Lucido vs. People (2017)

ANTONIETA LUCIDO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 217764, August 07, 2017

LEONEN, J.:

Facts: In an Information, appellant was charged with child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610, alleging that accused, unlawfully and intentionally, beat with the use of a belt, pinched, and strangulated the child victim AAA, who was then eight (8) years old, thereby inflicting physical injuries that affected the normal development of the said child victim. A subsequent physical examination conducted by Dr. Abiera confirmed AAA's story. His findings were as follows: Multiple abrasions on different parts of the body secondary to pricking, nail marks/scratches, there is redness on the peripheral circumference of the hymen, No hymenal laceration noted and there is weakness of (L) knee joint upon walking.

Appellant denied that she pinched, beat and hit AAA and that she inserted her finger into AAA's vagina. She claimed that she usually cleaned AAA's vagina and bathed her with hot water.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of child abuse.

Ruling: Yes. As defined in the law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the child, whether it is habitual or not. Section 10 of RA 7610 provides that any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or 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.

In this case, AAA's testimony was corroborated by Dr. Abierra. First, there were "multiple abrasions on different parts of [AAA's] body." Additionally, he observed a "redness on the peripheral circumference of the hymen," which could have been caused by a hard pinching. Finally, there was an evident "weakness on the left knee joint," which could have been caused by the victim falling to the ground or being beaten by a hard object. Strangulating, severely pinching, and beating an eight (8)-year-old child to cause her to limp are intrinsically cruel and excessive. These acts of abuse impair the child's dignity and worth as a human being and infringe upon her right to grow up in a safe, wholesome, and harmonious place. It is not difficult to perceive that this experience of repeated physical abuse from petitioner would prejudice the child's social, moral, and emotional development.

Ratio Decidendi: The crime under Republic Act No. 7610 is malum prohibitum. Hence, the intent to debase, degrade, or demean the minor is not the defining mark.

Gist: This is a petition assailing the CA’s Decision which affirmed the RTC’s Decision finding appellant guilty of child abuse under Section 10(a) [6] of Republic Act No. 7610.

People vs. Sison (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERLINDA A. SISON

G.R. No. 187160, August 9, 2017

CARPIO, J.:

Facts: Casuera and Magalona met appellant and the latter briefed Castuera on the requirements for working as a fruit picker in Australia. She introduced Castuera to another man who related that he was able to go to Australia with her help. She also showed Castuera pictures of other people she had supposedly helped to get employment in Australia. Appellant further narrated that a couple she had helped had given her their car as payment. Because of her representations, Castuera believed in her promise that she could send him to Australia. Appellant asked Castuera for ₱180,000 for processing his papers.

Appellant, however, failed to secure an Australian visa for Castuera. Together with Dedales and Bacomo, appellant convinced Castueara that that it was difficult to get an Australian visa in the Philippines so they had to go to Malaysia or in Indonesia to get one. Subsequently, Castuera's application for an Australian visa in Indonesia was denied. Dedales asked for US$1,000 for the processing of his U.S. visa, which he paid. However, when his U.S. visa came, Castuera saw that it was in an Indonesian passport bearing an Indonesian name. Because of this, Castuera decided to just return to the Philippines.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of syndicated estafa.

Ruling: Yes. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. Under RA 8042, a non-licensee or non-holder of authority commits illegal recruitment for overseas employment in two ways: (1) by any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not; or (2) by undertaking any of the acts enumerated under Section 6 of RA 8042.

In this case, appellant herself admits that she has no license or authority to undertake recruitment and placement activities. Since it was proven that the three accused were acting in concert and conspired with one another, their illegal recruitment activity is considered done by a syndicate, making the offense illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage.

Ratio Decidendi: It is not essential that there be actual proof that all the conspirators took a direct part in every act.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA which affirmed the Decision of the RTC finding Sison guilty beyond reasonable doubt of (1) violation of Section 6, in relation to Section 7, of Republic Act No. 8042 or illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage.

