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. 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).

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. 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.

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. Ohayas, et.al (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. AMBROSIO OHAYAS, ET. AL

G.R. No. 207516, June 19, 2017 

TIJAM, J.:

Facts: Appellant, together with his companions, walked towards the place where the victim was conversing with his friends. Lou noticed appellant had in his hands a shotgun while his companions were carrying torches. Appellant suddenly, and without any warning, shot Armando Jr. who was hit in his right abdomen. Not contented, appellant continued to fire at the victims. Sany was hit on his right finger, while Lou, although not directly hit, nevertheless suffered injuries when the bullets ricocheted.

Appellant claimed that he was mauled at Sitio Bonbon by a certain "Toper" prior to the shooting incident, and because of that, his cousins wanted to avenge him. Appellant, however, prevented them from doing so. On the day of the shooting, appellant claimed that he was fishing at sea. At around 8 o'clock in the evening, he heard gunshots coming from Sitio Bonbon. He felt afraid, so he stopped fishing and went home. On the way home, he was told by SP03 Bancog that someone died in the shooting incident, and that appellant was the one to be blamed.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of murder.

Ruling: The elements of the crime of murder are: (I) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.

In this case, the prosecution was able to clearly establish that: (1) Armando, Jr. was shot and killed; (2) the accused-appellant was the person who killed him; (3) Armando, Jr.'s killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery; and (4) the killing of Armando, Jr. was neither parricide nor infanticide.

Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. In this case, suffice it to state that the defense failed to establish that it was physically impossible for the accused-appellant to have perpetrated the offense.

Ratio Decidendi: Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the RTC, finding appellant guilty of the crime of murder.

People vs. Deniega (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RODOLFO DENIEGA

G.R. No. 212201, June 28, 2017 

PERALTA, J.:

Facts: In an Amended Information, accused was charged with the crime of statutory rape, as follows: that the accused feloniously, have carnal knowledge with a minor (16 years old) AAA, whose mental age is only six (6) years old. Said carnal knowledge with the said AAA is detrimental to her normal growth and development and that accused knew fully well that the said AAA is suffering from mental disability and/or disorder.

In his defense, accused-appellant denied the allegations of the prosecution and also raised the defense of alibi. He contended that between the hours of 8 o'clock in the morning and 12 o'clock midnight of May 2, 2007, he busied himself by painting the house of a neighbor, then he went to GMA Cavite to have his electric fan repaired and, subsequently, had a drinking session with his friend at the latter's house. He also admitted that he and the victim were residing at the same place and, at the time of the incident, he has known the victim for one month.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of statutory rape under Article 266- A, paragraph 1 (d) of the RPC.

Ruling: Yes. It is a settled rule that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate, with a mental age below 12 years old, constitutes statutory rape. In People v. Quintas, the Supreme Court held that if a mentally-retarded or intellectually-disabled person whose mental age is less than 12 years is raped, the rape is considered committed under paragraph 1 (d) and not paragraph l(b), Article 266-A of the RPC.

In the present case, the Information alleged that the victim, at the time of the commission of the crime, was 16 years old but with a mental age of a 6-year-old child. The prosecution was able to establish these facts through AAA's Birth Certificate, Clinical Abstract prepared by a medical doctor who is a psychiatrist from the National Center for Mental Health, as well as the testimonies of the said doctor29 and the victim's mother, BBB.

Ratio Decidendi: In determining whether a person is "twelve (12) years of age" under Article 266-A(l)(d), the interpretation should be in accordance with either the chronological age of the child if he or she is not suffering from intellectual disability, or the mental age if intellectual disability is established.

Gist: This is an ordinary appeal filed assailing the Decision of the CA, which affirmed in toto the Decision of the RTC of San Pedro, finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime of statutory rape.

People vs. Jesalva (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERTO ESPERANZA JESALVA

G.R. No. 227306, June 19, 2017 

JARDELEZA, J.:

 Facts: An Information was filed charging accused-appellant, Ryan Menieva and Junie Ilaw  alleging that accused, conspiring together, feloniously with intent to kill with evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of Amel Ortigosa, by then and there stabbing him with a sharp bladed instrument hitting him on the chest, causing his untimely death.

