sale of illegal drugs. It is material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that the sale actually took place, and what consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the seller’s receipt of the marked money. Receipt of the marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after, is required.
People of the Philippines vs. Jomer Butial
G.R. No. 192785, February 4, 2015; Second Division, Del Castillo, J.
Prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Accused was caught selling illegal drugs during a buy-bust operation. Thus he was charged for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. However, there was no marking nor were there photographs of the shabu. Will the accused be convicted?
No. In the prosecution for the illegal sale of drugs, the identities of the buyer, seller, object, and the consideration; and also the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor must be shown. Further, the evidence of corpus delicti must be established beyond doubt where
show that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were preserved. The confiscated sachets weren’t marked nor were there photographs of the shabu confiscated. The lack of certainty on a crucial element of the crime such as the identity of the corpus delicti, warrants acquittal.
People of the Philippines vs. Pacito Epejon Y Lebios G.R. No. 199445, February 04, 2015; First Division, Perez, J.
Prosecution for Rape; Conducts of the Rape Victim
AAA, a 12-year old girl, was raped by the accused on 5 different occasions. Accused averred that the lower court failed in its appreciation of AAA’s testimony as it may have overlooked certain circumstances therein. He contends the act of the victim receiving P20.00 from him after each act of rape goes against the case of the victim. Is the accused correct?
No. Such receipt P20.00 from the appellant is not prejudicial to the accusations of rape. It neither excuses appellant’s dastardly acts nor implies AAA’s consent thereto. The fact that the money was an unsolicited thing that was handed to AAA after the ruttish subjection, such act which is indignity upon insult. It is incomprehensible that for an ordinary 12-year-old Filipina girl, would just suddenly surrender herself to the sexual desires of a married man almost four times her elder in exchange for money.
People of the Philippines vs. Sander Dacuma Y Lunsod; G.R. No. 205889, February 4, 2015; First Division, Perez J.
Prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
A buy-bust operation was conducted to entrap Dacuma. He was then charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. In defense, they raised the issue on the non-compliance with the procedure on custody and safekeeping of seized dangerous drugs. Should he be acquitted?
Yes. The requisites for illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What’s essential is to prove that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. The sale is perfected the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. The prosecution failed to prove that the shabu eventually presented in court were the same ones confiscated by the officers due to its non-marking at the place where the buy-bust operation was committed.
People of the Philippines vs. Oscar Sevillano y Retanal; G.R. No. 200800, February 09, 2015; First Division, Perez, J.
Murder; Treachery as Qualifying Circumstance
Pablo and the witnesses were seated on a bench at a vacant lot when they saw Oscar. Oscar who appeared to be drunk, walked toward them. Without warning, Oscar pulled out a knife and stabbed Pablo on the chest. Is Oscar guilty of murder?
YES. The accused is guilty of murder. The prosecution witnesses positively identified the accused as the person who stabbed the victim which eventually caused the latter’s death. There’s treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The attack on the unsuspecting victim, who was merely seated on a bench and talking with his friends, was very sudden, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself or to repel the aggression, thus insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim.
Angelita Cruz Benito vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. No. 204644, February 11, 2015; Second Division, Leonen, J.
Conspiracy
Abadilla and Agbulos entered into several transactions for the sale of jewelry. In all these transactions, Benito accompanied Agbulos. Agbulos misappropriated the jewelry belonging to Abadilla. Was there a conspiracy between Benito and Agbulos in committing Estafa?
No. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. So long as the evidence show a "common design or purpose” to commit the crime, all the accused shall be held equally liable as co-principals even if one or more of them didn’t participate in all the details of the execution of the crime. There’s no proof of Benito's direct participation in the commission of the crime. Neither is there proof beyond reasonable doubt of her conspiracy with Agbulos. The fact that Benito accompanied Agbulos in going to Abadilla's residence, doesn’t prove that Benito received any jewelry from Abadilla.
People of the Philippines vs. Abola Bio y Panayangan;
G.R. No. 195850, February 16, 2015; Second Division, Del Castillo, J.
Prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
A buy-bust operation was conducted against the accused wherein he sold to PO2 Salonga one plastic sachet of Shabu and that an ensuing body search revealed that he possessed another plastic sachet containing the same illegal substance. What are the elements needed to convict an accused for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs?
To sustain a conviction under for illegal sale, all that is needed for the prosecution to establish are (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it is necessary to prove that: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Reyes y Santos
G.R. NO. 194606, February, 18, 2015; Second Division, Del Castillo, J.
Prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Alfredo was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165 because of a buy-bust operation. However, they argue that there was failure to establish the elements of the illegal sale in proving that payment was given in consideration thereof, in fact there was an absence of a marked money in the buy bust operation. Is he correct?
Yes. The crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, such as shabu, has the following elements: (1) identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. Here, the second element is wanting as SPO1 Acosta even testified that there was no need to give the money as payment during the sale.
People of the Philippines vs. Eric Rosauro y Bongcawil G.R. No. 209588, February 18, 2015; First Division, Perez, J.
Prosecution under the Dangerous Act of 2002
On the basis of reports that Eric Rosauro was selling and distributing drugs, an entrapment operation was conducted. In exchange for the (1) sachet of shabu given by Rosauro to the confidential agent, the latter gave him a marked 100-peso bill. Rosauro averred that the operation was a decoy solicitation of persons seeking to expose the criminal and the informant wasn’ t presented in court.
The solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant utilized by the police merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. They duly acted on the information received by effecting a drug transaction with appellant. There was no showing the appellant was induced to sell drugs. As a rule, informants are not presented in court for security reasons. Only when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his security be disregarded.
People of the Philippines vs. Dante Dela Peña and Dennis Delima G.R. No. 207635, February 18, 2015; Third Division, Villarama, Jr.
Prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
The accused were caught in a buy bust operation and were charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. They argue that their guilt was not established. What are the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of illegal drugs and the primary consideration in their prosecution?
The elements for the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. For illegal possession, (a) the accused is in possession of a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the drug. The primary consideration is to ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs have been preserved from the time they were confiscated from the accused until their presentation in court.
People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio Largo Perondo
G.R. NO. 193855, February 18, 2015; Second Division, Del Castillo, J.
Prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
(1)Is the presentation of the poseur-buyer as witness indispensable in a prosecution for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165? (2) Is the non-participation of the PDEA fatal to a buy-bust operation?
1. No. As long as all the elements of Illegal sale of drugs were proved beyond reasonable doubt and the police officers presented as witnesses were all part of the buy-bust operation as direct witnesses to the actual sale of the Shabu, the Accused’s arrest immediately thereafter and the recovery from the poseur-buyer of the marked money, the testimony of the poseur-buyer is merely corroborative.
2. No, the coordination with the PDEA is not a crucial requisite of a proper buy-bust operation; it is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.
People of the Philippines vs. Ja Hinlo @ "Inday Kabang" (at large), Richard Palma y Varcas @ "Inday Atet", Ruvico Senido y Hamaybay @ "Ruby" and Edgar Pedroso Y
Palasol @ "Libat"
G.R. No. 212151, February 18, 2015; Second Division, Del Castillo, J.
Robbery with Homicide
The accused were all armed with knives when they broke into the house of spouses Clavel, took certain personal properties, and in the course thereof, stabbed Freddie, resulting to his death. This is supported by the testimony of the state witness, Dumagat, who presented a detailed, consistent and credible narrative of the incident and positively identified accused-appellants as perpetrators of the crime. Are they guilty of Robbery with Homicide?
Yes. In robbery with homicide, robbery must be the main purpose, the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the killing, but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. Such were present here as shown by the fact that they only killed Freddie when he woke up to go to the bathroom after they have already gained entry by destroying the knob of the kitchen door and took the Spouses’ personal properties.
People of the Philippines vs. LTSG. Dominador Barabos, LTJG. Manny G. Ferrer, LTJG. Ronald G. Magsino, LTJG. Gerry P. Doctor, Ens. Dominador B. Operio, Jr., and the Hon.
Sandiganbayan; G.R. No. 174786 & 171222, February 18, 2015; First Division, Sereno C.J.
Liability of Accomplices when the Case is dismissed against the Principals
Alvarez et. Al were charged for the crime of hazing in the RTC. Criminal charges were then filed with the Sandiganbayan against the school authorities as accomplices to the aforesaid crime. They presented an Order of Entry of Judgment of the dismissal of the charges against Alvarez et al. There being no more principals, should the case against them be dismissed also?
NO. Those charged as accomplices are not ipso facto dismissed in the dismissal of the case against the principals. As long as the commission of the crime can be proven, the trial against the accomplices can proceed independently. The school authorities merely presented the Order of Entry of Judgment. The order does not mention that the case was dismissed against the alleged principals, because no crime had been committed.
