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.