People vs. Abellanosa (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GILDA ABELLANOSA

G.R. No. 214340, July 19, 2017

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Facts: Appellant was charged with Illegal Recruitment in large scale in an Information alleging that that accused falsely representing to possess authority to recruit job applicants for employment abroad without first having secured the required authority from the POEA, illegally collect and receive from GEPHRE 0. POMAR the amount of (₱5,500.00), as partial payment of processing and placement fees for overseas employment, which illegal recruitment activities is considered an offense involving economic sabotage, it being committed in large scale under Sec. 6(m) paragraph 2 of Republic Act [No.] 8042, having committed the same not only against Gephre O. Pomar but also against seven (7) others.

Appellant denied meeting any of the private complainants while she was in Iloilo and maintained that her purpose in going to Iloilo was only to assist Shirley in processing the latter's business license. Appellant likewise denied that she received money from the private complainants; she claimed that it was Shirley who was engaged in recruitment activities.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.

Ruling: Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

In this case, private complainants Pomar, Pastolero, Cathedral, Orias, Suobiron, Bueron, and Pelipog testified that appellant went to Pavia, Iloilo and represented herself as a recruiter who could send them to Brunei for work; that appellant impressed upon them that she had the authority or ability to send them overseas for work by showing them a job order from Brunei and a calling card; and appellant collected processing or placement fees from the private complainants in various amounts ranging from ₱5,000.00 to ₱20,000.00; and that she did not reimburse said amounts despite demands. In addition, it was proved that appellant does not have any license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment as shown by the certification issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.

Finally, appellant recruited seven persons, or more than the minimum of three persons required by law, for illegal recruitment to be considered in large scale.

Ratio Decidendi: Recruitment becomes illegal when undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority.

Gist: This is an appeal from Decision of the CA which affirmed the Decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in large scale.

People vs. Rodriguez (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. WILLINGTON RODRIGUEZ

G.R. No. 211721, September 20, 2017

MARTIRES, J.:

Facts: The evidence for the prosecution is anchored solely on the testimony of Police Officer I Escober alleging that at around 11:00 P.M .PO1 Escober was at the police station preparing for the police operation called Oplan Bugaw for the purpose of eliminating prostitution on Quezon Avenue. PO1 Escober, designated to pose as customer, was accompanied by P02 Bereber as his backup, and P/lnsp. Lopez. While parking their vehicles at the target area, PO1 Escober was flagged down by Rodriguez who allegedly offered the sexual services of three (3) pickup girls. PO1 Escober readily gave Rodriguez the pre-marked ₱500.00 bill as payment. This signaled his backup to enter the scene and aid in the arrest. PO1 Escober then retrieved the pre-marked bill. Thereafter, the officers brought Rodriguez and the three (3) pickup girls to the police station.

In his defense, Rodriguez denied that he had offered a girl for sexual purposes to PO1 Escober.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of qualified trafficking in persons.

Ruling: No. Section 3(a)29 provides the elements of trafficking in persons: (1) the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipts of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders; (2) the means used which include "threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another; and (3) the purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes "exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.

In the instant case, only PO1 Escober testified as to the actual unfolding of circumstances which led him to believe that Rodriguez was committing human trafficking. The prosecution did not bother to present the testimonies of the alleged victims. Their testimonies that they were sexually exploited against their will through force, threat or other means of coercion are material to the cause of the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The gravamen of the crime of human trafficking is not so much the offer of a woman or child; it is the act of recruiting or using, with or without consent, a fellow human being for sexual exploitation.

Gist: This is an appeal assailing from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed appellant’s conviction for qualified trafficking in persons, in violation of Republic Act No. 9208, otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.

Chua vs. People (2017)

JOHN DENNIS G. CHUA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES & CRISTINA YAO

G.R. No. 195248, November 22, 2017

MARTIRES, J.:

Facts: Sometime in the year 2000, petitioner's mother mentioned that her son would be reviving their sugar mill business and asked whether Yao could lend them money. Yao acceded and loaned petitioner ₱1 million on 3 January 2001; ₱1 million on 7 January 2001; and ₱l.5 million on 16 February 2001. She also lent petitioner an additional ₱2.5 million in June 2001. As payment petitioner issued four (4) checks in these amounts but which were dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account. Upon dishonor of the checks, Yao personally delivered her demand letter to the office of the petitioner which was received by his secretary. Petitioner was thus charged with four (4) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove actual receipt of the notice.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of B.P.22.

