remedial law (cases in criminal procedure)

8/18/2019 Remedial Law (cases in Criminal Procedure)

1/53

RULE 110

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Baguio City

FIRS !I"ISI#$

PE#PLE #F %E P%ILIPPI$ES&

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus -

'#SEP% (SIL($ y (B#R$(L&

Accused-Appellant.

)*R* $o* 1++,--

Present:

CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, ERSA!"N, DEL CAST"LLO, and PERE#,$ JJ.

Pro%ul&ated:

April '', ()'(

* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *

! E C I S I # $

LE#$(R!#.!E C(SR#& J */

This is an appeal filed + the accused-appellant oseph Asilan Ta+ornal Asilan/ to challen&e the

0e+ruar (1, ())2 !ecision3'4 of the Court of Appeals in C(.)*R* CR*.%*C* $o* 0-+, 5hich affir%ed in toto his

!urder con6iction, rendered + the Re&ional Trial Court RTC/, ranch () of the Cit of !anila on anuar 7,

())8, in Criminal Case $o* 0.-,00.

On !arch 9', ()), Asilan 5as char&ed 5ith the co%ple* cri%e of Direct Assault 5ith !urder in an

"nfor%ation,3(4 the pertinent portion of 5hich reads:

That on or a+out 2arch -3& -00, in the Cit of !anila, Philippines, the said accused,

conspirin&, and confederatin& 5ith another 5hose true na%e, real identit and present5herea+outs are still un;no5n and %utuall helpin& each other, did then and there 5illfull,unla5full, and feloniousl attac;, assault and use personal 6iolence upon the person of P#1R($!4 (!#"(S y PE.C((, a %e%+er of the Philippine National Police assi&ned at Ca%pa&on& Di5a, icutan, Ta&ui&, !!, dul


2/53

Asilan pleaded not &uilt upon his arrai&n%ent 394 on April '), ()). Pre-Trial Conference follo5ed on

April (, ()), 5here the counsels a&reed to stipulate that Asilan, 5ho 5as at that ti%e present in the RTC, 5as the

sa%e Asilan na%ed in the "nfor%ation, and that the 6icti%, Police Officer ' PO'/ Rand Ado6as Pe-caat

Ado6as/, 5as a police officer in acti6e dut at the ti%e of his death. 3=4 Trial on the %erits ensued after the

ter%ination of the pre-trial conference.

elo5 is the prosecution>s 6ersion, as succinctl su%%ari?ed + the Office of the Solicitor @eneral OS@/

fro% the testi%on of oselito inosa inosa/314:

"n the e6enin& of !arch (8, ()), around '):)) o>cloc;, oselito inosa, a eepne

+ar;erBcar5ash +o 5hile chattin& 5ith his friends at the El Nio a;er alon& Teresa Street, Sta.!esa, !anila, heard a &unshot near+. e then 5ent to the place 5here the sound ca%e and fro%5here he 5as standin& 5hich 5as a+out three 9/ to four =/ %eters a5a, he sa5 a unifor%ed

police%an, 5ho see%ed to +e arrestin& so%eone and orderin& the latter to la on the &round.

The police officer pushed the %an to the 5all, po;ed the &un on hi% and 5as a+out tohandcuff the latter 5hen another %an, herein appellant Asilan arri6ed, dre5 so%ethin& fro% his

+ac; and sta++ed the police officer on his +ac; se6eral ti%es until the latter fell to the &round.

The %an 5ho 5as +ein& arrested + the police officer held the latter>s hand 5hile he 5as +ein& sta++ed repeatedl + 3Asilan4. The %an 5ho 5as +ein& arrested then too; the officer>s&un and shot the latter 5ith it.

The fello5 +ar;er of oselito inosa then thre5 stones at the %alefactors 5hosu+se


3/53


4/53

Anent the a&&ra6atin& circu%stances, the RTC found that the ;illin& of Ado6as 5as pro6en to +e attended

5ith treacher since Ado6as 5as attac;ed fro% +ehind, depri6in& hi% of the opportunit to defend hi%self.

3'4 o5e6er, the RTC declared that the a&&ra6atin& circu%stance of e6ident pre%editation Kcould not +e

appreciated * * * a+sent e6idence that 3Asilan4 planned or prepared to ;ill 3Ado6as4 or of the ti%e 5hen the plot 5as

concei6ed.3'84

As to the da%a&es, the RTC found the prosecution>s e6idence, 5hich consisted of Ado6as>s 5ife>s

testi%on, and the receipts of the e*penses she incurred in Ado6as>s hospitali?ation, 5a;e, and +urial, sufficient to

a5ard %oral and actual da%a&es.

