court decisionss

7/28/2019 Court Decisionss

1/18

February 2013 Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure1. REVISED PENAL CODE

Conspiracy; joint purpose and design. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner in

which the offense was perpetrated; orinferred from the acts of the accused when those acts point to a joint

purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interests.Proof of a previous agreement and decision

to commit the crime is not essential, but the fact that the malefactors acted in unison pursuant to the same

objective suffices. In this case, the prosecution decisively established a community of criminal design amongAlvarico, Reyes, and appellant Pondivida. While there is no evidence of any previous agreement among the

assailants to commit the crime, their concerted acts before, during and after the incident establish a joint

purpose and intent to kill. As attested to by accused-appellant, they all went to the intended victims house

bearing firearms. Accused-appellant himselfknocked on the door. After failing to locate Udoy and Bagsik,

and discovering that Gener was the latters brother, they then engaged in a lengthy conversation, as they

circled around a nearby well outside the house.Accused even admitted to shouting the name Bagsik over and

over.They all asked Gener to step outside and speak withthem. Upon his refusal, appellant Pondivida, togetherwith Alvarico, entered the house through an upstairs window. Alvarico fired at George who was at the stairs.

Reyes, from his vantage point at the front door, also shot at George.After fleeing the scene, appellant

Pondivida admitted that he met with Alvarico in Novaliches. Alvarico gave him money, and the latter

thereafter boarded a bus headed to Olongapo City. Their acts together were indicative of a common purpose,

which was murder.People of the Philippines v. John Alvin Pondivida,G.R. No. 188969, February 27, 2013.

Conspiracy; elements. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the

commission of a felony and decide to commit the felony. Proof of the actual agreement to commit the crime

need not be direct because conspiracy may be implied or inferred from their acts. Here, accused PO2 Valdez

cannot avoid criminal responsibility for the fatal shooting by co-accused Edwin of Ferdinand and Joselito.

Both accused were convincingly shown to have acted in concert to achieve a common purpose of assaulting

their unarmed victims with their guns. Their acting in concert was manifest not only from their going together

to the betting station on board a single motorcycle, but also from their joint attack that PO2 Valdez

commenced by firing successive shots at Moises and immediately followed by Edwins shooting of Ferdinandand Joselito one after the other. It was also significant that they fled together on board the same motorcycle assoon as they had achieved their common purpose. To be a conspirator, one did not have to participate in every

detail of the execution; neither did he have to know the exact part performed by his co-conspirator in the

execution of the criminal acts. Accordingly, the existence of the conspiracy between PO2 Valdez and Edwinwas properly inferred and proved through their acts that were indicative of their common purpose and

community of interest.People of the Philippines v. PO2 Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez,G.R. No.

175602, February 13, 2013.

Murder; elements. To hold the accused liable for murder, the prosecution must prove that: (1) a person was

killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstancesmentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide. All

elements were established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution in the present case. First, it is

undisputed that Emmanuel died from a gunshot wound sustained on October 10, 2005. Second, Jaymart waspositively identified by eyewitness Edwin as the one who shot and killed Emmanuel. Although Jaymart

attempts to attack Edwins credibility, it was not lost upon the Supreme Court that the lower courts gave fullfaith and credence to Edwins testimony. Third, the killing of Emmanuel was attended by treachery. There is

treachery when the attack against an unarmed victim is so sudden that he had clearly no inkling of what the

assailant was about to do. In this case, Emmanuel was sitting down before a table, busily writing, whenJaymart came up behind him and, without warning, shot him at the back of the head. Evidently, Emmanuel,

who was unarmed and unaware, had no opportunity at all to defend himself. And finally, the killing of

Emmanuel constitutes neither parricide nor infanticide. All told, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188969.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188969.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188969.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175602.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175602.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175602.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175602.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175602.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175602.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188969.pdf


2/18

doubt that Jaymart was responsible for the murder of Emmanuel. People of the Philippines v. Mark Joseph R.

Zapuiz,G.R. No. 199713, February 20, 2013.

Estafa; syndicated estafa; elements. The elements of syndicated estafa are: (a) estafa or other forms of

swindling as defined in Article 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 other words, only those who formed and manage associations that receive contributions from the general

public who misappropriated the contributions can commit syndicated estafa. Gilbert Guy, et al, however, are

not in any way related either by employment or ownership to Asia United Bank (AUB). They are outsiders

who, by their cunning moves were able to defraud an association, which is the AUB. They had not been

managers or owners of AUB who used the bank to defraud the public depositors. The present petition involvesan estafa case filed by a commercialbank as the offended party against the accused who, as clients, defrauded

the bank. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the accused should only be charged for simple estafa.Rafael

H. Galvez and Katherine L. Guy v. Asia United Bank/Asia United Bank v. Gilbert, et al./Gilbert Guy, et al v.

Asia Untied Bank,G.R. Nos. 187919/G.R. No. 187979/G.R. No. 188030, February 20, 2013.

Homicide; intent to kill. The intent to kill, as an essential element of homicide at whatever stage, may bebefore or simultaneous with the infliction of injuries. The evidence to prove intent to kill may consist of, inter

alia, the means used; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; and the conduct of

the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim. Accuseds intent to killwas simultaneous with the infliction of injuries. Using a gun, he shot the victim in the chest. Despite a

bloodied right upper torso, the latter still managed to run towards his house to ask for help. Nonetheless,

accused continued to shoot at the victim three more times, albeit unsuccessfully. These belie the absence of

petitioners intent to kill the victim.Edmundo Escamilla y Jugo v. People of the Philippines,G.R. No. 188551,

February 27, 2013.

Rape; elements of statutory rape; carnal knowledge of a female without her consent is the essence of

statutory rape. The elements of statutory rape are that: (a) the victim is a female under 12 years or is

demented; and (b) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim. Considering that the essence of statutoryrape is carnal knowledge of a female without her consent, neither the use of force, threat or intimidation on the

female, nor the females deprivation of reason or being otherwise unconscious, nor the employment on thefemale of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority is necessary to commit statutory rape.People of

the Philippines v. Tomas Teodoro y Angeles,G.R. No. 175876, February 20, 2013

Rape; elements of statutory rape; full penile penetration of the females genitalia is not required. Fullpenile penetration of the females genitalia is not likewise required, because carnal knowledge is simply the act

of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman. The Supreme Court here declared that the findings

of the lower courts on the commission of the two counts of statutory rape by Teodoro were well founded.AAAs recollections given in court when she was only eight years old disclosed an unbroken and consistent

narration of her ordeals at his hands. She revealed details that no child of her very tender age could haveinvented or concocted. The only rational and natural conclusion to be made by any objective arbiter is to

accord the fullest credence to her.People of the Philippines v. Tomas Teodoro y Angeles,G.R. No.