People of the Philippines vs. Ronald Nical y Alminario G.R. No. 210430, February 18, 2015; Third Division, Reyes.
Rape; (Presence of Physical Injuries on the Victim)
For the prosecution of rape, the physician testified that he found no signs of any injury, sexual abuse, lacerations, lesions and bleeding in the private parts of the victim, whose hymen he noted was no longer intact. He clarified that the victim could have had prior sexual intercourse months or years earlier, although his medical findings do not exclude the possibility that she was raped or sexually abused by the accused a few days earlier. Does the absence of physical injuries or lacerations negate the crime of rape?
No. It is settled that the absence of physical injuries or fresh lacerations does not negate rape. Although medical results may not indicate physical abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be established by other evidences. In fact, medical findings or proof of injuries are not among the essential elements in the prosecution for rape.
People of the Philippines vs. Mera “Joy” Eleuterio Nielles @ Mera Nielles Delos Reyes G.R. No. 200308, February 23, 2015; Second Division, Del Castillo, J.
Qualified Theft
Mera Joy as cashier, collected P640,353.86 from the sub-guarantors. However, she didn’t remit the amount to her employer, Flores, nor deposit such in her account. Instead, she issued 15 personal checks totaling P640,353.86 and deposited them to Flores’ account. All checks were dishonored upon presentment due to “account closed.” Can she be liable for qualified theft?
Yes. All the elements of qualified theft were present. There was abuse of confidence. Accused herself testified that as a cashier, her functions include collections from agents and the making of deposits and withdrawals in behalf of Flores. An employee who comes into possession of the monies she collected enjoys the confidence reposed in her by her employer. The taking of
the amount collected was with intent to gain. It was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, or force upon things as the payments were voluntarily handed to her by the sub-guarantors.
Cherry Ann Benabaye vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 203466, February 25, 2015; First Division; Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Estafa
Petitioner was the Loans Bookkeeper of Siam Bank Inc. She was authorized to collect and accept loan payments of Siam Bank's clients, issue provisional receipts therefor and remit such payments to her supervisor. The funds were allegedly misappropriated. Did the alleged misappropriation amount to Estafa?
No. Estafa’s first element is wanting. Under the first element, when the money, goods, or any other personal property is received by the offender from the offended party (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3) for administration, he acquires both material and juridical possession of the thing received. Juridical possession means a possession giving the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. Benabaye’s possession was only material. As a collector of loan payments from the clients, the money merely passes into her hands where she takes custody thereof only for the banking day.
People of the Philippines and AAA vs. Court of Appeals 21st Division, Mindanao Station,
et al.; GR No. 183652, 25 February 2015; Third Division, Peralta, J.
Rape (Conducts of the Rape Victim)
After their drinking spree to celebrate their graduation, AAA was raped by the 3 accused. The CA acquitted the accused as there was consensual sex from the fact that AAA did not resist nor did she cry for help. Was there rape?
Yes. AAA was heavily intoxicated at the time of the assault. The elements of rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; (2) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age. Here, evidence shows that they intentionally made AAA consume hard liquor more than she could handle. They forced her to drink even when she was already obviously inebriated. AAA was clearly deprived of reason at the time the private respondents ravished her negating the claim of consensual sex.
People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Gallano y Jaranilla G.R. No. 184762, February 25, 2015; First Division, Bersamin, J.
Qualified Rape
Accused is being charged of qualified rape. The aggravating circumstance of minority and relationship are present, the victim being 12 years old and the accused being her relative within the third civil degree. However, during the trial, the age of the child has not been duly proven by
the prosecution there being inconsistent statements by the witnesses. Is the accused guilty of qualified rape?
No. To be convicted of qualified rape, minority and relationship between the victim and the accused must concur and be established with absolute certainty. Hence, the victim's minority must be averred and established "with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself." Thus, failure to do so such as in this case where the prosecution’s witnesses produced inconsistent evidences on the victim’s age would result in the conviction of the accused of simple rape, and not of qualified rape.
ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Felipe Gozon, Gilberto Duavit, Jr., Marissa L. Flores, Jessica A. Soho, Grace Dela Pena-Reyes, John Oliver T. Manalastas, John Does and Jane
Does; ABS-CBN CORPORATION vs. FELIPE GOZON, GILBERTO R. DUAVIT, JR., MARISSA G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015; Second Division, Leonen, J.