Ruling: No. To be liable for violation of B.P. Big. 22, the following essential elements must be present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

The Court finds that the second element was not sufficiently established. Yao testified that the personal secretary of petitioner received the demand letter, yet, said personal secretary was never presented to testify whether she in fact handed the demand letter to petitioner who, from the onset, denies having received such letter. It must be borne in mind that it is not enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the accused. The prosecution must also prove actual receipt of said notice, because the fact of service provided for in the law is reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The presumption that the issuer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds is brought into existence only after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and that within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangement for its payment.

Gist: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Orders of the RTC, which affirmed the Decision, finding petitioner guilty of four (4) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Big. 22).

People vs. Manaligod (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DENNIS MANALIGOD

G.R. No. 218584, April 25, 2018

MARTIRES, J.:

Facts: BBB asked her daughter, AAA, an eight (8) year old minor, to borrow a cellphone charger at the videoke bar where she worked. When AAA came back, BBB saw that AAA had P20.00 in her possession. She asked AAA where it came from and the latter answered that appellant gave it to her. BBB asked why appellant would give her P20.00 but AAA refused to answer because appellant told her not to tell anyone. Upon further questioning by her mother, AAA narrated that appellant brought her to a room at the videoke bar where he removed her clothes and underwear, and then undressed himself. Afterwards, he repeatedly inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. Appellant then told AAA not to tell her mother what had happened and gave her P20.00. Dr. Lorenzo performed the examination and found lacerations in AAA's vagina.

Accused-appellant, through his counsel, manifested that he would not present evidence for his defense.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of statutory rape under RA 8353.

Ruling: Yes. Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.     

As evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth, AAA was only eight (8) years old at the time she was sexually molested on 24 September 2007. Inside the courtroom, AAA identified accused-appellant as her rapist. AAA's narration was likewise corroborated by Dr. Lorenzo's medical findings as to the existence of hymenal laceration. When the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that there has been carnal knowledge

Ratio Decidendi: In statutory rape, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA which affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty of statutory rape.

People vs. Gamboa (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MANUEL GAMBOA

G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Facts: During a buy-bust operation, PO2 Nieva asked appellant if he could buy P200.00 worth of shabu, handing as payment the buy-bust money. In turn, appellant gave PO2 Nieva a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Nieva removed his bull cap, prompting the back-up officers to rush towards the scene and arrest appellant. Subsequently, they recovered another plastic sachet and the buy-bust money. PO2 Nieva immediately marked the two (2) plastic sachets and inventoried the items at the place of arrest in the presence of appellant and a media representative named Rene Crisostomo. Photographs of the confiscated items were also taken by PO3 Benitez during the marking and inventory. Thereafter, PO2 Nieva brought appellant and the seized drugs to the police station where PO3 Benitez prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination.

Issue: Whether or not the CA correctly upheld appellant’s conviction for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

Ruling: No, the police officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from appellant.

Under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same.

An examination of the records reveals that the same was not done in the presence of any elected public official, as well as a representative from the DOJ. In fact, such lapse was admitted by PO2 Nieva. Thus, for failure of the prosecution to provide justifiable grounds or show that special circumstances exist which would excuse their transgression, the Court is constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from appellant have been compromised.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for the sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the State carries the heavy burden of proving the integrity of the corpus delicti failing in which, renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

Peralta vs. People (2017)

JOSELITO PERALTA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 221991, August 30, 2017

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Facts: A team of police officers responded to a telephone call received by their desk officer-on-duty that there was a man firing a gun at the back of the PLDT Building in Pantal District, Dagupan City. Upon arrival thereat, the police officers saw two (2) men walking, later identified as Peralta and his companion, Calimlim, holding a gun and a knife respectively. Upon seeing the police officers, the men became uneasy, which prompted the police officers to swoop in. Upon apprehension, they recovered a caliber .45 pistol with Serial Number 4517488 containing a magazine with five (5) live ammunitions from Peralta and a knife from Calimlim. The men were then brought to the Region I Medical Center, and later, to the community precinct for paraffin and gun powder residue test. Meanwhile, the pistol and the magazine with live ammunitions were endorsed to the duty investigator.