175876, February 20, 2013

Self-defense; elements. To successfully claim self-defense, the accused must satisfactorily prove the

concurrence of the elements of self-defense. Under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, any person who acts

in defense of his person or rights does not incur any criminal liability provided that the following

circumstances concur: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent orrepel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.The most importantamong all the elements is unlawful aggression. There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete,

unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. Simon A.

Flores v. People of the Philippines,G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013.

Self-defense; elements; burden of evidence is shifted to the accused. Generally, the burden lies upon the

prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he wasin fact innocent. If the accused, however, admits killing the victim, but pleads self-defense,the burden of

evidence is shifted to him to prove such defense by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/199713.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/199713.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/199713.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187919.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187919.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187919.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175876.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175876.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175876.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175876.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175876.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175876.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175876.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/181354.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/181354.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/181354.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/181354.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175876.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175876.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175876.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187919.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/199713.pdf


3/18

any vestige of criminal aggression on his part. In this case, Flores does not dispute that he perpetrated the

killing of Jesus by shooting him with an M16 armalite rifle. To justify his shooting of Jesus, he invoked self-

defense. By interposing self-defense, Flores, in effect, admits the authorship of the crime. Thus, it was

incumbent upon him to prove that the killing was legally justified under the circumstances. Simon A. Flores v.

People of the Philippines,G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013.

Self-Defense; elements; number of gunshot wounds on victim negative unlawful aggression. In this case,

Flores failed to discharge his burden. The Supreme Court agreed with the Sandiganbayans assessment of thecredibility of witnesses and the probative value of evidence on record. As noted by the Sandiganbayan, the

defense evidence, both testimonial and documentary, were crowded with flaws which raised serious doubt as

to its credibility. Furthermore, granting for the sake of argument that unlawful aggression was initially staged

by Jesus, the same ceased to exist when Jesus was first shot on the shoulder and fell to the ground. At that

point, the perceived threat to Flores life was no longer attendant. The latter had no reason to pump morebullets on Jesus abdomen and buttocks. Indeed, the nature and number of the gunshot wounds inflicted upon

Jesus further negate the claim of self-defense by the accused. Records show that Jesus suffered four (4)

gunshot wounds in the different parts of his body. According to Dr. Ruben Escueta, who performed the

autopsy on the victim, the latter died of massive intra-abdominal hemorrhage due to laceration of the liver. If

there was any truth to Flores claim that he merely acted in self-defense, his first shot on Jesus shoulder,which already caused the latter to fall on the ground, would have been sufficient to repel the attack allegedly

initiated by the latter. But Flores continued shooting Jesus. Considering the number of gunshot wounds

sustained by the victim, the Supreme Court found it difficult to believe that Flores acted to defend himself topreserve his own life. Simon A. Flores v. People of the Philippines,G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013.

2. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

Alibi; physical impossibility must be proved. For Jaymarts alibi to prosper, he must prove that not only washe somewhere else when Emmanuel was killed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been

at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant

was when the rime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access betweenthe two places. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of

alibi must fail. Although Jaymart claimed that he was in Divisoria from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on October 10,

2005, Jaymart himself admitted that it would only take a five-minute tricycle ride to get from Divisoria to

Parola, where Emmanuel was shot.People of the Philippines v. Mark Joseph R. Zapuiz,G.R. No.

199713, February 20, 2013.Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; offenses under section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 . Braza challenges the

sufficiency of the allegations in the second information because there is no indication of any actual and

quantifiable injury suffered by the government. He then argues that the facts under the second information areinadequate to support a valid indictment for violation of section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. In a catena of cases, the

Supreme Court (SC) has held that there are two (2) ways by which a public official violates section 3(e) ofR.A. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: (1) by causing undue injury to any party, including the

Government; or (2) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference.The accused

may be charged under either mode or under both. The disjunctive term or connotes that either act qualifies asa violation of section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction. It

must be emphasized that Braza was indicted for violation of section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 under the second mode.

To be found guilty under the second mode,it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to

another, in the exercise of his official,administrative and judicial functions. The element of damage is not

required for violation of section 3(e) under the second mode.In the case at bench, the second informationalleged, in substance, that accused public officers and employees, discharging official or administrative

function, together with Braza, confederated and conspired to give FABMIK Construction and Equipment

Supply Company, Inc. unwarranted benefit or preference by awarding to it Contract J.D. No. 06H00050through manifest partiality or evident bad faith, without the conduct of a public bidding and compliance with

the requirement for qualification contrary to the provisions of R.A. 9184 or the Government ProcurementReform Act. Settled is the rule that private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be

indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under section 3 of R.A. 3019. Considering

that all the elements of the offense of violation of section 3(e) were alleged in the second information, the SC
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/181354.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/181354.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/181354.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/181354.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/181354.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/181354.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/199713.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/199713.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/199713.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/199713.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/199713.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/199713.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/181354.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/181354.pdf


4/18

found the same to be sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction . Isabelo A. Braza v. The

Honorable Sandiganbayan (1st Division),G.R. No. 195032, February 20, 2013.