Presence of Intent on Crimes Punishable under Special Penal Laws
ABS-CBN conducted a live coverage of Filipino hostage victim’s arrival at the NAIA and a press conference. ABS-CBN allowed Reuters to air the footages under a special embargo agreement. GMA-7 received a live video feed of the coverage from Reuters and immediately carried the live newsfeed in its program. GMA-7 was not aware that Reuters was airing footages of ABS-CBN. May criminal prosecution for such infringement be negated by good faith?
No. Acts punished under a special law are malum prohibitum where malice is immaterial. The mere act of rebroadcasting without authority creates probable cause to find that GMA7 violated RA 8293. They knew that there’d be consequences in carrying out the footage as they immediately cut the feed upon seeing ABS-CBN’s logo. To admit a different treatment for broadcasts would mean abandonment of a broadcasting organization's minimum rights. It is the act of infringement, not intent, which causes damage.
People of the Philippines vs. Brian Mercado y Sarmiento G.R. No. 207988, March 11, 2015; First Division, Perez, J.
Prosecution under the dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Accused was arrested for selling and delivering shabu during a buy-bust operation. As a defense, he averred that there were lapses in the safekeeping, making the shabu’s integrity doubtful, in violation of RA 9165. Was the accused guilty?
Yes. The elements of illegal sale of drugs under R.A. No. 9165 are (1) identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; (2) delivery of the thing sold and payment. It must be established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and the former knew that what he sold and delivered was a prohibited drug. Failure to strictly comply with the procedures in the inventory of drugs doesn’t make the items inadmissible. The officers, through their testimonies have successfully established the sale. Furthermore, it has been held that mere possession of prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of animus possidendi sufficient to convict in the absence of satisfactory explanation.
People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Oloverio
G.R. No. 211159, March 18, 2015; Second Division, Leonen, J.
Murder; Passion and Obfuscation as Qualifying Circumstance
Oloverio was charged with the crime of murder for allegedly stabbing Gulane treacherously. In his defense, Oloverio alleged that at the time and day of the incident, Gulane had been accusing him of having an incestuous relationship with his mother and continued mocking him in a loud voice despite repeated requests by the former for the latter to go home. Oloverio admitted that he stabbed Gulane because he could no longer bear the insulting remarks against him. Is he entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation?
Yes. Passion and obfuscation, as a mitigating circumstance, need not be felt only in the seconds before the commission of the crime. It may build up and strengthen over time until it can no longer be repressed and will ultimately motivate the commission of the crime.
Renato M. David vs. Editha A. Agbay and People of the Philippines; GR No. 199113, March 18, 2015; Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J.
Retroactive effects of Penal laws
Renato is a former Filipino citizen who migrated to Canada and became a Canadian citizen by naturalization in 1974. When he returned to the Philippines, he filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application with the DENR, wherein he stated that he was a Filipino citizen. A criminal case was filed against him for falsification of public documents under Art. 172 of the RPC. Can Renato be
indicted under Art. 172 of the RPC if he subsequently re-acquires his Filipino citizenship by virtue of RA 9225?
Yes. Although, after filing the application, he re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under paragraph 1, Section 3 of RA 9225, the falsification was already a consummated act, the said provision having no retroactive effect insofar as his citizenship status is concerned. Further, under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the RPC, it is not necessary that the idea of gain or intent to injure a third person be present.
Arnulfo @ Arnold Jacaban vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015; Third Division, Peralta, J.
Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition
Accused was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions pursuant to a search warrant. The team found a calibre .45 placed in the ceiling of his residence. Accused who was at the living room that time, rushed to the room and grappled with SPO2 Abellana but failed to get hold of the gun. Is the accused guilty?
Yes. The essential elements for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions are: (1) existence of subject firearm; (2) the accused who possessed or owned the same doesn’t have the corresponding license for it. Ownership isn’t an essential element the crime. What’s required is mere possession, actual and constructive or the subjection of the thing
the gun and grappling with the latter for the possession of the gun proved that such was under his control and management.
People of the Philippines vs. Charlie Orosco;
G.R. No. 209227, March 25, 2015; Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J.
Conspiracy
Apellant, along with 2 other John Does were charged of Robbery with Homicide. From the lone testimony of the eyewitness, it was averred that appellant however was not the one who stabbed the victim, the former was only holding the hands of the victim while the stabbing happened on occasion of robbery. Is he guilty of robbery with homicide? Or will it only be Robbery?
He is guilty of Robbery with homicide. When there is showing that the perpetrators acted in a concerted manner in attaining the objective of the crime, there is beyond reasonable doubt the presence of conspiracy. In conspiracy, it does not matter who stabbed the victim because the act of one is the act of all. The participation of accused in holding the hands of the victim to restrain her from moving is sufficient to make him liable for the death of the victim.