While admitting that the police recovered a knife from Calimlim, Peralta vigorously denied having a firearm with him, much less illegally discharging the same.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition.

Ruling: Yes. The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of firearms is the accused's lack of license or permit to possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited by law. To establish the corpus delicti, the prosecution has the burden of proving that: (a) the firearm exists; and (b) the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess or carry the same.

In this case, the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the aforesaid elements, considering that: (a) the police officers positively identified Peralta as the one holding a .45 caliber pistol with Serial Number 4517488 with magazine and live ammunitions, which was seized from him and later on, marked, identified, offered, and properly admitted as evidence at the trial; and (b) the Certification dated August 10, 2011 issued by the Firearms and Explosives Office of the Philippine National Police which declared that Peralta "is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and calibre, specifically Caliber .45 Pistol, make (unknown) with Serial Number 4517488 per verification from the records of this office as of this date.

Ratio Decidendi: In order that one may be found guilty of a violation of the decree, it is sufficient that the accused had no authority or license to possess a firearm.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the RTC finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866,5 as amended by Republic Act No. 8294.

Fianza vs. People (2017)

CHRISTOPHER FIANZA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR No. 218592, Aug 02, 2017

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Facts: Sometime in July 2010, AAA, who was then 11 years old, was asked by appellant to wash his clothes. Thereafter, petitioner asked her to go with him to the kamalig. Thereat, they proceeded to the second floor where petitioner removed his pants and briefs, lied down, and ordered AAA to hold his penis and masturbate him. After ejaculating, he put on his clothes, and gave P20.00 to AAA who, thereafter, went home. Likewise, on November 30, 2010, while AAA was home, petitioner called her to his house, and asked her to clean the same. After she was done sweeping the floor, they proceeded to the second floor of the kamalig. Thereat, petitioner again removed his pants and briefs, lied down, and ordered AAA to fondle his penis. After the deed, he gave P20.00 to AAA who, thereafter, went home.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty with violations of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610.

Ruling: At the outset, the Court deems it appropriate to correct the appellation of the crime with which petitioner was charged to Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC considering that the victim, AAA, was only 11 years old at the time of the incidents.

In instances where the child subjected to sexual abuse through lascivious conduct is below twelve (12) years of age, the offender should be prosecuted under Article 336 of the RPC, but suffer the higher penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period in accordance with Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, which pertinently reads:

SECTION 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

In the present case, records disclose that on two (2) occasions in July 2010 and on November 30, 2010, appellant induced AAA, an 11-year-old minor, to hold his penis and masturbate him.

Ratio Decidendi: The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA which upheld the Decision of the RTC finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of violation of Section 5 (b),[5] Article III of Republic Act No. 7610.

People vs. Sandiganbayan, Gamos (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ALEJANDRO E. GAMOS et al

G.R. Nos. 232197-98, April 16, 2018

TIJAM, J.:

Facts: On February 18, 2008, a complaint was filed against former Sta. Magdalena, Sorsogon Mayor Alejandro E. Gamos (Gamos), Municipal Accountant Rosalyn E. Gile (Gile), and Municipal Treasurer Virginia E. Laco (Laco) for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. On March 30, 2015, two Informations for malversation of public funds were filed against Gamos, Gile, and Laco before the Sandiganbayan.

On February 1, 2017, the Sandiganbayan issued its assailed Resolution, dismissing the cases, on the ground of delay, depriving the respondents-accused Gamos, Gile and Laco of their right to a speedy disposition of their cases. Sandiganbayan found that seven years had passed since the filing of the First Complaint in 2008 until the filing of the Informations before it.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the cases before it on the ground of delay.

Ruling: Yes. The conduct of both the prosecution and defendant are weighed apropos the four-fold factors, to wit: (1) length of the delay; (2) reason for the delay; (3) defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to defendant resulting from the delay.

It is not unreasonable for the investigating officer to embark into the detailed investigation of the cases. As alleged, there were 63 cash advance transactions in the two complaints to investigated upon, covering the period of 2004 to 2007.