Appeals; an appeal taken by one or more of several accused applicable to those who did not appeal if thejudgment of the appellate court is favorable to them. Based on section 11(a), Rule 122 of theRules of

Court, accused Edwin cannot be barred from seeking the application to him of the downgrading of the crimes

committed (and the resultant lighter penalties) despite the finality of his convictions for three counts of murder

due to his withdrawal of his appeal. The downgrading of the crimes committed would definitely be favorableto him. Worth pointing out is that to deny to him the benefit of the lessened criminal responsibilities would be

highly unfair, considering that the Supreme Court had found the two accused to have acted in concert in their

deadly assault against the victims, warranting their equal liability under the principle of conspiracy. Moreover,

the benefits of the said provision extended to all the accused, regardless of whether they appealed or

not.People of the Philippines v. PO2 Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez,G.R. No. 175602, February 13,2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; buy-bust operations; distinction between entrapment and instigation. A buy-bust

operation has been recognized in this jurisdiction as a legitimate form of entrapment of the culprit. It is distinct

from instigation, in that the accused who is otherwise not predisposed to commit the crime is enticed or lured

or talked into committing the crime. While entrapment is legal, instigation is not. In entrapment, priorsurveillance is not necessary to render a buy-bust operation legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is

accompanied to the target area by the informant. Also, the presentation of an informant as a witness is not

regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused in view of the need toprotect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his efforts. Only when the testimony of

the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to

protect his security be disregarded. Here, the police officer, who acted as a poseur-buyer, asked the accused if

he could buy shabu, and the latter, in turn, quickly transacted with the former, receiving the marked bill from

the police officer and turning over the sachet of shabu he took from his pocket. The accused was shown tohave been ready to sell the shabu without much prodding from the police officer. There is no question that the

idea to commit the crime originated from the mind of the accused. Also, the informants testimony as a witness

against the accused would only be corroborative of the sufficient testimony of the police officer as the poseur-buyer; hence, such testimony was unnecessary.People of the Philippines v. Noel Bartolome y Bajo,G.R. No.

191726, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody; buy-bust operations. The chain of custody of the seized drugs in a

buy-bust operation is sufficiently established when there is proof of the following:first, the seizure and

marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;second, theturnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover

by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; andfourth,

the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. Thefailure of the police officers to make an inventory report and to photograph the drugs seized from Linda and

Elizabeth, as required by Article II, section 21, paragraph 1 of R.A. 9165, are not automatically fatal to theprosecutions case, as it was able to trace and prove the chain of custody of the same.People of the Philippines

v. Linda Alviz y Yatco and Elizabeth Dela Vega y Bautista,G.R. No. 177158, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody; procedure. The buy-bust team in this case did not observe theprocedures laid down in section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165. They did not

conduct a physical inventory and no photograph of the confiscated item was taken in the presence of the

accused-appellant, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of

Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. In fact, the prosecution failed to present an accomplishedCertificate of Inventory. Further, the circumstances obtaining from the time the buy-bust team was organizeduntil the chain of custody commenced were riddled with procedural lapses and inconsistencies between the

testimony and the documents presented as evidence in court so much so that even assuming, that the physical

inventory contemplated in R.A. 9165 subsumes the marking of the items itself, the belated marking of theseized items at the police station sans the required presence of the accused and the witnesses enumerated under

section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165, and absent a justifiable ground to standon, cannot be considered a minor deviation from the procedures prescribed by the law. There being a gross,

systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards the presumption of regularity in the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/195032.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/195032.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/195032.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175602.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175602.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175602.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175602.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191726.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191726.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191726.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191726.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/177158.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/177158.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/177158.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/177158.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191726.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191726.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175602.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/175602.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/195032.pdf


5/18

performance of official duties is overturned.People of the Philippines v. Jose Alex Secreto y Villanueva,G.R.

No. 198115, February 27, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; chain and custody; requirements; cases where non-observance may be excused.

Although it appears that the buy-bust team did not literally observe all the requirements under section 21,

Article II of R.A. 9165, like photographing the confiscated drugs in the presence of the accused, of a

representative from the media and from the Department of Justice, and of any elected public official who

should be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of it, the same may be excusedbecause the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized shabu was preserved. Immediately upon the arrest

of the accused, Police Officer Paras marked the plastic sachet containing the shabu with the accuseds initials

of NBB. Thereafter, Paras brought the sachet and the contents to the ADSOU, where his superior officer, Insp.

Cruz, prepared and signed the request for the laboratory examination of the contents of the marked sachet. P02

De Ocampo handcarried the request and the evidence to the PNP Crime Laboratory. SPO 1 Bugabuga of thatoffice recorded the delivery of the request and the marked sachet, which were all received by Chemist Dela

Rosa. In turn, Chemist Dela Rosa examined the contents of the marked sachet, and executed Physical Sciences

Report No. D-1 03 8-03 confirming that the marked sachet contained 0.06 gram of shabu. In this regard, the

accused did not deny that Paras and Chemist Dela Rosa affirmed the sequence of custody of the shabu during

the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this chain of custody of the shabu was firm and unbroken.People of thePhilippines v. Noel Bartolome y Bajo,G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody; substantial compliance may be sanctioned . Defense suggests that

the non-marking of the seized illegal drug at the place where the same was confiscated is enough to exoneratethe accused-appellant. The reason is that this allegedly places in doubt the authenticity of the drug delivered to

the crime laboratory for examination. However, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution has properly

established the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least from the time it came into possession of the

police officers, during its testing in the laboratory to determine its composition and up to the time it was

offered in evidence. The function of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity andevidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the

evidence are removed. As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved

by the apprehending police officers, substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of custodyis sanctioned.People of the Philippines v. Saiben Langcua y Daimla,G.R. No. 190343, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody; integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items should bepreserved. Failure to strictly comply with section 21 of R.A. 9165, which outlines the procedure on the chain

of custody of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs, will not render an arrest illegal or the items

seized from the accused inadmissible in evidence. What is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value ofthe seized items are preserved for they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the

accused. In the case at bar, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution was able to establish that the integrity

and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs had been maintained. P/Insp. Salazar, who was one of theapprehending officers, marked the seized items in front of accused Manalao and the other apprehending

officers. P/Insp. Salazar, who was also the investigating officer, thereafter signed a request for the laboratoryexamination of the seized drugs, which was received by Forensic Chemist Mag-abo, together with the items

enumerated therein. She then testified in open court on how her examination confirmed that the seized items,

which she submitted in court, tested positive forshabu. Besides, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will,or proof that the evidence has been tampered or meddled with, the presumptions that the integrity of such

evidence had been preserved and that the police officers who handled the seized drugs had discharged their

duties properly and with regularity remain. The burden to overcome such presumptions lies on Manalao, and

the Supreme Court found that he failed to do so.People of the Philippines v. Malik Manalao y Alauya,G.R.No. 187496, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal possession of dangerous drugs; elements. When prosecuting an illegal

possession of dangerous drugs case, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in

possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is notauthorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. Mere possession of a

prohibited drug, without legal authority, is punishable under R.A. 9165. Since accused Manalao failed toadduce any evidence showing that he had legal authority to possess the seized drugs, then he was correctly

charged with its illegal possession. The Supreme Court has time and again looked upon the defense of denial


6/18

with disfavor for being easily fabricated. Since accused failed to give anything more than his bare assertions,

his defense of denial must necessarily be rejected.People of the Philippines v. Malik Manalao y Alauya,G.R.