On anuar '2, ())8, Asilan appealed3'74 his con6iction to the Court of Appeals, %ainl on the &round that

the prosecution failed to pro6e his &uilt +eond reasona+le dou+t. e su+se


5/53

(rt* -+* 2ur5er. M An person 5ho, not fallin& 5ithin the pro6isions of Article (=

shall ;ill another, shall +e &uilt of %urder and shall +e punished + re'(usion )er)etua to death, if co%%itted 5ith an of the follo5in& attendant circu%stances:

'. Fith treacher, ta;in& ad6anta&e of superior stren&th, 5ith the aid of ar%ed %en, or

e%ploin& %eans to 5ea;en the defense or of %eans or persons to insure or affordi%punit

(. "n consideration of a price, re5ard, or pro%ise

9. %eans of inundation, fire, poison, e*plosion, ship5rec;, strandin& of a 6essel,derail%ent or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, + %eans of %otor 6ehicles,or 5ith the use of an other %eans in6ol6in& &reat 5aste and ruin

=. On occasion of an of the cala%ities enu%erated in the precedin& para&raph, or of an earths

su&&estion that Asilan returned to the scene of the cri%e after he co%%itted the alle&ed cri%e is 6er

unli;el. Asilan a6ers that San Die&o>s testi%on 5as li;e5ise not credi+le as it 5as clearl onl a %ore refined

6ersion of inosa>s account of the e6ents. !oreo6er, Asilan sas that San Die&o>s testi%on is too &ood to +e true

as he is unli;el to ha6e a detailed recollection of an e6ent, 5hich accordin& to hi% happened 5ithin a span of t5o

%inutes.3(14

Credibility of Witnesses

"t is a 5ell-settled rule that the assess%ent of the trial court re&ardin& the credi+ilit of 5itnesses 5ill

&enerall not +e distur+ed on appeal. The rationale for this doctrine is that the trial court is in a +etter position to

decide the issue, as it heard the 5itnesses the%sel6es and o+ser6ed their deport%ent and %anner of testifin& durin&

the trial.3(4 The onl e*ceptions to this rule are the follo5in&:

'. Fhen patent inconsistencies in the state%ents of 5itnesses are i&nored + the trial court or

(. Fhen the conclusions arri6ed at are clearl unsupported + the e6idence.3(84

This Court sees no reason to appl the a+o6e e*ceptions and distur+ the findin&s of the RTC, 5hich 5ere

affir%ed + the Court of Appeals.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn28


6/53

Our perusal of the records sho5ed that the RTC 5as 6i&ilant in its dut to ascertain the truth. The RTC itself

propounded clarificator s assailants. The RTC also pointed out that it could not find an du+ious

reason for inosa and San Die&o to falsel i%plicate Asilan in a heinous cri%e.3(74

Alleged Inconsistencies

The alle&ed inconsistenc in inosa>s testi%on does not render his testi%on fictitious. The fact that he

5as a+le to pro6ide %ore details of the e6ents onl durin& cross-e*a%ination is not unusual, and on the contrar

tends to +uttress, rather than 5ea;en, his credi+ilit, since it sho5s that he 5as neither coached nor 5ere his ans5ers

contri6ed.3(24 After all, K354itnesses are not e*pected to re%e%+er e6er sin&le detail of an incident 5ith perfect or

total recall.

39)4

As for San Die&o>s testi%on, it is not unnatural for hi% to ha6e a detailed recollection of the

incident. KDifferent persons ha6e different reactions to si%ilar situations. There is no tpical reaction to a sudden

occurrence.39'4 "t is 5orth to note that San Die&o 5as onl si*teen ears old 5hen he 5itnessed the sta++in& of

Ado6as. "t 5as his first ti%e to 5itness a person +ein& sta++ed ri&ht +efore his 6er ees. e testified that three

%onths after that ni&ht, the e6ents 5ere still 6i6idl i%printed in his %ind. 39(4 "t is thus not i%pro+a+le that he could,

5ith certaint, identif Asilan as the %an 5ho sta++ed Ado6as that fateful ni&ht.

Li;e5ise, our scrutin of the so-called inconsistencies relied upon + Asilan sho5ed that the onl referred to

%inor details, 5hich did not affect the credi+ilit of the prosecution 5itnesses. 3994 "n "eo)(e v. A(*ari+o,39=4 this Court

said:

"t is ele%entar in the rule of e6idence that inconsistencies in the testi%onies of prosecution5itnesses 5ith respect to %inor details and collateral %atters do not affect the su+stance of their declaration nor the 6eracit or 5ei&ht of their testi%on. "n fact, these %inor inconsistenciesenhance the credi+ilit of the 5itnesses, for the re%o6e an suspicion that their testi%onies 5erecontri6ed or rehearsed. "n "eo)(e vs. $a(ente, this Court ruled that inconsistencies in details5hich are irrele6ant to the ele%ents of the cri%e are not &rounds for ac


