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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

People vs. Alapan (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES THRU PRIVATE COMPLAINANT BRIAN VICTOR BRITCHFORD vs. SALVADOR ALAPAN

G.R. No. 199527, January 10, 2018

MARTIRES, J.:

Facts: Accused-appellant Salvador Alapan and his wife Myrna Alapan were charged with 8 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 after they borrowed ₱400,000.00 and issued 8 postdated checks in favor of petitioner Brian Victor Britchford. The checks were dishonored when they were deposited. Upon arraignment, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The Municipal Trial Court convicted Alapan of 8 counts of violation of B.P. Big. 22 with a penalty of fine instead of imprisonment. After a writ of execution was issued, the writ was returned unsatisfied. Petitioner thus filed a Motion to Impose Subsidiary Penalty for respondent's failure to pay the fine imposed by the MTC.

Both the MTC and RTC denied the motion. Likewise, the CA dismissed the petition for it was filed without the intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing to question the trial court's order.

Ruling: Petitioner lacks legal standing to question the trial court's order.

Jurisprudence has already settled that the interest of the private complainant is limited only to the civil liability arising from the crime.

In this case, respondent was convicted of eight (8) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for which he was imposed the penalty of fine instead of imprisonment pursuant to Administrative Circulars No. 12-2000 and 13-2001. Thus, the penalty of fine and the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment thereof pertain to the criminal aspect of the case. On the other hand, the indemnification for the face value of the dishonored checks refers to the civil aspect of the case. Consequently, petitioner could not appeal the imposition of fine as penalty which was not even questioned by the People through the OSG. To do so would be tantamount to giving the private prosecutor the direction and control of the criminal proceeding, contrary to the provisions of law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom.

Gist: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolution of the CA, which dismissed the petition seeking the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for nonpayment of fine in eight (8) cases of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22).

People vs. Dela PEÑA (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MAXIMO DELA PEÑA ET. AL

G.R. No. 219581, January 31, 2018

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Facts: Appellant was charged, with the crime of piracy defined under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 532 allegedly committed as follows that on or about the 24th day of September 2005, along the river bank of Barangay San Roque, Province of Samar, the accused, conspiring and mutually helping one another, with deliberate intent to gain, by means of force and intimidation, feloniously take and carry away valuable items (13 sacks of dried coconuts valued at P7,537.00; 2 pieces automatic watch valued at P6,796.00; 1 piece ([S]audi gold) valued at P4,731.00; 1 [N]okia cellphone 3350 valued at P3,615.00[;] 1 unit Briggs and [Stratton] 16 horse power with propeller valued at P26,000.00[;] cash money worth [P]1,000.00, all amounting to P49,679.00 to the damage and prejudice of the said owner.

Appellant interposed an alibi and claimed that the Information did not state that the vessel in question was in Philippine waters.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of piracy.

Ruling: Yes, the elements of piracy under PD 532 are all present.

Section 2(d) of PD 532 defines piracy as follows: Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters shall be considered as piracy.

Under Section 2(a) of PD 532, "Philippine waters" is defined as follows: [A]ll bodies of water, .x x x and all other waters belonging to the Philippines x x x and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.

It is clear that a river is considered part of Philippine waters. The Information also clearly alleged that the vessel's cargo, equipment, and personal belongings of the passengers were taken by the appellant and his armed companions. The appellant was able to seize these items when he, along with armed companions, boarded the victims' pump boat and seized control of the same.

Ratio Decidendi: Positive identification prevails over alibi since the latter can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable.

Gist: This is an appeal assailing the Decision of the CA which affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of piracy.

People vs. Nangcas (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GLORIA NANGCAS

G.R. No. 218806, June 13, 2018

MARTIRES, J.:

Facts: An Information was filed charging appellant for Violation of the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003", which alleges that the accused, unlawfully recruit, transport four (4) women, three of them are minors, by taking advantage of the vulnerability of said victims for the purpose of offering and selling said victims for forced labor, that is, by promising them local employment (as househelpers in Camella Homes, Cagayan de Oro City) with a monthly salary of PhP1,500.00 each and that they could go home every Sunday, but instead, said accused brought them to Marawi City and sold them for PhP1,600.00 each to their great damage and prejudice.