No. 187496, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal possession of dangerous drugs; elements. In prosecuting cases for illegal

possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in

possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is

not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The above elementswere all duly established by the prosecution. After De Jesus was validly arrested for the illegal sale of drugs,

he was searched and frisked, pursuant to section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, or the provision on

searches incident to lawful arrest. Upon such search, De Jesus was found to be in possession of eight heat-

sealed sachets of shabu, an item identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug. De Jesus failed to show that he

had authority to possess them. Moreover, mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facieevidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of satisfactory

explanation.People of the Philippines v. Victor De Jesus y Garcia,G.R. No. 198794, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal possession of dangerous drugs; elements. To prosecute illegal possession of

dangerous drugs, there must be a showing that (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is

identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely andconsciously possessed the said drug. As an incident to the arrest, Galido was ordered to empty his pockets

which led to the confiscation of another plastic sachet containing illegal drugs. The defense presented no

evidence to prove that the possession was authorized by law, the defense being non-possession or denial ofpossession. However, such denial cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the police

officials.For the defense position to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to

overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties ina regular and proper

manner. Galido failed to present any evidence that the police officials were distrustful in their performance of

duties. He even testified that prior to the arrest; he did not have any quarrel or misunderstanding with thepolice officers nor was he acquainted with any reason that they carried a grudge against him. Thus, the

Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the lower courts convicting Galido of illegal possession of dangerous

drugs.People of the Philippines v. James Galido y Noble,G.R. No. 192231, February 13, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal possession of dangerous drugs; elements; admissibility of evidence. In a

prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must be proven with moral certainty:(1) that the accused is in possession of the object identified as prohibited or regulated drug; (2) that such

possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

Accused concedes that frisking passengers at the airport is a standard procedure but assails the conduct ofSoriano and PO1 Trota-Bartolome in singling him out by making him stretch out his arms and empty his

pockets. He believes such meticulous search was unnecessary because, as Soriano himself testified, there was

no beep sound when petitioner walked past through the metal detector and hence nothing suspicious wasindicated by that initial security check. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that prosecution has satisfactorily

established that airport security officers found in the person of accused the marijuana fruiting tops, an illegalsubstance, contained in rolled paper sticks during the final security check at the airports pre-departure area.

Accuseds reluctance to show the contents of his short pants pocket after the friskers hand felt the rolled

papers containing marijuana, and his nervous demeanor aroused the suspicion of the arresting officers that hewas indeed carrying an item or material subject to confiscation by the said authorities. The search of the

contents of petitioners short pants pockets being a valid search pursuant to routine airport security procedure,

the illegal substance (marijuana) seized from him was therefore admissible in evidence.Don Djowel Sales y

Abalahin v. People of the Philippines,G.R. No. 191023, February 6, 2013.Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of dangerous drugs; elements . The elements necessary to successfullyprosecute an illegal sale of drugs case are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the

consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The prosecution must establish

that the illegal sale of the dangerous drugs actually took place together with the presentation in court ofthe corpus delicti or the dangerous drugs seized in evidence. In this case, the prosecution was able to establish

the above elements. Accused Manalao was positively identified by PO1 Solarta, who knew him even beforethe operation, as the one who sold the seized shabusubject of this case to the poseur-buyer. Manalao was

caught in flagrante delicto in the entrapment operation conducted by the PNP of Tubod, Lanao del Norte.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187496.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187496.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187496.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187496.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/198794.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/198794.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/198794.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/192231.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/192231.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/192231.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191023.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191023.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191023.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191023.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/192231.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/198794.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187496.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187496.pdf


7/18

Moreover, the corpus delicti of the crime was also established with certainty and conclusiveness.People of the

Philippines v. Malik Manalao y Alauya,G.R. No. 187496, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of dangerous drugs; illegal possession of dangerous drugs; elements.

As found by the lower courts, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of

dangerous drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another and (2) knew that what was

sold and delivered was a prohibited drug;and illegal possession of dangerous drugs: (1) the accused is in

possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulatory drug; (2) such possession is not authorized bylaw; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drugs. Manifest on record is thatthe buy-

bust transaction between the police operatives and Diwa was unequivocally established by the prosecution, and

it was so found by both lower courts. After being identified by the informant, Diwa was approached by PO3

Galvez for the purchase of marijuana.Diwa, after ascertaining the quantity to be purchased and accepting the

marked money from PO3 Galvez, handed him a portion of marijuana from the bunch wrapped in newspaper,contained in the yellow SM Supermarket plastic bag. The contents thereof were sent to the Physical Sciences

Division, and after examination, confirmed to be marijuana, a dangerous drug.People of the Philippines v.

Magsalin Diwa y Gutierrez,G.R. No. 194253, February 27,2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of shabu. To establish the crime of illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution

must prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the identity of the object andthe consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing. It simply

requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens at the moment the buyer receives the drug

from the seller. If a police officer goes through the operation as a buyer, the crime is consummated when thepolice officer makes an offer to buy that is accepted by the accused, and there is an ensuing exchange between

them involving the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the police officer. Should the accused raise the defense

of frame-up and extortion, the same must be established with clear and convincing evidence because the fact

that frame-up and extortion could be easily concocted renders such defenses hard to believe. In this case, the

accused merely put up self-serving denials. If indeed the accused was merely a victim of frame-up andextortion, there was no reason for him and his brother not to have formally charged the police officers with the

severely penalized offense of planting of evidence under section 2915 of R.A. 9165 and extortion. Therefore,

the Supreme Court rendered the defenses of frame-up and extortion implausible. People of the Philippines v.Noel Bartolome y Bajo,G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of drugs; elements. What is material is proof that the transaction or saleactually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. The commission of

illegal sale merely consummates the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the

drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer wasaccepted by seller, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already

consummated. In this case, the prosecution has adequately proven all the elements constituting sale of illegal

drug. This is evident from the testimony of PO1 Domingo, who identified in open court the white crystallinesubstance contained in the plastic sachet as the one handed by Langcua to him during the buy-bust operation.

The substance yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, as evidenced bythe Chemistry Report given by PSI Cayabyab.People of the Philippines v. SaibenLangcua y Daimla,G.R. No.