People of the Philippines vs. Daniel Matibag y De Villa “Dani” or “Danilo” G.R. No. 206381, March 25, 2015; First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Murder; Treachery as Qualifying Circumstance
Accused was charged with murder with Treachery as the qualifying circumstance. The victim was walking in their subdivision when Duhan confronted him. He delivered a fist blow to Duhan who teetered backwards. While Duhan remained in that position, Matibag shot him several times. Is the accused guilty?
Yes. The killing of must be accompanied by a qualifying circumstance such as 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 ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.awred The prosecution was able to prove that Matibag, was armed with a gun, confronted Duhan, and without any provocation, punched and shot him on the chest. Although the attack was frontal, the sudden and unexpected manner by which it was made rendered it impossible for Duhan to defend himself, adding too that he was unarmed.
Rogelio Roque vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 193169, April 6, 2015; Second Division, Del Castillo, J.
Frustrated homicide as compared to Physical Injuries
Rogelio was charged with frustrated homicide after shooting Reynaldo in the ear and nape and, thereafter, kicking him in the face and back. As a result thereof, Reynaldo was hospitalized for three weeks. Was the crime charged correct?
Yes. Rogelio is guilty of frustrated homicide, as there was intent to kill the victim; otherwise, he is only liable for physical injuries. Vice-versa, regardless of whether the victim only suffered injuries that would have healed in nine to 30 days, if intent to kill is sufficiently borne out, the crime committed is frustrated homicide. The intent to kill is shown by the kind of weapon used by the offender and the parts of the victim's body at which the weapon was aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted. It is worth highlighting that Reynaldo received two gunshot wounds in the head. Indeed the location of the wounds plus the nature of the weapon used are ready indications that Rogelio's objective is not merely to warn or incapacitate a supposed aggressor.
Grace San Diego vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 176114, April 8, 2015; Third Division, Peralta, J.
Qualified Theft as compared to Estafa
Grace was an accountant of a cooperative, where she also handled cashiering and tellering functions. She was charged with Qualified Theft after discovery of discrepancies between the actual cash in bank and the amount certified by Grace. Petitioner argues that if the thing is received and then appropriated or converted without the consent of the owner, the crime committed is estafa and not qualified theft. Is Grace’s contention correct?
No. In estafa, under Article 315(1)(b) of the RPC, the property is received by the offender under an obligation involving the duty to return the same. Thus, the offender acquires both physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received. In this case, petitioner did not have juridical possession of the sum of money as she did not acquire a right over the money received. Possession of the petitioner was akin to that of a receiving teller of funds received from third persons paid to the bank, where the teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds received, and has no independent, autonomous right to retain the money received in consequence of the agency.
People of the Philippines vs. Victoriano Villar
G.R. No. 202708, April 13, 2015; Second Division, Del Castillo, J.
Conspiracy to commit murder
Victoriano was charged and found guilty for murder, in conspiracy with two other accused. The conviction was based on the eyewitness account of the victim’s daughter that while she was sitting in front of their store with his father, the three accused suddenly emerged from the store across and fired shots at her father. In his defense, Victoriano claims that he was in another town on the night of the shooting. Is the conviction correct?
Yes. It has been sufficiently established that there was conspiracy among the assailants, i.e., they simultaneously emerged from the ice cream store; successively shot the victim; and fled from the crime scene together. Further, Victoriano’s alibi should be disregarded for being uncorroborated and self-serving, and in view of his positive identification by the eyewitness. Moreover, his unexplained flight and hiding for 18 years was considered an indication of guilt.
Teresita A. Ciron vs. Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, et al., G.R. No. 194339-41, April 20, 2015; First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Pursuant to several criminal complaints filed by Santiago, the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) found probable cause to indict Teresita for estafa. However, the Informations filed were deficient; thus, the RTC dismissed the criminal case without prejudice to its re-filing. The dismissal subsequently attained finality. Thereafter, the OCP reviewed the evidence and issued Supplemental Resolutions recommending the filing of Informations for estafa against Teresita. Did the OCP violate of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019?
No. The essential elements of such crime are as follows: (a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers); (b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions. In this case, the acts of issuing the Supplemental Resolutions and filing of new Informations before the RTC, even without Santiago filing a new complaint before the OCP, is in accordance with prevailing rules and jurisprudence and, thus, were not tainted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence.