Nangcas denied the allegations claiming that she had no idea that the employer would no longer be needing house helpers; hence, with no money to pay for the fare, she had no other choice but to stay with Baby Abas in Marawi City.

Issue: Whether or not appellant’s guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: Yes, appellant’s guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 4 of RA 9208 provides: It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of the following acts: (a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The following are considered as qualified trafficking: (a) When the trafficked person is a child;

In this case, Nangcas induced and coaxed the victims to go with her by promising the victims and their parents that their daughters would be working within Cagayan De Oro City, with an enticing salary of P1,500.00 per month. In Marawi, the victims were constrained to work with the intention to save money for their fare going back home; however, when they asked for their salary they were told that it had already been given to Nangcas.

Ratio Decidendi: Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.

Gist: This an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the RTC, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4 in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9208.

People vs. Veedor (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENEDICTO VEEDOR, JR.

G.R. No. 223525, June 25, 2018

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Facts: At around 9:00a.m., a team of operatives from the NBI served a search warrant on appellant at the latter's house. After explaining the nature of the search warrant to appellant, the NBI agents searched the house and found a shopping bag containing suspected marijuana inside a cabinet at the first floor. They also found 323 small plastic sachets of suspected marijuana in seven transparent plastic bags, several empty transparent plastic sachets, SI Escurel marked the seized items with his initials and prepared the Inventory of Seized Property. On the same day, at 6:30p.m., SI Escurel turned over the seized items to the Forensic Chemistry Division of the NBI.

In his defense, appellant argued that there is an inconsistency in the description of the dangerous drugs seized.

Issue: Whether or not the corpus delicti of the offense charged was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: No, the prosecution failed to establish the first link in the chain of custody.

A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each element of the crime: the identities of the buyer and seller, the transaction or sale of the illegal drug and the existence of the corpus delicti. In securing or sustaining a conviction under RA No. 9165, the intrinsic worth of these pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, must definitely be shown to have been preserved.

In this case, the NBI agent's failed to account for and mark the three hundred twenty-three (323) plastic sachets supposedly contained in the seven plastic bags marked as MEE-2 to MEE-8. Based on the records, the prosecution failed to disclose the identities of: (a) the person who had custody of the seized items after they were turned over by SI Escurel; (b) the person who turned over the items to Forensic Chemist Aranas; and (c) the person who had custody thereof after they were examined by the forensic chemist and before they were presented in court.

Ratio Decidendi: The dangerous drug itself constitutes as the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

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

Del Rosario vs. People (2018)

MELITA O. DEL ROSARIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 199930, June 27, 2018

BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts: On October 28, 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman brought a complaint charging the petitioner with the violation of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713; dishonesty; grave misconduct; and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for her failure to file her SALNs for the years 1990 and 1991. On March 11, 2008, the Office of the Ombudsman criminally charged the petitioner for two violations of R.A. No. 6713. On November 19, 2008, the petitioner filed a Motion to Quash on the ground of prescription of the offenses. The MeTC granted the Motion to Quash.

However, the Sandiganbayan overturned the decision and ruled that the eight-year prescriptive period for violation of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 commenced to run from the discovery of the offenses.

Issue: Whether or not the eight-year prescriptive period for violation of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) should be reckoned from the filing of the detailed sworn statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), or from the discovery of the non-filing thereof.

Ruling: The Sandiganbayan erred in applying the discovery rule to the petitioner's cases.

As a general rule, prescription begins to run from the date of the commission of the offense especially if the necessary information based on which the crime could be discovered is readily available to the public. If the date of the commission of the violation is not known, it shall be counted form the date of discovery thereof.