190343, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody. Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165 provides the procedure to be followedin the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs. This procedure underscores the value of preserving the integrity

of the confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled

precursors and essential chemicals, instruments, paraphernalia and laboratory equipment. It puts into focus the

essentiality of the confiscated articles as thecorpus delicti that the State must establish during the trial, as ameans of avoiding the commission of abuses by the lawmen in their enforcement of the laws against illegaldrug trade. In this case, the members of the buy-bust team substantially complied with the requirements. To

shield the operation from suspicion, they first saw to the certification of the buy-bust bill by the Office of the

City Prosecutor of Iligan City pursuant to their then standard operating procedure. After arresting Tapere, theylost no time in bringing him and the confiscated sachets (marked and identified as AT -1 to AT-4,

inclusive) to the PDEA office, where Team Leader SPO2 Englatiera immediately prepared and signed therequest for laboratory examination. Due to the lateness of the hour, PO1 Margaja, another member of the team,

brought the request and the sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory on the next day, and the request and the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187496.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187496.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187496.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/194253.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/194253.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/194253.pdfhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191726.pdfhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191726.pdfhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191726.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/190343.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/190343.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/190343.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/190343.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/190343.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/190343.pdfhttps://exch01.syciplaw.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/191726.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/194253.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/187496.pdf


8/18

sachets were received in due course. Sr. Police Insp. Jabonillo of the PNP Crime Laboratory subjected the

sachets to examination, and confirmed the presence in all of them of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a

dangerous drug. She also gave the weights of the contents of the four sachets in her Chemistry Report No. D-

083-02 dated September 4, 2002. Her report was approved by her superior, Police Supt. Sabong of the PNP

Regional Crime Laboratory. Based on all the foregoing, there was a conscious effort exerted by the buy-bust

team to ensure the proper incrimination of Tapere.People of the Philippines v. Arnold Tapere y Polpol,G.R.

No. 178065, February 20, 2013Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of dangerous drugs; elements. To establish the crime of illegal sale of

shabu as defined and punished under section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the prosecution must prove beyond

reasonable doubt the following: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the identity of the object and the

consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing. The

commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, requires simply the consummation ofthe selling transaction, which happens at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. In short, the

Prosecution must show that the transaction or sale actually took place, and present in court the thing sold as

evidence of the corpus delicti.People of the Philippines v. Arnold Tapere y Polpol,G.R. No. 178065, February

20, 2013

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of dangerous drugs; elements. In the case at bar, the State hasconclusively established the concurrence of the foregoing elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Firstly,

the members of the buy-bust team identified Tapere as the person with whom Salgado had contracted on the

purchase of the shabu. Secondly, the subject of the sale was one plastic sachet of shabu that the PNP CrimeLaboratory later on confirmed in due course to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. It

is of no consequence that three other sachets of shabu recovered from Taperes possession at the time of h is

arrest were also presented as evidence during the trial, or that the Prosecution failed to specify which of the

four sachets was the sachet involved in the transaction between him and Salgado because what is decisive is

that one of the four sachets was definitely the subject of the transaction between Tapere and the poseur buyer.Thirdly, the consideration of the sale was P100.00, and the actual payment of that amount through the P100.00

bill bearing serial number YU859011 covered by the public prosecutors certification ensured the identification

of it as the consideration. And, fourthly, the Prosecutions witnesses fully described the details of theconsummated sale of shabu between Tapere as seller and Salgado as buyer.People of the Philippines v. Arnold

Tapere y Polpol,G.R. No. 178065, February 20, 2013

3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Alibi. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit

approbation, the accused must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the

situscriminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have beenat the scene of the crime when it was committed. Since alibi is a weak defensefor being easily fabricated, it

cannot prevail over and is worthless in the face of the positive identification by a credible witness that anaccused perpetrated the crime. In this case, the accused did not introduce any evidence other than his own

testimony where he presented an alibi, i.e., that he was in another place, with his cousin, when the incident

happened. But the accused did not even present his cousin to buttress this claim. Moreover, he in fact admittedthat he had visited the dwelling of the victim in the morning on the day the crime was committed. Hence, the

Supreme Court affirmed his conviction for the crime of rape. People of the Philippines v. Jonathan Uto

Veloso y Rama,G.R. No. 188849, February 13, 2013.

Alibi; requisites; when it can succeed as a defense over positive identification. In order for alibi to prosper,

petitioner must establish by clear and convincing evidence that,first, he was in another place at the time of theoffense; and,second, it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. The alibi of the

accused was that he was at home asleep with his wife when the victim was shot. However, his wifes

testimony did not show that he was indeed at home when the crime happened. At the most, it only establishesthat he was at home before and after the shooting. Accused also failed to prove the physical impossibility of

his being at the scene of the crime at the time in question. His alibi that he was at home actually bolsters theprosecutions claim that he was the shooter, because it placed him just a few steps away from the scene of the

crime, which was in front of his house, when the victim was shot. Physical impossibility refers to the distance

between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as


9/18

well as the facility of access between the two places. Edmundo Escamilla y Jugo v. People of the

Philippines,G.R. No. 188551, February 27, 2013.

Circumstantial evidence; when sufficient for conviction. Circumstantial evidence is defined asthat evidence

that indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence

established.It is sufficient for conviction if: [a] there is more than one (1) circumstance; [b] the facts from

which the inferences are derived are proven; and [c] the combination of all the circumstances is such as to

produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it isessential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair

and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The test

to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused is that the

series of circumstances duly proved must be consistent with each other and that each and every circumstance

must be consistent with the accuseds guilt and inconsistent with the accuseds innocence. Contrary toAbulencias contention in his brief,there are numerous circumstances sufficient to prove his participation in the

crime, to wit: [a] it was established that Lamsen was an active participant to the crime; [b] Lamsen and

Abulencia both admitted they were together in the vicinity of the crime scene when it happened;[c] his car with

plate number PEW 781 was subjected to a flash alarm in connection with the crime;[d] Abulencia admitted he

was driving his car when the flash alarm was raised;and [e] the dents and bluish green streaks of paint foundon Sys jeep matched the dents and scratches found on Abulencias car.The combination of the aforementioned

circumstances forms an unbroken chain which irrefragably points to Abulencia as among the perpetrators of

the crime.People of the Philippines v. P/Supt. Artemio E. Lamsen, et al,G.R. No. 198338, February 20, 2013.Credibility of witnesses; positive identification of the accused prevails over denial. The Supreme Court

held that a categorical and consistently positive identification of the accused, without any showing of ill

motive on the part of the eyewitnesses, prevails over denial. In this case, the identity of the assailant was

proved with moral certainty by the prosecution, which presented three witnessesthe victim Mendol, Velasco,

and Garcelazo who all positively identified Escamilla as the shooter. All the three witnesses wereunswerving in their testimonies and none of them had any ulterior motive to testify against him.Edmundo

Escamilla y Jugo v. People of the Philippines,G.R. No. 188551, February 27, 2013.