7/53

"n the sa%e %anner, it is also not surprisin& that Asilan returned to the scene of the cri%e after sta++in&

Ado6as. is Kfailure to flee and the apparent nor%alc of his +eha6ior su+ses +are denial, 5hen u*taposed 5ith the prosecution 5itnesses> positi6e

declarations, is not 5orth of credence. Denial, 5hich is the usual refu&e of offenders, is an inherentl 5ea;

defense, and %ust +e +uttressed + other persuasi6e e6idence of non-culpa+ilit to %erit credi+ilit. The defense of

denial fails e6en %ore 5hen the assailant, as in this case, 5as positi6el identified + credi+le 5itnesses, a&ainst

5ho% no ulterior %oti6e could +e ascri+ed.3=)4

Asilan not onl ad%itted that he 5as at the scene of the cri%e 5hen he 5as arrested + the police

authorities, he also ad%itted that he did not ;no5 an of the prosecution 5itnesses prior to his trial. !oreo6er, he

had filed no case a&ainst the police officers 5ho% he accused of %aulin& hi% to %a;e hi% ad%it to the sta++in& of

Ado6as. Asilan>s Kself-ser6in& state%ents deser6e no 5ei&ht in la5 and cannot +e &i6en &reater e6identiar 6alue

o6er the testi%on of the 5itnesses 5ho testified on positi6e points.3='4

Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery

Asilan pleads that treacher cannot +e appreciated in the present case as the prosecution failed to esta+lish that

he had consciousl or deli+eratel adopted or chosen the %ode of attac; e%ploed upon Ado6as to depri6e hi% of

an opportunit to defend hi%self or retaliate. Asilan ar&ues that %ere suddenness of the attac; is not enou&h to

constitute treacher. e further posits that 5hile it %a +e true that he alle&edl ca%e fro% +ehind, the K%ode of

attac; could ha6e occurred in a spur of the %o%ent.3=(4

The RTC correctl appreciated the


8/53

oth ee5itnesses testified on ho5 Asilan attac;ed Ado6as fro% +ehind. Ado6as could not ha6e defended

hi%self +ecause Asilan sta++ed hi% at his +ac; repeatedl sans pro6ocation or 5arnin&. The decidin& factor is that

Asilan>s e*ecution of his attac; %ade it i%possi+le for Ado6as to defend hi%self or retaliate.3=4

Sufficiency of the Information

Asilan also clai%s that his constitutional ri&ht to +e infor%ed of the nature and cause of accusation a&ainst

hi% 5as infrin&ed 5hen he 5as con6icted for !urder, since the %anner + 5hich he carried out the ;illin& 5ith the


9/53

!oreo6er, in "eo)(e v. Can+a1a,31'4 this Court held that K3a4n "nfor%ation 5hich lac;s essential alle&ations

%a still sustain a con6iction 5hen the accused fails to o+ect to its sufficienc durin& the trial, and the deficienc

5as cured + co%petent e6idence presented therein.31(4 "n this case, Asilan not onl failed to s li6in& e*penses fro% the a%ount of his

&ross inco%e.314 The loss of earnin& capacit of Asilan is thus co%puted as follo5s:

Net Earnin& Capacit life e*pectanc * 3&ross annual inco%e li6in& e*penses434

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn63http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn63http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn64http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn63http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn64http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/188322.htm#_ftn67


10/53

(B9 37)-a&e at ti%e of death4 * 3&ross annual inco%e 1)Q of &ross annual inco%e4

(B9 37)-(24 * 3 ')9,().)) ₱ 1',9).))4₱

9= * 1',9).))₱

',811,=().))₱

:%EREF#RE& the decision dated 0e+ruar (1, ())2 of the Court of Appeals in [email protected]. CR.-.C. No.

)(7 is here+ (FFIR2E! insofar as it found accused-appellant oseph Asilan Ta+ornal &uilt +eond

reasona+le dou+t of 2UR!ER and sentenced to suffer the penalt of reclusion perpetua,

5ith 2#!IFIC(I#$ as to the da%a&es. Asilan is here+ ordered to inde%nif the heirs of Rand Ado6as Pe-

caat the follo5in&: a/ 81,))).)) as ci6il inde%nit +/ 1),))).)) as %oral da%a&es c/ 9),))).)) as₱ ₱ ₱

e*e%plar da%a&es d/ 7),((=.)) as actual da%a&es e/ ',811,=().)) as loss of earnin& capacit and f/₱ ₱

interest on all da%a&es a5arded at the rate of Q )er annu/ fro% the date of finalit of this ud&%ent.