Aurora Engson Fransdilla vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 197562, April 20, 2015; First Division, Bersamin, J.
Conspiracy to commit robbery
Aurora was found guilty of conspiracy in committing the crime of robbery due to her acts of introducing herself as a representative of the POEA in order to gain access into the house, distracting the complainant in order to have her cohorts enter the house, and peeping inside the bedroom when her co-accused were tying complainant up to enable themselves to take away jewelry and other valuables without hindrance. Was there conspiracy?
Yes. For an accused to be validly held to have conspired with her co-accused in committing the crime, her overt acts must evince her active part in the execution of the crime agreed to be committed. The overt acts of each of the conspirators must tend to execute the offense agreed upon, for the merely passive conspirator cannot be held to be still part of the conspiracy without such overt acts, unless such conspirator is the mastermind. Here, Aurora was satisfactorily shown not to have been a mere passive co-conspirator, but an active one who had facilitated the access into the house by representing herself as an employee of the POEA.
Nonito Imbo vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 197712, April 20, 2105, First Division, Perez, J.
Imposable penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness under RPC in relation to RA 7610
Nonito was charged with Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC for kissing the private parts of his 11-year old daughter. He was subsequently found guilty by the RTC and penalized in accordance with Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. Was the RTC correct?
Yes. The elements of sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610 were sufficiently alleged in the Information and duly proven during trial, to wit: (1) the accused commits the act of lascivious conduct; (2) the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years old. Further, it is quite clear by specific provision under R.A. No. 7610 that when the victim is under 12 years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under the RPC, but the penalty is that which is provided in R.A. No. 7610.
People of the Philippines vs. Eugene Samuya
G.R. No. 213214, April 20, 2015; First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Murder attended by Treachery
Gabriel was sitting outside a house, with other companions, when he was suddenly approached by Eugene. Without any warning, the latter shot Gabriel in the chest. As Gabriel was trying to escape, Eugene chased him; thereafter, another shot was heard. Subsequently, Gabriel was found dead. Eugene was then charged and convicted of murder as the killing was attended by treachery. Was the conviction correct?
Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked. A frontal attack does not necessarily rule out treachery; the qualifying circumstance may still be appreciated if the attack was so sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare for his or her defense. In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that Eugene's attack on Gabriel was so swift and sudden, without any warning, which made it impossible for Gabriel to defend himself.
People of the Philippines vs. Ricky Arguta (alias “Joel”) & Wilson Cahipe (alias “Siwit”) G.R. No. 213216, April 20, 2015; First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Qualified Rape
In the evening of December 5, 1996, the victim was heading home from school when she was intercepted by Ricky and Wilson, who both threatened her with a bladed weapon and forced her to have carnal knowledge. On January 30, 1997, both accused were charged of Simple Rape under Article 335 of the RPC. Are the accused guilty of simple rape?
No, the accused should be convicted of Qualified Rape. Since the crime was committed and the Informations were filed prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 8353, which was only passed on September 30, 1997, the old rape provision of the RPC should apply. Under such provision, the crime of rape is qualified when it is committed by two or more persons or when it is committed with the use of a deadly weapon. The presence of either circumstance qualifies the crime. If one is present, the remaining circumstance, if also attendant, is not a generic aggravating circumstance.
Raymundo Zapanta vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015; Second Division Mendoza, J.
Conspiracy; Quantum of Proof
Raymundo, vaults/record keeper of the Registry of Deeds, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan for his alleged conspiracy with the Registrar of Deeds in causing the removal or disappearance of a TCT and the subsequent issuance of a derivative title, in violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Article 226 of the RPC. Is there conspiracy?
No. Conspiracy as a mode of incurring criminal liability must be proven separately from and with the same quantum of proof as the crime itself, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt. To hold an accused guilty as a co-conspirator, he must have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Such is lacking in this case as there was no evidence presented to show with absolute certainty that Raymundo was the one who actually withdrew the original copy of the TCT from the vault.
People of the Philippines vs. Angel Mateo and Vicenta Lapiz G.R. No. 198012, April 22, 2015; Second Division, Del Castillo, J.
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale; Estafa
Angel and Vicenta were convicted for illegal recruitment in large scale committed by promising the five private complainants employment in Japan for a fee, without the necessary license from the POEA. They were also convicted of Estafa for the same acts. In their defense, they contend that the prosecution failed to prove the crime as it was not proven that they received any money from the complainants. Were the convictions correct?