There is nothing on record that would show that respondents asserted this right to speedy disposition during the OMB proceedings when they alleged that the delay occurred. In fact, it took respondents one year and eight months after the Informations were filed before the court a quo on March 30, 2015 before they finally asserted such right in their Motion to Dismiss. Neither was there a considerable prejudice caused by a delay upon the respondents. Respondents were practically not made to undergo any investigative proceeding prior to the COA's response to respondents' request for the review of the audit reports upon which the complaints were anchored.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient.

Gist: This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.

People vs. Racho (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERLINDA RACHO

G.R. No. 227505, October 02, 2017

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Facts: Appellant was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale in an Information which alleges that the accused, did then and there without first obtaining a license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment from the POEA, feloniously recruit and promise employment/job placement and collect fee[s] from the fifteen (15) complainants as contract workers, without any license/authority from the POEA or by the DOLE to recruit workers for overseas employment. The senior Labor and Employment Officer from the POEA confirmed that appellant was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for employment abroad as certified in a document.

Appellant denied the charges against her and argued that she was an auditor of PET Plans, Inc. from March 23, 2000 to August 31, 2005, making it highly unlikely for her to have engaged in the business of recruitment and promised employment abroad.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and of Estafa.

Ruling: Yes. The elements of the offense are: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) he undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of RA 8042); and (c) he commits the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.

In this case, the POEA certification sufficiently established that appellant is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. The definition of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code includes promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not, provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Appellant’s act of offering and promising to deploy the complainants to East Timor for work and collecting placement fees from more than three (3) persons, despite not being authorized to do so, renders her liable for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale. In this relation, her defense of denial cannot overcome complainants' categorical and positive testimonies against her/.

Ratio Decidendi: A person or entity engaged in recruitment and placement activities without the requisite authority is engaged in illegal recruitment.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the RTC convicting appellant of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under Republic Act No. 8042.

People vs. Nuyte (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NELSON NUYTE

G.R. No. 219111, March 12, 2018

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Facts: An Information was filed charging appellant as follows: on May 3, 2004 at more or less 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, x x x Province of Albay, Philippines, the above named accused, with lewd and unchaste design, by means of intimidation, coercion, influence and other consideration, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with "AAA", x x x 14 years old, x x x against her will and consent, act which debased and degraded her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, to her damage and prejudice.

Theirs was a consensual sex, appellant admitted. In fact their sexual congress happened several times, usually at noontime in the same grassy place where AAA tethers the cows.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of rape and/or child abuse.

Ruling: Yes. Infliction of physical injury is not an essential element of rape. The narration of AAA established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of rape, to wit: appellant had carnal knowledge of "AAA" through force and intimidation, and without her consent and against her will. The "sweetheart theory" claimed by appellant is futile. It was never substantiated by the evidence on record. The alleged love letter supposedly written by "AAA" was never presented in court.

In this case, the victim was 14 years old when the crime was committed. Following People vs. Abay, appellant may either be charged with violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or with rape under Article 266-A of the RPC. In such instance, the court must examine the evidence of the prosecution, whether it focused on the specific force or intimidation employed by the offender or on the broader scope of coercion or influence to have carnal knowledge with the victim. In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution in no uncertain terms focused on the force or intimidation employed by appellant against "AAA" under Article 266-A (1)(a) of the RPC. The prosecution, through the steadfast declaration of "AAA", was able to establish that the appellant forced her to lie down on a grassy ground and, at knifepoint, inserted his penis into her vagina. Appellant therefore, should be held guilty of rape under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the RPC and sentenced to reclusion perpetua instead of violation of Section 5(b)of RA 7610.

Ratio Decidendi: Tenacious resistance against rape is not required; neither is a determined or a persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA which affirmed the Decision of the RTC, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of rape and five counts of violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610.

People vs. Agalot (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSEPH AGALOT

G.R. No. 220884, February 21, 2018

MARTIRES, J.:

Facts: Appellant was charged with rape in relation to R.A. No. 7610 in an Information which alleges that the accused with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one AAA, a girl 12 years of age without her consent and against her will. The physical examination conducted on AAA by Dr. Mandin showed Abrasion noted at 4 o'clock position; Admits examining finger (little finger) with pain and Cervical swab sent for spermatozoa examination.