Credibility of witnesses; inconsistencies on minor matters strengthen the credibility of witnesses.Accused Elizabeth harps on the purported contradictions and improbabilities in the testimonies of PO2 Ibasco

and SPO4 Reburiano, specifically, as to: (1) the composition of the buy-bust team; (2) the existence of apreoperation report and coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA); and (3) the

markings made by PO2 Ibasco on the sachet ofshabu. The Supreme Court (SC) was not swayed and thus ruled

that the inconsistencies adverted to by Elizabeth are trivial and insignificant and refer only to minor details.Time and again, the SC has ruled that inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters only serve to strengthen

rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses for they erase the suspicion of rehearsed testimony.

Furthermore, the SC cannot expect the testimonies of different witnesses to be completely identical and tocoincide with each other since they have different impressions and recollections of the incident. Hence, it is

only natural that their testimonies are at variance on some minor details. Indeed, in a prosecution for illegalsale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the proof that the accused peddled illicit drugs, coupled with the

presentation in court of the corpus delicti, both of which were satisfactorily complied with by the prosecution

in this case.People of the Philippines v. Linda Alviz y Yatco and Elizabeth Dela Vega y Bautista,G.R. No.177158, February 6, 2013.

Credibility of witnesses; minor inconsistencies do not negate eyewitnesses positive identification. Minor

inconsistencies in the narration of witnesses do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their

testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that thewitnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed. Witnesses are not expected to remember everysingle detail of an incident with perfect or total recall. The witnesses testimonies need only to corroborate one

another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.In this case, the inconsistencies in

the recollection of facts of PO1 Domingo, PO3 Nicolas and P/I Rosqueta regarding the street where theaccused came from, the position of the motorcycle as well as the operational condition of the cellular phone,

are not material elements in establishing an illegal sale of dangerous drug. It is not irregular for police officersto have inconsistent statements in the narration of details of the buy-bust operation, as indeed the inconsistency

can indicate truthfulness. What is important is for them to recount the material facts constituting sale of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/198338.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/198338.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/198338.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/177158.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/177158.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/177158.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/177158.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/177158.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/177158.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/198338.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/188551.pdf


10/18

dangerous drug such as the exchange of the illegal drug for buy-bust money and identification of the buyer,

seller and illegal drug in court as the object of the sale. The three witnesses corroborated each other on material

points which added to the confidence placed on their testimonies.People of the Philippines v. SaibenLangcua

y Daimla,G.R. No. 190343, February 6, 2013.

Credibility of witnesses; trial courts assessment accorded great respect. The trial judge is the one who

hears the testimony of the witnesses presented firsthand and sees their demeanor and body language. The trial

judge, therefore, can better determine if the witnesses are telling the truth being in the ideal position to weighconflicting testimonies. Here, the accused raised on appeal the trivial inconsistencies in the testimony of the

rape victim. However, the Supreme Court (SC) gave weight to the trial courts observation of the demeanor of

the victim when she testified. The SC affirmed the Regional Trial Court in specifically noting that the

testimony of the victim during the trial was straightforward, candid, clear and consistent; that she was not

moved nor cowed by the peroration of the cross-examiner; that her answers were direct and concise; that shewas unmoved by the slings and arrows of her misfortune; that she was bold, determined and credible; and that

the defense never broke her, in fact her answers enhanced her will to correct a wrong, her quest for the

protective mantle of the law and her passion to punish the accused. The SC thus affirmed his conviction for the

crime of rape.People of the Philippines v. Jonathan Uto Veloso y Rama,G.R. No. 188849, February 13,

2013.

Extrajudicial confession; binding only on the confessant; exceptions. A review of the records show that the

only direct material evidence against Salapuddin is the confession made by Ikram. While the confession is

arguably relevant, this is not the evidence competent to establish the probability that Salapuddin participated inthe commission of the crime. On the contrary, as pointed out by the Secretary of Justice, this cannot be

considered against Salapuddin on account of the principle ofres inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet.

Clearly thus, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant. It cannot be admitted against his or

her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them.The exception provided under section 30, Rule 130

of the Rules of Court to the rule allowing the admission of a conspirator requires the prior establishment of theconspiracy by evidence other than the confession. In this case, there is a dearth of proof demonstrating the

participation of Salapuddin in a conspiracy to set off a bomb in the Batasan grounds and thereby kill

Congressman Akbar. Not one of the other persons arrested and subjected to custodial investigation professedthat Salapuddin was involved in the plan to set off a bomb in the Batasan grounds. Instead, the investigating

prosecutors did no more than to rely on Salapuddins association with these persons to conclude that he was aparticipant in the conspiracy. The Supreme Court, however, has previously stressed that mere association with

the principals by direct participation, without more, does not suffice. Relationship, association and

companionship do not prove conspiracy. Salapuddins complicity to the crime, if this be the case, cannot beanchored on his relationship, if any, with the arrested persons or his ownership of the place where they

allegedly stayed while in Manila. It must be shown that the person concerned has performed an overt act in

pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. In fact, mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act,without the cooperation or approval to cooperate, is not sufficient to prove conspiracy. Gerry A. Salapuddin v.

The Court of Appeals, Gov. Jum Akbar, and Nor-Rhama J. Indanan,G.R. No. 184681, February 25, 2013.Information; sufficiency of allegations in the information. The real nature of the criminal charge is

determined not from the caption or preamble of the information, or from the specification of the provision of

law alleged to have been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of facts in thecomplaint or information. Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and

circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and

essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to

inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare hisdefense. The presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute theoffense.People of the Philippines v. PO2 Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez,G.R. No. 175602, February 13,

2013.