S# #R!ERE!*

ERESI( '* LE#$(R!#.!E C(SR#

Associate ustice

FE CONCHR:

RE$(# C* C#R#$(

Chief usticeChairperson

LUC(S P* BERS(2I$

Associate ustice2(RI($# C* !EL C(SILL#

Associate ustice

'#SE P#RU)(L PERE<

Associate ustice

CERIFIC(I#$

Pursuant to Section '9, Article """ of the Constitution, " certif that the conclusions in the a+o6e Decision

had +een reached in consultation +efore the case 5as assi&ned to the 5riter of the opinion of the Court>s Di6ision.

RE$(# C* C#R#$(

Chief ustice


11/53

RULE 111

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

2anila

FIRS !I"ISI#$

!($E %ER$($!E< !(U&

Petitioner,

- versus -

PE#PLE #F %E P%ILIPPI$ES&

Respondent.

)*R* $o* 1;31+

Present: CORONA, C.J.,Chairperson,LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,DEL CAST"LLO,AAD,$ andPERE#, JJ.

Pro%ul&ated: Dece%+er '9, ()')

*- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*

! E C I S I # $

LE#$(R!#.!E C(SR#& J */

This is a Petition for Re6ie5 on Certiorari under Rule =1 of the Rules of Court assailin& the Decision3'4 of

the Court of Appeals dated !arch 9', ())1 in [email protected]. CR No. ('12, 5hich affir%ed the Decision 3(4 of the

Re&ional Trial Court RTC/ of the Cit of !anila, ranch 97 dated Au&ust (7, ())) in Cri%inal Case No. 21-

'==(9) that found petitioner Dante ernande? Datu &uilt +eond reasona+le dou+t of the cri%e of Acts of

Lasci6iousness penali?ed under Section 1, Article """ of Repu+lic Act No. 8') or the Special Protection of Children

A&ainst Child A+use, E*ploitation and Discri%ination Act.

The full te*t of the "nfor%ation filed a&ainst petitioner reads as follo5s:

The undersi&ned Assistant Prosecutor upon s5orn co%plaint of Rolando Re&istrado, co%plainantherein, in representation of his dau&hter, erica Re&istrado, 5hose state%ent is hereto attached asAnne* A, accuses DANTE DATH ERNANDE# of the cri%e of Acts of Lasci6iousness

punisha+le under RA 8') other5ise ;no5n as the Special Protection A&ainst Child A+use,E*ploitation and Discri%ination Act, co%%itted as follo5s:

That on or a+out 0e+ruar (=, '221, in the Cit of !anila, Philippines, the said accused,5ith le5d desi&n, did then and there 5illfull, unla5full and feloniousl co%%it acts of lasci6iousness upon ER"CA RE@"STRADO, 1 ears of a&e, + then and there insertin& his fin&er in the latters &enitals, a&ainst her 5ill and consent. 394

Hpon arrai&n%ent, petitioner pleaded not &uilt thus, trial ensued.

The pertinent facts of this case are as follo5s:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/169718.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/169718.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/169718.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/169718.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/169718.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/169718.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/169718.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/169718.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/169718.htm#_ftn4


12/53

The e6idence for the prosecution sho5s that in the %ornin& of 0e+ruar (=, '221, at

a+out 8:)) a.%., erica, a&ed 1, 5as plain& 5ith her friends Iha%il and Neeca near the house of their nei&h+or oet Ra%a or oet/ situated at the corner of a street in Old Sta. !esa, !anilathat suddenl, 3petitioner4 &ra++ed erica and inserted his %iddle fin&er in her 6a&ina, after 5hich,he 5arned her not to tell it to anone that i%%ediatel, erica ran to her house that 5hile her %other 5as &i6in& erica a +ath, she found +loodstain in her erica/ pant and +lood in her 6a&ina that upon +ein& infor%ed of her %others disco6er, Rolando, ericas father, loo;ed at her 6a&ina and found it s5ollen and that as;ed + her father 5ho did it, erica disclosed that it 5asappellant.

On the sa%e date, 0e+ruar (=, '221, erica 5as +rou&ht to the N" 5here she 5as

e*a%ined + Dr. illena, 5hose findin&s are as follo5s: @EN"TAL EJA!"NAT"ON: Pu+ic hair, no &ro5th. La+ia %aora and %inora, coaptated sic/. 0ourchette,tense. esti+ular %ucosa, con&ested. Contusion, purplish, peri-urethral area.%en, thin, short, intact. %enal orifice %easures ).1 c%. in dia%eter.

a&inal 5alls and ru&osities, cannot +e reached + the e*a%inin& fin&er. CONCLHS"ON: Phsical ir&init Preser6ed. Professin& innocence, appellant clai%ed that co%%ission of the alle&ed se*ual