Accused-appellant denied any participation in Ortigosa's stabbing. He claimed that on the night of the incident, he was waiting for his sister on the corner of Dupax Street. While waiting, he saw and heard people running and shouting which caused him to leave the place.

RTC and CA held that appellant is liable for murder as he conspired with the other accused.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of murder.

Ruling: No. To determine if accused-appellant conspired with Menieva and Ilaw, the focus of the inquiry should necessarily be the overt acts of accusedappellant before, during and after the stabbing incident.

In this case, no evidence showing that appellant was purposely waiting for Ortigosa at the time and place of the incident and that Menieva and Ilaw were on standby, awaiting for accused-appellant's signal. Surely, appellant could not have anticipated that on September 16, 2007, at around 1:00 a.m., Ortigosa and his group would pass by and go to the store to buy cigarettes. Appellant's act of pointing to the victim and his group is not an overt act which shows that accused-appellant acted in concert with his coaccused to cause the death of Ortigosa. Mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act, without the cooperation and the agreement to cooperate, is not enough to establish conspiracy.

Ratio Decidendi: The presentation of proof beyond reasonable doubt before any person may be convicted of any crime and deprived of his life, liberty, or even property. The hypothesis of his guilt must flow naturally from the facts proved and must be consistent with all of them.

Gist: This appeal seeks to reverse and set aside the CA’s Decision, which upheld the Decision of the RTC, which found appellant Roberto Esperanza Jesalva guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

People vs. Delos Reyes (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MERCEDITAS MATHEUS DELOS REYES

G.R. No. 198795, June 7, 2017 

TIJAM, J.:

Facts: Appellant was charged with six counts of Estafa in an Information which alleges that accused conspiring together with other unidentified accused, feloniously defraud the complainants on different occasions, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representation to the effect that they had the power and capacity to recruit and employ the complainants for employment abroad, and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if given the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereto, and succeeded in inducing said complainants to give and deliver, as in fact gave and delivered to said accused the sum of money, which amount once in possession, with intent to defraud, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the complainants.

For her part, appellant admitted that she was the Overseas Marketing Director of All Care Travel & Consultancy, with All Care Travel & Consultancy as its affiliate. She claimed that she did not know Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay, Jr., and Gloria. She likewise claimed that she neither signed nor issued any receipt using the name "Manzie delos Reyes" in favor of the complainants. She further claimed that she was not engaged in any recruitment and placement activities. During the pre-trial, she admitted that she had no license to recruit workers for overseas employment.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty for the crime of estafa.

Ruling: Yes. The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.

Here, appellant deceived private complainants into believing that she had the authority and capability to send them abroad for employment, despite her not being licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. Because of the assurances given by accused-appellant, the private complainants parted with their hard-earned money for the payment of the agreed placement fee, for which accused-appellant issued petty cash vouchers and used fictitious names evidencing her receipt of the payments.

Ratio Decidendi: A person, for the same acts, may be convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Joint Decision of the RTC, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five counts of Estafa and one count of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment.

People vs. Bentayo (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HENRY BENTAYO

G.R. No. 216938, June 5, 2017 

PERALTA, J.:

Facts: In the evening of November 6, 2007, appellant raped AAA again at their kubo in the farm. While AAA was sleeping, she felt appellant, who was armed with a bolo, touch her face, her breast and then her vagina. Appellant proceeded to undress her, kissed her private parts, and then threatened to kill her if she shouted. Appellant then mounted on top of AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. Thereafter, appellant further threatened AAA that he will kill her, her mother and her siblings if she told anyone what happened. Cordero, a neighbor of AAA, on November 29, 2007, heard the latter crying, thus, she immediately went to AAA's house to peep inside and saw appellant beating AAA.

Appellant denied the charge against him and insisted that during the time of the alleged incidents, he was in Barangay Lagao, Lambayong, Sultan Kudarat making charcoal; and that he was alone at that time.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of rape.