Information; sufficiency of allegations in the information. The averments of the informations to the effectthat the two accused with intent to kill, qualified with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior

strength did x x x assault, attackand employ personal violence upon the victims by then and there shooting[them] with a gun, hitting [them] on various parts of their bodies which [were] the direct and immediate

cause of [their] death[s] did not sufficiently set forth the facts and ci rcumstances describing how treachery


11/18

attended each of the killings. The use of the gun as an instrument to kill was notper se treachery, for there are

other instruments that could serve the same lethal purpose. Nor did the use of the term treachery constitute a

sufficient averment, for that term, standing alone, was nothing but a conclusion of law, not an averment of a

fact.People of the Philippines v. PO2 Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez,G.R. No. 175602, February 13,

2013.

Lawful warrantless arrests; evidence gathered in fl agrante deli ctoadmissible. There is little credence in

accused Elizabeths assertion that she and co-accused Linda were mere victims of a frame-up. There isabsolute lack of evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were stirred by illicit motive or had

improperly performed their duties in arresting Linda and Elizabeth. Both Linda and Elizabeth admitted that

they did not know the police officers prior to their arrest. Hence, there could not have been any bad blood

between them and said police officers. As a result of the finding that a buy-bust operation actually took place

and that Linda and Elizabeth were apprehended in flagrante delicto, the evidence gathered and presented bythe prosecution on the occasion of their lawful arrest without warrant cannot be deemed as the fruits of a

poisonous tree, but are admissible and competent proof of their guilt.People of the Philippines v. Linda Alviz

y Yatco and Elizabeth Dela Vega y Bautista,G.R. No. 177158, February 6, 2013.

Motion to re-open case for reception of further evidence; motion for new trial. Section 1 of Rule 121 of

the Rules of Court provides that a new trial may only be granted by the court on motion of the accused, ormotu proprio with the consent of the accused [a]t any time before a judgment of conviction becomes final. In

this case, petitioners judgment of conviction already became final and executory on 26 July 2007 the date on

which the decision of the Supreme Court denying the petition and affirming the ruling of the Court of Appealswas recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments. Thus, pleas for the remand of this case to the trial court for

the conduct of a new trial may no longer be entertained. The rationale for this rule is that fundamental

considerations of public policy and sound practice necessitate that, at the risk of occasional errors, the

judgment or orders of courts should attain finality at some definite time fixed by law. Otherwise, there would

be no end to litigation.Reynante Tadeja, et al v. People of the Philippines,G.R. No. 145336, February 20,2013.

Newly-discovered evidence. Newly discovered evidence refers to that which (a) is discovered after trial; (b)

could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) ismaterial, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) is of such weight that it would probably

change the judgment if admitted. The most important requisite is that the evidence could not have beendiscovered and produced at the trial even with reasonable diligence; hence, the term newly discovered. In

this case, the confession of Plaridel, the witness whose testimony was sought to be introduced as newly

discovered evidence, does not meet this requisite. He participated in the trial before the Regional Trial Courtand even gave testimony as to his defense. It was only after he and the petitioners had been convicted by the

trial court that he absconded. Thus, the contention that his confession could not have been obtained during trial

does not hold water.ReynanteTadeja, et al v. People of the Philippines,G.R. No. 145336, February 20, 2013.

Prejudicial questions; violations of B.P. 22. The rescission of a contract of sale is not a prejudicial question

that will warrant the suspension of the criminal proceedings commenced to prosecute the buyer for violationsof the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) arising from the dishonor of the checks the buyer issued in connection

with the sale. The violation of B.P. 22 requires the concurrence of the following elements, namely: (1) the

making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker,drawer, or issuerthat 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 issue in the criminal actions upon the violations of B.P.22 is therefore whether or not Reyes issued the dishonoured checks knowing them to be without funds uponpresentment. On the other hand, the issue in the civil action for rescission is whether or not the breach in the

fulfilment of Advanced Foundations obligation warranted the rescission of the conditional sale. If, after trial

on the merits in the civil action, Advanced Foundation would be found to have committed material breach as towarrant the rescission of the contract, such result would not necessarily mean that Reyes would be absolved of

the criminal responsibility for issuing the dishonored checks because, as the aforementioned elements show, healready committed the violations upon the dishonor of the checks that he had issued at a time when the

conditional sale was still fully binding upon the parties. His obligation to fund the checks or to make


12/18

arrangements for them with the drawee bank should not be tied up to the future event of extinguishment of the

obligation under the contract of sale through rescission. Indeed, under B.P. 22, the mere issuance of a

worthless check was already the offense in itself. Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings for the

violation of B.P. 22 could proceed despite the pendency of the civil action for rescission of the conditional

sale. Teodoro A. Reyes v. Ettore Rossi,G.R. No. 159823, February 18, 2013.

Preliminary investigation; probable cause; courts cannot directly decide matters over which

discretionary authority has been delegated to the executive department. The Supreme Court (SC) in thiscase citedMetropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (Metrobank) v. Tobias III, where it stressed that a preliminary

investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is not part of a trial. At a

preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice only determines whether the

act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.There is no definitive standard by which

probable cause is determinedexcept to consider the attendant conditions; the existence of probable causedepends upon the finding of the public prosecutor conducting the examination, who is called upon not to

disregard the facts presented, and to ensure that his finding should not run counter to the clear dictates of

reason. Here, the SC found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals when it rendered

its Decision dated January 11, 2011. There is ample evidence on record to support the said decision. To name

one, the accountants who were part of the Inspection Team sent by Tan to Coastal Highpoint Ventures, Inc.(CHVI), executed a Joint Affidavit stating that the documents made available to them for inspection were

limited. Further, they claimed that on the day of the inspection, they brought a portable photocopying machine

to CHVIs premises but they were not allowed to use the same. The offense punishable under section 74, inrelation to section 144 of the Corporation Code, for which Chiu was indicted, requires the unjustified

disallowance or refusal by a suspect, of a stockholders written request to examine or copy excerpts of a

corporations books or minutes. The absence of any ascribed ill motives on the part of the aforementioned

accountants to make statements adverse or unfavorable to Chiu lends credibility to their declarations. Besides,

as the SC ruled in Metrobank, in a preliminary investigation, the prosecutor is bound to determine merely theexistence of probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the accused has committed the same. The

rules do not require that a prosecutor has moral certainty of the guilt of a person for the latter to be indicted for

an offense after the conduct of a preliminary investigation. Further, the SC has repeatedly ruled that thedetermination of probable cause, for purposes of preliminary investigation, is an executive function. Such

determination should be free from the courts interference save only in exceptional cases where theDepartment of Justice gravely abuses its discretion in the issuance of its orders or resolutions.Loreli Lim Po v.