%olestation is hi&hl i%pro+a+le as it supposedl too; place in a +us street that the char&e 5asconcocted upon induce%ent of Da6id Escalo or Escalo/, a friend of ericas parents, as ad%itted

+ Escalo to #ara&osa durin& one of their drin;in& sprees and that a case for oral defa%ation 5asfiled + hi% a&ainst ericas parents for their false accusation.3=4

"n the end, the trial court con6icted petitioner of the cri%e char&ed in a Decision dated Au&ust (7, ())), the

dispositi6e portion of 5hich reads:

FERE0ORE, ud&%ent is here+ rendered findin& the accused &uilt +eond

reasona+le dou+t of the cri%e of Acts of Lasci6iousness penali?ed under Section 1, Article """ of Repu+lic Act 8') and sentences hi% to suffer an indeter%inate penalt of t5el6e '(/ ears andone '/ da as %ini%u% to fifteen '1/ ears, si* / %onths and t5ent ()/ das of reclusionte%poral to&ether 5ith the accessor penalties pro6ided + la5, to inde%nif pri6ate co%plainantin the su% of P1),))).)) as and + 5a of %oral da%a&es and to pa the costs.314

Ta;in& issue 5ith the said ud&%ent, petitioner appealed the sa%e to the Court of Appeals +ut the appellate court

%erel affir%ed the assailed lo5er court rulin& in a Decision dated !arch 9', ())1.

Hndaunted, petitioner filed 5ith this Court a Petition for Re6ie5 on Certiorari under Rule =1 of the Rules of

Court34 assailin& the aforesaid Court of Appeals Decision. This Court &a6e due course to the petition and re


13/53

Article 72'/ of the Re6ised Penal Code instructs us that cri%inal lia+ilit is totall e*tin&uished + the death of the

offender, to 5it:

'. the death of the con6ict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniar penalties,lia+ilit therefore is e*tin&uished onl 5hen the death of the offender occurs +efore final

ud&%ent.

"n the se%inal case of "eo)(e v. #aotas,324 5e for%ulated the follo5in& principles 5hich &uide this Court

as re&ards to the application of the fore&oin& penal pro6ision, to 5it:'. Death of the accused pendin& appeal of his con6iction e*tin&uishes his cri%inal

lia+ilit as 5ell as the ci6il lia+ilit +ased solel thereon. As opined + ustice Re&alado,in this re&ard, the death of the accused prior to final ud&%ent ter%inates his cri%inallia+ilit and on( the ci6il lia+ilit +ire't( arisin& fro% and +ased solel on the offense

co%%itted, i.e., ci6il lia+ilit e2 +e(i'to in senso stri'tiore.

(. Corollaril, the clai% for ci6il lia+ilit sur6i6es not5ithstandin& the death of theaccused, if the sa%e %a also +e predicated on a source of o+li&ation other than delict.Article ''18 of the Ci6il Code enu%erates these other sources of o+li&ation fro% 5hichthe ci6il lia+ilit %a arise as a result of the sa%e act or o%ission:

a/ La5

+/ Contracts

c/ uasi-contracts

* * * * d/ uasi-delicts

9. Fhere the ci6il lia+ilit sur6i6es, as e*plained in Nu%+er ( a+o6e, an action for

reco6er therefor %a +e pursued +ut onl + 5a of filin& a separate ci6il action andsu+ect to Section ', Rule ''' of the '271 Rules on Cri%inal Procedure as a%ended. Thisseparate ci6il action %a +e enforced either a&ainst the e*ecutorBad%inistrator or theestate of the accused, dependin& on the source of o+li&ation upon 5hich the sa%e is

+ased as e*plained a+o6e.

=. 0inall, the pri6ate offended part need not fear a forfeiture of his ri&ht to file thisseparate ci6il action + prescription, in cases 5here durin& the prosecution of the cri%inal

action and prior to its e*tinction, the pri6ate-offended part instituted to&ether there5iththe ci6il action. "n such case, the statute of li%itations on the ci6il lia+ilit is dee%edinterrupted durin& the pendenc of the cri%inal case, confor%a+l 5ith the pro6isions of Article ''11 of the Ci6il Code, that should there+ a6oid an apprehension on a possi+le

pri6ation of ri&ht + prescription.3')4

"t is therefore e6ident fro% the fore&oin& discussion that 6enturin& into the %erits of petitioners appeal

&i6en the circu%stance of his unti%el de%ise has +eco%e superfluous +ecause, e6en assu%in& this Court 5ould

proceed to affir% the lo5er courts ud&%ent of con6iction, such a rulin& 5ould +e of no force and effect as the

resultant cri%inal lia+ilit is totall e*tin&uished + his death. Conse


14/53

dated !arch 9', ())1, affir%in& petitioners con6iction + the trial court, had +eco%e ineffectual. 3''4 As a result

thereof, the instant petition is here+ dis%issed.