According to the appellant, he was then cooking bananas when he asked AAA to fetch water. She complied but when it took her a long time to come back, he went out and found her at the basketball court where she was playing with her slippers. He got a guava branch which he used to whip her but because she still did not want to go home, he dragged her towards the house.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of rape.

Ruling: Yes. For a charge of rape under Article 266-A(1) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353 to prosper, it must be proven that: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.

The basic rule is that when a victim's testimony is credible and sufficiently establishes the elements of the crime, it may be enough basis to convict an accused of rape. The records reveal that the testimony of AAA, though she was only a child, was full of details which she credibly narrated because these were the truth.

Dr. Mandin testified that when she did a perineal examination of AAA she noted erythema or redness caused by force or pressure on her right and left labia majora, and abrasion of the vulva at 4 o'clock position. Upon internal examination, the examining finger was admitted with pain. Further, the defense of alibi and denial proffered by the accused-appellant were inherently weak and which cannot prevail over the positive identification by AAA that it was the accused-appellant who raped her.

Ratio Decidendi: A rape victim's account is sufficient to support a conviction for rape if it is straightforward, candid, and corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA which affirmed the Judgment of the RTC finding him guilty of Rape in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, as amended.

Calahi vs. People (2017)

ARNEL CALAHI ET. AL. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 195043, November 20, 2017

MARTIRES, J.:

Facts: While serving the search warrant on Elsie Valenzuela, the CIDG members noticed an XLT jeep parked near Elsie's house. Suspicious, they approached said jeep and saw four (4) persons holding a pot session inside. They noticed the following items inside the vehicle: an aluminum foil, an improvised tooter, a lighter, and remnants of shabu. SPO3 Padilla and his team immediately arrested the four who were later identified as Enrique, Arnel, Nicasio, and Nicolas and confiscated the white substance found with them. Then they were brought to the police station in Cabanatuan City. Thereafter, SPO3 Padilla requested a laboratory examination on the confiscated substance by the PNP Crime Laboratory, Cabanatuan City. An Information charged petitioners for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law.

Petitioner posits that the integrity and identity of the seized items were tarnished because the arresting officers failed to inventory and photograph the seized items in petitioners' presence.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners' guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: No. The prosecution failed to establish that the shabu was marked upon seizure.

The chain of custody rule requires proof of every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it is presented in court and offered into evidence, such that witnesses constituting the chain are able to testify on how it was given and received, including the precautions taken to ensure that the seized item was not altered or tampered with.

In this case, the facts only establishes that after seizure of the items and arrest of the petitioners, the apprehending team took the latter to the police station, then requested a laboratory examination of the confiscated items, and eventually requested inquest proceedings in connection with the petitioners' arrest. It was not in any way established that the items were marked after seizure. While it appears that the specimen presented in court were marked with the initials, it was not shown who marked the same and when it was done, and whether it was done by the apprehending team upon seizure and before submission to the crime laboratory for examination or not.

Ratio Decidendi: The gap in the chain of custody caused by the lack of marking upon confiscation undermined the identity and integrity of the confiscated drug.

Gist: This appeal seeks to reverse the Decision of the CA which affirmed the Decision of the RTC, finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal use of dangerous drugs.

People vs. Mateo, et. al. (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERVIN Y. MATEO, ET. AL

G.R. No. 210612, October 09, 2017

PERALTA, J.:

Facts: An Information was filed charging accused-appellant, together with Evelyn E. Mateo, Carmelita B. Galvez, Romeo L. Esteban, Galileo J. Saporsantos and Nenita S. Saporsantos with the crime of syndicated estafa which alleges that said accused, being officers and/or agents of Mateo Management Group Holding Company, a corporation operating on funds solicited from the public, conspiring and operating as a syndicate, feloniously defraud complainants by means of false pretenses to the effect that they have the business and power accept investments from the general public and the capacity to pay the complainants guaranteed lucrative commissions, and induced complainants to invest and deliver the total amount of P200,000.00 as investment or deposit and thereafter, having in their possession said amount, with intent to gain, misappropriated the same to their own personal use to the damage and prejudice of said complainants.

Appellant insists that no sufficient evidence was presented to prove that he actually performed any 'false pretenses' against the private complainants.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of syndicated estafa.