In this case, the discovery rule does not apply for the State had no reason not to be presumed to know of petitioner’s omissions during the eight-year period of prescription set in Act No. 3326. As such, the offenses could have been known within the eight-year period starting from the moment of their commission. Indeed, the Office of the Ombudsman or the CSC, the two agencies of the Government invested with the primary responsibility of monitoring the compliance with R.A. No. 6713, should have known of her omissions during the period of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi: If the necessary information, data, or records based on which the crime could be discovered is readily available to the public, the general rule applies. Prescription shall, therefore, run from the date of the commission of the crime.

Gist: This case seeks the reversal of the decision of the Sandiganbayan setting aside the ruling of the RTC, upholding the orders issued by the MeTC granting her motion to quash the informations.

People vs. Seguiente (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.  EVELYN SEGUIENTE

G.R. No. 218253, June 20, 2018

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Facts: After receiving a tip from an informant, a team of police officers was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. When they proceeded to the target area, SPO1 Jacinto and the informant proceeded on foot leaving behind the back-up within viewing distance. SPO1 Jacinto and the informant approached appellant who was standing in front of a house. SPO1 Jacinto was introduced to appellant as a prospective buyer. Appellant asked SPO1 Jacinto how much shabu he wanted to buy and the latter replied Php100.00 worth. After SPO1 Jacinto gave the pre-arranged signal, PO1 Ismula arrested appellant. When frisked, PO1 Ismula found in appellant's possession another sachet of shabu. Thereafter, appellant was brought to the Zamboanga City Mobile Office where SPO1 Jacinto marked the sachet of shabu with his initials "STJ" while the sachet of shabu recovered from appellant's possession was marked by PO1 Ismula with his initials "JHI." The seized suspected sachets of shabu were shown positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu).

Upon conviction, appellant filed an appeal on the ground of failure to conduct a physical inventory and taking of the photograph of the seized drugs in her presence and of the persons mentioned in the law.

Issue: Whether or not the procedure laid down in RA 9165 was followed.

Ruling: No, the procedure laid down in RA 9165 was not followed.

The procedure set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires that upon seizure of illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof (c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or confiscated and (d) a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official (e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.

In this case, there was no mention whether the inventory was done in the presence of appellant or her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official. Further, they failed to take photographs of the seized items and the prosecution offered no explanation on why the procedure was not followed or whether there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so.

Ratio Decidendi: Any gap in the chain of custody renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA affirming the RTC, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession), Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.

People vs. Beringuil (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNULFO BALENTONG BERINGUIL

G.R. No. 220141, June 27, 2018

MARTIRES, J.:

Facts: The prosecution charged appellant before the RTC for the illegal sale of one (1) brick of cocaine. The prosecution claimed that appellant was caught in a buy-bust operation conducted by PDEA. Intelligence Officer 1 Germiniano Laus, Jr. (IO1 Laus) and a confidential informant were waiting for appellant whom they knew was looking for a buyer of cocaine worth P20,000.00. Not long after, a certain Sammy Macajeto and appellant arrived who then invited IO1 Laus and the confidential informant to a dimly lit area. There, appellant showed IO1 Laus the brick of cocaine wrapped in manila paper with a Coca-Cola sticker. In turn, IO1 Laus gave him the boodle money which appellant put inside his right pocket. At this moment, IO1 Laus took off his hat as the prearranged signal that the sale had already been consummated. When the backup team arrived, appellant was arrested and the boodle money was recovered from him.

In his defense, appellant denied the charges against him and claimed that the whole incident was a frame-up. He said that he went to the public market because a certain Melvin Fabe (Melvin) requested that he bring his personal belongings and carpentry tools with him. When he alighted from the motorcycle, appellant handed the bag to Melvin; at the same time, four (4) men approached and asked if he was Nonoy Beringuil. After he answered "yes," the men pinned his arms behind his back and made him get in a white van.