:%EREF#RE, in 6ie5 of the death of petitioner Dante ernande? Datu, the Decision dated !arch 9',

())1 of the Court of Appeals in [email protected]. CR No. ('12 is SE (SI!E and Cri%inal Case No. 21-'==(9) +efore

the Re&ional Trial Court of the Cit of !anila is !IS2ISSE!.

S# #R!ERE!.


Associate ustice

FE CONCHR:

RE$(# C* C#R#$(


2(RI($# C* !EL C(SILL#

Associate usticeR#BER# (* (B(!

Associate ustice

'#SE P#RU)(L PERE<

Associate ustice

CERIFIC(I#$

Pursuant to Section '9, Article """ of the Constitution, " certif that the conclusions in the a+o6e Decisionhad +een reached in consultation +efore the case 5as assi&ned to the 5riter of the opinion of the Courts Di6ision.

RE$(# C* C#R#$(

Chief ustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/169718.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/169718.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/169718.htm#_ftn12


15/53

RULE 11,

Repu+lic of the PhilippinesSUPRE2E C#UR

!anila

0"RST D""S"ON

(*2* $o* 2'.03.1 September =& -01-

>Formerly (*2* #C( I*P*I* $o* 0=.131.2'?

)ERLIE 2* U4 an5 2(* C#$S#L(CI#$ * B(SCU)& Co%plainants,6s.'U!)E ER:I$ B* '("ELL($(& 2U$ICIP(L RI(L C#UR& L( C(SELL($(& $E)R#S

#CCI!E$(L&Respondent.

D E C " S " O N

LE#$(R!#.!E C(SR#& J.

This ad%inistrati6e case arose fro% a 6erified co%plaint' for &ross i&norance of the la5 and procedures, &rossinco%petence, ne&lect of dut, conduct i%proper and un+eco%in& of a ud&e, &ra6e %isconduct and others, filed +Pu+lic Attornes @erlie( !. H H/ and !a. Consolacion T. ascu& ascu&/ of the Pu+lic AttorneUs OfficePAO/, La Carlotta District, a&ainst Presidin& ud&e Er5in9 . a6ellana a6ellana/ of the !unicipal Trial Court!TC/, La Castellana, Ne&ros Occidental.

Pu+lic Attornes H and ascu& alle&ed the follo5in& in their co%plaint:

0irst, ud&e a6ellana 5as &rossl i&norant of the Re6ised Rule on Su%%ar Procedure. Pu+lic Attornes H andascu& cited se6eral occasions as e*a%ples: a/ "n Cri%. Case No. )=-)28, entitled People 6. Cornelio, for!alicious !ischief, ud&e a6ellana issued a 5arrant of arrest after the filin& of said case despite Section ' of the

Re6ised Rule on Su%%ar Procedure +/ "n Cri%. Case No. )=-)81, entitled People 6. Celeste, et al., for Trespassto D5ellin&, ud&e a6ellana did not &rant the %otion to dis%iss for non-co%pliance 5ith the Lupon re


16/53

0ourth, ud&e a6ellana failed to o+ser6e the constitutional ri&hts of the accused as stated in Section '('/, Article""" of the Constitution. ud&e a6ellana set Cri%. Case No. )9-)28, entitled People 6. autista,'' for preli%inarin6esti&ation e6en 5hen the accused had no counsel, and proceeded 5ith said in6esti&ation 5ithout infor%in& theaccused of his ri&hts to re%ain silent and to ha6e a counsel.

0ifth, ud&e a6ellana 5as ha+ituall tard. The su+poena in Ci6il Case No. )1-))', entitled illanue6a 6.

Re&alado,'(

onl stated that the hearin& 5ould +e in the %ornin&, 5ithout indicatin& the ti%e. ud&e a6ellanafailed to arri6e for the pre-trial of the case set in the %ornin& of April '=, ())1. ud&e a6ellana 5as still a no-sho55hen the pre-trial 5as reset in the %ornin& of April '1, ())1 and !a 9, ())1. 0inall, anticipatin& ud&ea6ellanaUs tardiness, the pre-trial 5as rescheduled at ':9) in the afternoon of another date.

Si*th, ud&e a6ellana 5hi%sicall or inconsistentl i%ple%ented la5s and rules dependin& on stature of the parties, persons acco%panin& the parties, la5ers of the parties, and his personal relations 5ith the partiesBla5ers. ud&ea6ellana, in se6eral cases,'9 denied or refused to recei6e !otions for E*tension of Ti%e to 0ile Counter-Affida6itssi&ned onl + the accused, et in other cases,'= &ranted such %otions. "n another case,'1 ud&e a6ellana denied the!otion to E*tend Ti%e to 0ile Counter-Affida6it for 6iolation of the three-da notice rule, +ut &ranted the !otion toReduce ail, 5hich 5as in 6iolation of the sa%e rule. ud&e a6ellanaUs inconsistent and irre&ular rulin& could +edue to the fact that the for%er %otion 5as filed + Pu+lic Attorne ascu&, 5ith 5ho% ud&e a6ellana had an a*eto &rind, 5hile the latter %otion 5as facilitated + !anuna&.