Department of the Justice, et al/Antonio ng Chiu v. Court of Appeals, et al,G.R. Nos. 195198 & G.R. No.

197098, February 11, 2013.

Sandiganbayan; original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A.

7975 and R.A. 8249,vests the Sandiganbayan with original exclusive jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases

instituted pursuant to and in connection with Executive Orders 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986 by thenPresident Corazon C. Aquino. Executive Order 1 refers to cases of recovery and sequestration of ill-gotten

wealth amassed by the Marcoses, their relatives, subordinates, and close associates, directly or throughnominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/or by using their powers, authority, influence,

connections or relationships. Executive Order 2 states that the ill-gotten wealth includes assets and properties

in the form of estates and real properties in the Philippines and abroad. Executive Orders 14 and 14-A pertainto the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases relative to the ill-gotten wealth of the

Marcoses and their cronies. The amended complaint filed by the Republic to implead Asian Bank prays for

reversion, reconveyance, reconstitution, accounting and damages. In other words, the Republic would recover

ill-gotten wealth, by virtue of which the properties in question cameunder sequestration and are now, for thatreason, in custodia legis. Although the Republic has not imputed any responsibility to Asian Bank for theillegal accumulation of wealth by the original defendants, or has not averred that Asian Bank was a business

associate, dummy, nominee, or agent of the Marcoses, the allegation in its amended complaint in Civil Case

No. 0004 that Asian Bank acted with bad faith for ignoring the sequestration of the properties as ill-gottenwealth has made the cause of action against Asian Bank incidental or necessarily connected to the cause of

action against the original defendants. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan has original exclusive jurisdictionover the claim against Asian Bank, for the Supreme Court has ruled in Presidential Commission on Good

Government v. Sandiganbayan, that the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction not only over
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/159823.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/159823.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/159823.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/195198.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/195198.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/195198.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/195198.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/195198.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/195198.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/159823.pdf


13/18

principal causes of action involving recovery of ill-gotten wealth, but also over all incidents arising from,

incidental to, or related to such cases.Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, as successor-in-interest of

Asian Bank Corporation v. Hon. Edilberto G. Sandoval, et al,G.R. No. 169677, February 18, 2013.

Warrantless arrests; fl agrante deli ctoarrest; standard of probable cause. A valid warrantless arrest which

justifies a subsequent search is one that is carried out under the parameters of section 5(a), Rule 113 of the

Rules of Court which requires that the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause to arrest

a person caught in flagrante delicto. To be sure, the term probable cause has been understood to mean areasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a

cautious mans belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. Records show

that PO2 Soque arrested accused Ramon for allegedly violating section 844 of the Manila City Ordinance

regarding Breaches of the Peace. The Supreme Court (SC) held that the act of shouting in a thickly-populated

place, with many people conversing with each other on the street, would not constitute any of the actspunishable under section 844 of the Manila City Ordinance. Ramon was not making or assisting in any riot,

affray, disorder, disturbance, or breach of the peace; he was not assaulting, beating or using personal violence

upon another; and, the words he allegedly shouted Putang ina mo! Limang daan na ba ito? are not

slanderous, threatening or abusive, and thus, could not have tended to disturb the peace or excite a riot

considering that at the time of the incident, Balingkit Street was still teeming with people and alive withactivity. Further, it bears stressing that no one present at the place of arrest ever complained that Ramons

shouting disturbed the public. On the contrary, a disinterested member of the community (a certain Rosemarie

Escobal) even testified that Ramon was merely standing in front of the store of a certain MangRomy when aman in civilian clothes, later identified as PO2 Soque, approached Ramon, immediately handcuffed and took

him away. In its totality, the SC observed that these facts and circumstances could not have engendered a well-

founded belief that any breach of the peace had been committed by Ramon at the time that his warrantless

arrest was effected. All told, no probable cause existed to justify Ramons warrantless arrest. Ramon Martinez

y Goco/Ramon Goco y Martinez v. People of the Philippines,G.R. No. 198694, February 13, 2013.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/169677.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/169677.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/169677.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/198694.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/198694.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/198694.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/198694.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/february2013/169677.pdf


14/18

March 2013 Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure1. REVISED PENAL CODE

Rape; medical examination of victim not indispensable to prove rape. An inconclusive medical report does

not negate the finding that the accused (Penilla) raped AAA. A medical examination of the victim is not

indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victims testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to

convict the accused of the crime. In fact, a doctors certificate is merely corroborative in character and not an

indispensable requirement in proving the commission of rape.People of the Philippines v. Gilbert Penilla y

Francia,G.R. No. 189324, March 20, 2013.

Rape; moral character of the victim is immaterial. Accused Penillas insistence that he was then a virile

young man of twenty-three years, lusted after by a separated and older woman, loses significance in light of

the dictum that in rape cases, the moral character of the victim is immaterial. Rape may be committed not only

against single women and children but also against those who are married, middle-aged, separated, or

pregnant. Even a prostitute may be a victim of rape. Correlatively and more importantly, the libidinousness of

the victim here, AAA, which is not accepted as a common attribute, should have been proven outside of theincident on the midnight of 22 October 1999.People of the Philippines v. Gilbert Penilla y Francia,G.R. No.

189324, March 20, 2013.

Rape; when absence of physical resistance unavailing as a defense . Accused-appellant makes much of the

fact that AAA did not cry for help given that the area where they lived was densely populated, the houses

thereat were literally only divided by thin walls, and any commotion could easily be heard. Penilla likewise

points out that AAA did not put up a fight. In this regard, Penilla asseverates that the prosecutions story was

silent on any physical struggle suggestive of rape. The Supreme Court found no credence in Penillas

arguments.People of the Philippines v. Gilbert Penilla y Francia,G.R. No. 189324, March 20, 2013.

Rape; when absence of physical resistance unavailing as a defense. Physical resistance need not be

established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits herself to her attacker

because of fear. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victims submission

to the perpetrators lust. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman

involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused; it is not an essential element of rape. Rape victims reactdifferently. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.The use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the

victim with a knife, much more poking it at her, as in this case, is sufficient to bring her into submission. Thus,

the law does not impose

court decisionss

Documents