Issue: Whether or not the elements for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs are present.

Ruling: Yes, all the elements for the crime were present.

In the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. In the present case, we confirm the lower court findings that the prosecution clearly showed that the sale for one (1) brick of cocaine actually took place and that the authorities seized it; which thereafter passed through the proper custodial chain until it was identified and submitted to the court as evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the integrity of the adduced evidence has never been tainted, it should retain its full evidentiary value.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA affirming the RTC which found accused-appellant Arnulfo Balentong Beringuil guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

People vs. Kalipayan (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNEL KALIPAYAN

G.R. No. 229829, January 22, 2018

GESMUNDO, J:

Facts: Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of murder committed against Glaiza when, at around 5:45 p.m., he entered Glaiza’s house without permission, approached Glaiza who was preparing dinner, stabbed her in the back and held her hair. The victim’s mother tried to stop accused-appellant but the latter poked the knife at her, telling her not to interfere as it was none of her business. When accused-appellant was gone, Glaiza was brought to the hospital where she was declared dead on arrival.

 Accused-appellant claimed that he confronted Glaiza because he believes that the latter was having an affair with another man. Glaiza was angry at him, and thereafter went to the kitchen, and he followed her. Accused-appellant took a knife from the sink and threatened Glaiza, causing the latter to slap him and when the latter lost control, he started stabbing Glaiza, and he could not remember the number of times he stabbed her.

 Issue: Whether or not the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

 Ruling: Yes, treachery is present in this case. Treachery constitutes two (2) elements: (1) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate, and (2) that said means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.

First, the accused-appellant unexpectedly entered the house, went straight for Glaiza, and immediately, without warning and through an almost stealthy manner, stabbed the latter numerous times. There was no heated discussion immediately prior to the incident. Glaiza was attacked in the back, with accused-appellant holding her hair to prevent her from moving. Second, the mode of attack, of suddenly entering the house and going straight to where Glaiza was while the latter was preparing food, is also clearly indicative of his nefarious plan to attack when Glaiza was not in a position to defend herself.

 Ratio Decidendi: A swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim that insures its execution without risk to the assailant arising from the defense of his victim is an indication that treachery is present.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 34, finding accused-appellant Amel Kalipayan guilty of murder.

People vs. Panerio (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. YOLANDO B. PANERIO

G.R. No. 205440, January 15, 2018

MARTIRES, J:

Facts: Accused-appellant Panerio and Orteza were charged with murder in an Information which alleges that the said accused, with treachery, attack ELESIO UNG by stabbing him with the use of a fan knife (balisong) and ice pick, thereby inflicting upon the said Elesio Ung mortal wounds which caused his immediate death.

In his defense as the sole witness, Panerio argued that Elesio and his companion called him and Orteza and offered them drinks but they refused. Feeling disrespected, Elesio got mad and boxed Panerio. When Panerio fell to the ground, Elesio rushed towards him and attempted to stab him with a knife twice, but missed. Elesio tried to stab Panerio for a third time, but the latter was able to hit the former's hand causing the knife to fall. Panerio picked up the knife off the ground and stabbed Elesio with it three times.

 Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant had acted in self-defense.

 Ruling: No, accused-appellant had not acted in self-defense.

The accused must establish the essential requisites of self-defense, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Panerio's uncorroborated testimony regarding the incident is unclear and unconvincing. His assertion that Elesio, then drunk, boxed him and attempted to stab him is unsubstantiated by any convincing proof. Moreover, the post-mortem findings reveal that Elesio sustained eleven stab and puncture wounds. Considering the quantity, nature, and location of the wounds sustained by Elesio, the Court finds Panerio's plea of self-defense incredible.

Ratio Decidendi: In a plea of self-defense, the accused must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution because it could no longer be denied that he admitted to be the author of the victim's death or injuries.

Summary: On appeal is the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 12, finding accused-appellant Yolando B. Panerio and accused Alex F. Orteza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.