Se6enth, ud&e a6ellana also adopted the %antra that the liti&ants are %ade for the courts instead of courts forthe liti&ants. "n Cri%. Case No. )9-')=, entitled People 6. 0er%in, the accused, assisted + Pu+lic Attorne H,

pleaded &uilt to the cri%e of atte%pted ho%icide. The accused filed a PetitionBApplication for Pro+ation, prepared + the PAO +ut si&ned onl + the accused. ud&e a6ellana refused to accept said PetitionBApplication and re


17/53

" a% a cri%inal la5er.

" did not co%e fro% the DAR or the CO!ELEC.

" a% an intelli&ent ud&e.

" a% the counsel of the fa%ous @ar&ar-Lu%an&ao and Spider

unter cases and " ha6e caused the e*ecution of Col. Torres.

" a% not under the !aor or the Chief of Police.

and other re%ar;s as if he is the onl intelli&ent, credi+le and


18/53

Second, ud&e a6ellana denied actin& as the co-a&ent of !anuna&. !anuna& 5as an Authori?ed Suret ond A&entof Co%%on5ealth "nsurance and Suret ond Co%pan, a +ondin& co%pan dul accredited + the Office of theCourt Ad%inistrator OCA/. The relationship +et5een ud&e a6ellana and !anuna& 5as purel on official

+usiness. That !anuna& influenced ud&e a6ellana in fi*in& the a%ount of +ail in se6eral cases 5as a %aliciousand deli+erate lie, +ased on %ere speculation and suspicion. ud&e a6ellana had consistentl &ranted the reductionof the a%ount of +ail to onl 81Q, and not as lo5 as (1Q, of the a%ount stated in Depart%ent Circular No. 72 datedAu&ust (2, ())) of the Depart%ent of ustice DO/. ud&e a6ellana e6en chided Pu+lic Attornes H and ascu&that as officers of the court, said pu+lic attornes 5ere dut +ound not to de%and outra&eous reduction of +ail. "naddition, ud&e a6ellana could not 5arn !anuna& to sta a5a fro% the processes sic/ pre%ises in the Court

+ecause e6er+od are allo5ed to attend Court proceedin&s unless other5ise the attendance of the pu+lic is prohi+ited.(9 ud&e a6ellana li;e5ise stated that he could not interfere 5ith the processin& of suret insurance and +ond for such 5as a pri6ate %atter +et5een the insurance and +ondin& co%pan and its authori?ed a&ents. Referrin&to case records, ud&e a6ellana pointed out that he onl &ranted the %otions to reduce +ail that co%plied 5ith thethree-da notice rule.

Third, ud&e a6ellana clai%ed to ha6e conducted preli%inar e*a%ination, as;in& the co%plainants and their5itnesses searchin&


19/53

a6ellana ad6ised Pineda to rectif the latterUs records + e*ecutin& an affida6it to +e su+%itted to the Supre%eCourt Personnel Di6ision, +ut Pineda did not heed the sa%e.

"n the end, ud&e a6ellana stressed that the char&es a&ainst hi% 5ere +aseless and %alicious and the acts +ein&co%plained of in6ol6ed udicial discretion and, thus, udicial in nature and not the proper su+ect of anad%inistrati6e co%plaint. ud&e a6ellana hinted a+out a conspirac +et5een the !unicipal !aor, on one hand,

and Pu+lic Attornes H and ascu&, on the other. The !unicipal !aor 5as purportedl an&r at ud&e a6ellana +ecause the latter caused the arrest of and heard the cases a&ainst the for%erUs supporters and e%ploees 5hilePu+lic Attorne ascu& 5as sufferin& fro% a Losin& Liti&antUs Sndro%e and Prosecution Co%ple*, and 5asinfluencin& Pu+lic Attorne H, a neophte la5er.