Ruling: Yes. Under paragraph 1 (a) of Art. 266-A of the RPC, the elements of rape are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.

In this case, the clear and straightforward testimony of AAA, as corroborated by the medical findings show beyond reasonable doubt that AAA was raped. When the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.

Anent appellant's defense of denial and alibi, bare assertions thereof cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. For alibi to prosper, it must be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for appellant to be present at the place where the crime was committed at the time of commission

Ratio Decidendi: When the offender is the victim's father, there need not be actual force, threat or intimidation because when a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, who was also a minor at the time of the commission of the offenses, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.

Gist: This is an appeal of the Decision CA affirming the Judgment of the RTC, convicting the same appellant of the crime of incestuous rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.

People vs. Domingo (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDY DOMINGO

G.R. No. 225743, June 7, 2017 

BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts: An Information was filed charging appellant with the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape in this wise: That accused, motivated by lust and with lewd designs, and by means of force, feloniously, abduct and take away one AAA, against her will, and thereafter, by means of force, violence and intimidation, with the use of a bladed weapon and actuated by lust and lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of said victim.

Appellant claimed that he and AAA eloped and went to the house of his brother-in-law. They spent the night there and agreed that they will go to her Aunt's house and get her things and will proceed to Bicol. When they reached her aunt's house, AAA went inside while he waited. After a few minutes, a man came out and chased him with a bolo which prompted him to run. At around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, he was at his sister's house when the policemen arrived and informed him that there was a complaint filed against him.

The RTC and CA convicted appellant for forcible abduction with rape.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.

Ruling: The appellant should be convicted only of rape. Under Article 342 of the RPC, the elements of forcible abduction are: (1) the taking of a woman against her will; and (2) with lewd designs. The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs when the abductor has carnal knowledge of the abducted woman under the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented.

Although the elements of forcible abduction obtained, his forcible abduction of AAA was absorbed by the rape considering that his real objective in abducting her was to commit the rape.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the main objective of the culprit for the abduction of the victim of rape was to have carnal knowledge of her, he could be convicted only of rape.

Gist: The accused appeals the affirmance by the CA of RTC’s Decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for forcible abduction with rape.

People vs. Ali, et. al (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. USTADZ IBRAHIM ALI, ET. AL.

G.R. No. 222965, December 6, 2017 

MARTIRES, J.:

Facts: In an Information, Ali, together with other accused were charged with the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention alleging that accused being then armed with high powered firearm, conspiring with one another, by means of force and intimidation feloniously, KIDNAP the person of CHRISTIA OLIZ y EUCOGCO, a young woman, 19 years old, particularly on the occasion when she was together with her employer named Antonio Yu Lim Bo and the latter's wife and daughter, on board a Blue Nissan Vehicle then driven by one Rene Igno, and thereafter through intimidation, commandeered and drove said vehicle towards the area of Pitogo beach with the clear intention on the part of the accused to extort ransom money from said victim or other person.

Appellant claimed that before the alleged incident, Hassan pushed Ali inside the motor vehicle while he was holding a gun and told him to follow or he would be in trouble. When all occupants arrived at the beach and alighted therefrom, Ali decided to walk away and proceed to the main road to catch a ride. Ali argues that he could not be guilty of the crime of Serious Illegal Detention because the alleged deprivation of liberty did not last for more than three (3) days as the incident only lasted for about an hour or two

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of serious illegal detention.

Ruling: Yes. Deprivation of liberty is qualified to serious illegal detention if, among others, the victim is a minor, female or public officer.

In the case at bar, the elements of serious illegal detention were duly proven by the prosecution. First, Ali and his cohorts were clearly private individuals. Second, they deprived Oliz of her liberty. This was manifested by the fact that they forcibly boarded the vehicle and placed Igno and Antonio in handcuffs. Third, Oliz was a female victim. In the case at bar, it is unquestionable that Ali was identified with moral certainty. Oliz was able to distinguish and identify accused considering their proximity inside the vehicle and the duration of the captivity.