Ruling: Yes, the elements of syndicated estafa as defined under Section 1 of PD 1689 are: (a) estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code is committed; (b) the estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five or more persons; and (c) defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)," or farmers' associations, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.

In this case, all the elements are present. In any case, appellant's direct participation in the conspiracy are as follows: (1) the Articles of Partnership of MMG named appellant as the sole general partner with a capital contribution of P49,750,000.00; (2) his signatures appear in the MOA entered into by the complainants and facilitated by his co-accused Geraldine Alejandro; (3) his signatures also appear in the Secretary's Certificate and Signature Cards which were submitted to Allied Bank when the partnership opened an account; (4) the MOA are notarized and it was only on appeal that he denied his signatures appearing therein or questioned the authenticity and due execution of the said documents.

Ratio Decidendi: When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

Gist: This is an appeal assailing the Decision of the CA affirming the Judgment of the RTC, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of syndicated estafa under Article 315 of the RPC in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1689.

People vs. Abella (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EVANGELINE ABELLA & MAE ANN SENDIONG

G.R. No. 213918, June 27, 2018

MARTIRES, J.:

Facts: Accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section (Sec.) 5, Article (Art.) II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 in an Information which alleges that the said accused, conspiring together and mutually aiding one another not being then authorized by law, feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing an approximate weight of 0.01 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called "shabu," a dangerous drug.

The prosecution alleged that both accused-appellants transacted with the poseur-buyer; appellant Abella received the money from the poseur-buyer and handed it to appellant Sendiong; and Sendiong handed the heat-sealed transparent sachet to Abella who in turn gave it to poseur-buyer.

Abella averred that the police officers may have conducted a buy-bust operation but which revealed an instance of instigation. She claimed that the poseur-buyer convinced the accused-appellants of his intent to buy shabu.

Issue: Whether or not the buy-bust team validly implemented the entrapment.

Ruling: Yes, the buy-bust team merely facilitated the apprehension of the criminals by employing ploys and schemes.

In entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused; the law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes. In instigation, the law enforcers act as active co-principals. Instigation leads to the acquittal of the accused, while entrapment does not bar prosecution and conviction.

In this case, the poseur-buyer merely convinced the accused-appellants that he would be buying shabu but never told them that he would be buying it from them. Apparently, the criminal intent or design to sell shabu originated in the mind of the accused-appellants because they voluntarily and knowingly transacted with the poseur-buyer to sell him a sachet of shabu at the price of P300.00.

Ratio Decidendi: Entrapment is the employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture a lawbreaker.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA affirming the Judgment of the RTC finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of 0.01 gram of shabu in violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165.

People vs. Molina, et. al. (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DELIA C. MOLINA ET. AL

G.R. No. 229712, February 28, 2018

PERALTA, J.:

Facts: Appellant was charged for the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under Section[s] 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 8042 in an Information which alleges that the accused, mutually helping and aiding one another, feloniously recruit for a fee, promise employment/job placement abroad to five (5) persons, hence, committed in large scale, and received payments from complainants in connection with the documentation and processing of their papers for purposes of their deployment, but said accused failed or refused to deploy herein complainants abroad without the fault of the latter and to reimburse the amounts to said complainants, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.

Appellant claimed that she has not met personally all the private complainants in this case. On cross-examination, accused Molina admitted that there were about 100 cases of illegal recruitment filed against her in different courts and that she was convicted of illegal recruitment in the RTC of Makati City, Branch 148 and Branch 150.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.

Ruling: Yes, the appellant is guilty as charged.

Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

In this case, appellant cannot escape from liability for large scale illegal recruitment as the recruitment was made in the recruitment agency of which accused-appellant is the President. Moreover, private complainants testified that they saw accused-appellant at the agency and she was introduced to them by Pacon as the owner of the agency, and she even assured them that they would be deployed for employment soon. Appellant, as President of the recruitment agency, is therefore liable for failure to reimburse the expenses incurred by private complainants in connection with their documentation and processing for purposes of deployment to South Korea, which did not actually take place without their fault.

Ratio Decidendi: In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision, affirming the Decision of the RTC, finding accused-appellant Delia C. Molina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.