Yes. The elements of illegal recruitment in a large scale were sufficiently proved by the prosecution. Further, money is immaterial to a prosecution for illegal recruitment considering that the definition of "illegal recruitment" under the law includes the phrase "whether for profit or not." As to the simultaneous conviction of illegal recruitment and estafa, it is a well-settled rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment under the law may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code provided that the elements of deceit and damage for estafa are also proven, as in this case.
PO1 Crispin Ocampo vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 194129, June 15, 2015; First Division, Sereno, C.J.
Self-defense; Homicide
As a defense against the charge of homicide, Crispin claims that his act of shooting the victim was prompted by the act of the victim in trying to stab him with a knife during a drinking session. Is the accused’s claim of self-defense tenable?
No, the accused failed to prove the requisites for self-defense to prosper. Firstly, the accused failed to show any attack by the victim which placed accused’s life in imminent or actual danger considering that the autopsy report disproves accused’s claim that he fired the shots while leaning backward after the victim tried to stab him a second time victim. Secondly, the means
employed by the accused were grossly disproportionate to the alleged unlawful aggression considering that the victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds. Lastly, the witness’ testimony showed that accused shot the victim without any sufficient provocation from the latter.
People of the Philippines vs. Rudy Nuyok
G.R. No. 195424, June 15, 2015; First Division, Bersamin, J.
Qualified Rape
In the information filed by the victim, the special qualifying circumstance of minority was not alleged. However the minority of the victim at the time of the rape, and the fact that the accused was her paternal uncle were established during the trial. Can the accused be convicted for qualified rape?
No. The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, avert the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. In this case, although the minority of the victim at the time of the rapes and the fact that the accused was her paternal uncle were established during the trial, the accused can only be convicted for four counts of simple rape instead of qualified rape since the special qualifying circumstance of minority was not alleged in the information.
Herman Medina vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 182648, June 17, 2015; Third Division, Peralta, J.
Simple Theft
Herman is a mechanic who was in charge of repairing a jeep owned by Henry. When the jeep was transferred to another mechanic, some vehicle parts were already missing, which Herman contended was installed in another vehicle also owned by Henry. Is Herman guilty of simple theft under Article 308 of the RPC?
Yes. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent. In this case, Medina acknowledged without hesitation the taking of the jeep’s parts, but he put up the defense that they were installed in the pick-up of the same owner. With such admission, the burden of evidence is shifted on him to prove that the missing parts were indeed lawfully taken. However, petitioner unsatisfactorily discharged the burden.
People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo Lapore G.R. No. 191197, June 22, 2015; First Division, Perez, J.
Simple Rape
Can the circumstances of abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness, minority, and use of a deadly weapon, the presence of such duly proven by the prosecution during trial, be appreciated to qualify the crime from simple rape to qualified rape?
No. Such circumstances are not among those which qualify a crime from simple rape to qualified rape as defined under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Thus, even if duly alleged and proven, the crime will still be simple rape. Consequently, as all the elements necessary to sustain a conviction for simple rape are present: (1) that accused had carnal knowledge of victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished through the use of force or intimidation, accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape.
People of the Philippines vs. Alvin Esugon y Avila G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015; First Division, Bersamin, J.
Robbery with Homicide
The accused questioned his conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, contending that prosecution failed to establish that the taking of personal property was by violence against or intimidation of any person or by using force upon things. Is the contention correct?
No. A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main objective of the malefactor and that the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. However, in this case, violence or intimidation was sufficiently proven. It was established that accused carried a long-bladed weapon, such fact competently proves the presence of violence or intimidation against persons that qualified the offense as robbery instead of theft. Further, the patent intent of the accused was originally to commit robbery was proven as the records show that the deceased’s husband was awakened by someone shouting “Magnanakaw!” which was most probably made by the victim, whom the accused then stabbed.
Ricky Dinamling vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 199522, June 22, 2015; Third Division, Peralta, J.
Anit-Violence Against Women and their Children
Is the victim’s physical condition necessary to prove the crime under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262?
No, the victim’s physical condition is not an element of the crime; thus, proof of the same is unnecessary. In fact, neither the physical injuries suffered by the victim nor the actual physical violence done by the perpetrator are necessary to prove the essential elements of the crime.
The only exception is when the physical violence done by the accused is alleged to have caused the mental and emotional suffering; in which case, such acts of violence must be proven. In this instance, the physical violence was a means of causing mental or emotional suffering. As such, whether or not it led to actual bodily injury, the physical violence translates to psychological violence since its main effect was on the victim's mental or emotional well-being.