Ratio Decidendi: The essence of serious illegal detention is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with the indubitable proof of intent of the accused to effect such deprivation-it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the RTC, finding appellant of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention. 

People vs. Baladjay (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROSARIO BALADJAY

G.R. No. 220458, July 26, 2017 

VELASCO, JR., J.:

Facts: In an Information, appellant Baladjay and her nine co-accused were indicted with the crime of Syndicated Estafa as follows: that accused, being officers, employees, and/or agents of Multitel, an association operating on funds solicited from the public, conspiring one another, feloniously defraud complainants by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts to the effect that they have the business, property and power to solicit and accept investments and deposits from the general public and capacity to pay the complainants guaranteed monthly interest on investment from 5% to 6% and lucrative commissions, and succeeded in inducing the complainants to invest, deposit, give and deliver as in fact the latter gave the accused the total amount of P7,810,000.00 as investment or deposit, accused misappropriated and converted the same to their own personal benefits to the damage and prejudice of said complainants.

Baladjay, as the sole witness, denied transacting with the private complainants. However, Baladjay admitted that she was also known as the president of Multitel.

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

Ruling: Yes. The elements of Syndicated Estafa are: (a) Estafa or other forms of swindling, as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC, is committed; (b) it committed by a syndicate of five (5) or more persons; and (c) the 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.

Here, using Multitel as their conduit, Baladjay and her more than five (5) counselors employed deceit and falsely pretended to have the authority to solicit investments from the general public when, in truth, they did not have such authority. Baladjay's counselors actively solicited investments from the public, promising very high interest returns. Convinced of Baladjay's and her counselors' promise of lucrative income, the private complainants were then enticed to invest in Multitel. Eventually, Baladjay and her cohorts ran away with the private complainants' money causing them damage and prejudice.

Ratio Decidendi: The gravamen of syndicated estafa is the employment of fraud or deceit to the damage or prejudice of another.

Gist: This an appeal from the Decision CA, which affirmed the guilty verdict meted by the RTC finding appellant of the crime of Syndicated Estafa.

People vs. Brusola (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ABENIR BRUSOLA

G.R. No. 210615, July 26, 2017

LEONEN, J.:

Facts: In the Information, appellant Abenir was charged with the killing of his wife, Delia Brusola as follows, that accused, being the husband of DELIA BRUSOLA, with intent to kill and with the use of ball hammer, feloniously hit his said wife, with the said ball hammer on her head, thereby causing fatal injury to the latter which directly caused her death.

For his defense, appellant claimed that on the night of the incident, Abenir came home. While he was preparing things, Delia went outside. She appeared to be waiting for somebody. After taking a bath, she fixed her face. When Abenir asked if Delia was going somewhere, she said it was none of his business. Abenir went to the bathroom for his personal effects. While inside, he heard people talking outside and looked out through a crack in the plywood wall. He saw a man and a woman kiss and identified the woman as Delia, who told the man, "Huwag muna ngayon, nandiyan pa siya." The man embraced her, and groped her breast and private parts. Abenir picked up the maso, went outside, and approached them, who were surprised to see him. Abenir attacked the man who used Delia as a shield and pushed her toward Abenir. He asserted that he planned to attack the man whom he saw was with his wife but accidentally hit Delia instead.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of parricide.

Ruling: Yes. Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide.

Here, there was no dispute as to the relationship between the accused-appellant and the victim. As for the act of killing, their daughter Joanne clearly testified that she suddenly saw her father hit the head of her mother with a small mallet. Joanne's straightforward and candid narration of the incident is regarded as positive and credible evidence, sufficient to convict the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Well settled is the rule that it is unnatural for a relative, in this case the accused's own child, who is interested in vindicating the crime, to accuse somebody else other than the real culprit. For her to do so is to let the guilty go free.

Gist: This resolves the appeal of the CA’s Decision, affirming the Decision of the RTC, which found Abenir Brusola guilty of parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code.