People of the Philippines vs. Jose Salvador
G.R. No. 207815, June 22, 2015; Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J.
Rape by Sexual Assault
Jose was accused of rape by his then 15-year old daughter who contended that the accused, in one occasion, inserted his finger in her vagina and, in another occasion, pointed his penis to her vagina without inserting it. Is the accused guilty of rape?
Yes. There are two ways by which the crime of rape is committed under Section 266-A of the RPC: (1) by sexual intercourse; or (2) by sexual assault. Rape by sexual intercourse is when a man has carnal knowledge with a woman, in which case, there must be proof that his penis touched the labia of the victim or slid into her female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface, to ensure conviction. On the other hand, Rape by sexual assault is committed by any person who inserts his penis in another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any object or instrument into the genital or anal orifice of another person. In this case, the accused’s insertion of his finger into the victim’s vagina consummated the crime of rape by sexual assault.
People of the Philippines vs. Ernie Inciong
G.R. No. 213383, June 22, 2015; First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Self-defense; Murder attended by Treachery
Jumar was crossing the street when he encountered Ernie who suddenly poked him with a sumpak, a homemade firearm. Ernie then fired the sumpak, hitting Lumbera in the stomach. Thereafter, he approached Jumar and hit the latter's head twice with the sumpak. Jumar died as a result of the injuries. Thus, accused was charged with murder, attended by treachery. Ernie invoked self-defense alleging that Jumar boxed him and threatened to kill him. Should Ernie be convicted?
Yes. Self-defense cannot be invoked as the element of unlawful aggression was not sufficiently proven in this case. The evidence failed to establish that Ernie’s life was in danger when he encountered Jumar. No self-defense can exist without unlawful aggression since there is no attack that the accused will have to prevent or repel. Moreover, treachery as a qualifying circumstance was correctly appreciated. The assault on Jumar left him unable to defend himself or evade the attack; thus, it ensured that Ernie would be able to consummate the crime without risk to his own person.
Guillermo Wacoy vs. People of the Philippines & James Quibac vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. No. 213792 & G.R. No. 213886, June 22, 2015
First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Homicide as compared to Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray
Guillermo and James were accused of punching and kicking Elner in the stomach, which led to the latter’s death. After trial, the RTC convicted the accused for Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray under Section 251 of the RPC. However, on appeal, the CA modified the conviction to Homicide under Section 249. Is the CA’s modification correct?
Yes. The crime committed by the accused was Homicide. In this case, there was no tumultuous affray between groups of persons in the course of which Elner died. On the contrary, the evidence clearly established that there were only two persons, the accused, who picked on Elner, and attacked him repeatedly, taking turns in inflicting punches and kicks on the victim. There was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression in that fateful incident. Since the accused were even identified as the assailants, the victim's death cannot be said to have been caused in a tumultuous affray.
People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Dulin
G.R. No. 171284, June 29,2015; First Division, Bersamin, J.
Self-defense as compared to Retaliation
Alfredo was convicted for the death of Francisco, who was inflicted with 12 stab wounds. In his defense, Alfredo claims that it was Francisco who first stabbed him twice and that he was able to disarm Francisco, who immediately chased after him; it was then that the former stabbed the latter. Can Alfredo claim self-defense?
No. Unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the accused, self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, should not be appreciated, for the two other essential elements of self-defense would have no factual and legal bases. In this case, although Francisco initiated the attack against A lfredo, the unlawful aggression from Francisco effectively ceased once Alfredo had wrested the weapon from the latter. Thus, when Alfredo stabbed Francisco, it constituted retaliation, which is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that the victim started already ceased when the accused attacked him, but in self-defense, the aggression was still continuing when the accused injured the aggressor.
People of the Philippines vs. Romeo De Castro and Randolf Pabanil G.R. No. 205316, June 29, 2015; Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J.
Murder; Qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength
Respondents were found guilty of murder for killing a police officer. On appeal they argued that the RTC erred in considering the qualifying circumstances of abuse of superior strength. They claimed that accused Randolf punched the victim as he thought the latter was about to shoot co-accused Romeo. When victim fell and drew his gun, Randolf was forced to get the LPG tank and repeatedly hit the victim. Should the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength be considered?
Yes. To take advantage of superior strength is to purposely use excessive force, out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. In this case, the victim was already helpless when he was repeatedly attacked with a gas tank. Appellants clearly used excessive force against the already unarmed and defenseless victim.