Conse


20/53

The cri%e of %alicious %ischief is co%%itted + an person 5ho deli+eratel causes da%a&e to the propert ofanother throu&h %eans not constitutin& arson.99 There are special cases of %alicious %ischief 5hich are specificallco6ered + Article 9(7 of the Re6ised Penal Code, 5hich pro6ides:

ART. 9(7. Special cases of %alicious %ischief. An person 5ho shall cause da%a&e to o+struct the perfor%ance of pu+lic functions, or usin& an poisonous or corrosi6e su+stance or spreadin& an infection or conta&ion a%on&

cattle or 5ho causes da%a&e to the propert of the National !useu% or National Li+rar, or to an archi6e orre&istr, 5ater5or;s, road, pro%enade, or an other thin& used in co%%on + the pu+lic, shall +e punished:

'. prision correccional in its %ini%u% and %ediu% periods, if the 6alue of the da%a&e caused e*ceeds',))) pesos

(. arresto %aor, if such 6alue does not e*ceed the a+o6e- %entioned a%ount +ut is o6er ()) pesos and

9. arresto %enor, if such 6alue does not e*ceed ()) pesos. E%phasis ours./

All other cases of %alicious %ischief shall +e &o6erned + Article 9(2 of the sa%e Code, 5hich reads:

ART. 9(2. Other %ischiefs. The %ischiefs not included in the ne*t precedin& article shall +e punished:

'. arresto %aor in its %ediu% and %a*i%u% periods, if the 6alue of the da%a&e caused e*ceeds ',))) pesos

(. arresto %aor in its %ini%u% and %ediu% periods, if such 6alue is o6er ()) pesos +ut does note*ceed ',))) pesos and

9. arresto %enor or fine of not less than the 6alue of the da%a&e caused and not %ore than ()) pesos, ifthe a%ount in6ol6ed does not e*ceed ()) pesos or cannot +e esti%ated. E%phasis ours./

Fithout an sho5in& that the accused in People 6. Cornelio and People 6. Lope?, et al. 5ere char&ed 5ith thespecial cases of %alicious %ischief particularl descri+ed in Article 9(7 of the Re6ised Penal Code, then Article 9(2

of the sa%e Code should +e applied. "f the a%ounts of the alle&ed da%a&e to propert in People 6. Cornelio andPeople 6. Lope?, et al., P ,))).))9= and P 9,))).)),91 respecti6el, are pro6en, the appropriate penalt for theaccused 5ould +e arresto %aor in its %ediu% and %a*i%u% periods 5hich under Article 9(2a/ of the Re6isedPenal Code, 5ould +e i%prison%ent for t5o (/ %onths and one '/ da to si* / %onths. Clearl, these t5o casesshould +e &o6erned + the Re6ised Rule on Su%%ar Procedure.

ud&e a6ellanaUs issuance of a Farrant of Arrest for the accused in People 6. Cornelio is in 6iolation of Section 'of the Re6ised Rule on Su%%ar Procedure, cate&oricall statin& that the court shall not order the arrest of theaccused e*cept for failure to appear 5hene6er re


21/53

a/ "f co%%enced + co%plaint. On the +asis of the co%plaint and the affida6its and other e6idenceacco%panin& the sa%e, the court %a dis%iss the case outri&ht for +ein& patentl 5ithout +asis or %eritand order the release of the accused if in custod.

+/ "f co%%enced + infor%ation. Fhen the case is co%%enced + infor%ation, or is not dis%issed pursuant to the ne*t precedin& para&raph, the court shall issue an order 5hich, to&ether 5ith copies of the

affida6its and other e6idence su+%itted + the prosecution, shall re


22/53


23/53

SECT"ON '. ud&es shall a6oid i%propriet and the appearance of i%propriet in all of their acti6ities.

SECT"ON (. As a su+ect of constant pu+lic scrutin, ud&es %ust accept personal restrictions that %i&ht +e 6ie5edas +urdenso%e + the ordinar citi?en and should do so freel and 5illin&l. "n particular, ud&es shall conductthe%sel6es in a 5a that is consistent 5ith the di&nit of the udicial office.

* * * *

SECT"ON 7. ud&es shall not use or lend the presti&e of the udicial office to ad6ance their pri6ate interests, or thoseof a %e%+er of their fa%il or of anone else, nor shall the con6e or per%it others to con6e the i%pression thatanone is in a special position i%properl to influence the% in the perfor%ance of udicial duties.

* * * *

SECT"ON '=. ud&es shall not ;no5in&l per%it court staff or others su+ect to their influence, direction orauthorit, to as; for, or accept, an &ift, +e


24/53

reasona+le suspicion that he +enefitted financiall fro% such referrals. ud&e a6ellana should re%e%+er that he%ust not onl a6oid i%propriet, +ut the appearance of i%propriet as 5ell.

!oreo6er, ud&e a6ellana 5as conspicuousl inconsistent in @rantin&=9 or denin&== %otions for e*tension of ti%eto file pleadin&s 5hich 5ere si&ned onl + the accused. ud&e a6ellana reasoned in his Co%%ent that the PAOla5ers 5ho prepared the %otions should ha6e si&ned the sa%e as counsels for the accused, +ut this onl e*plained

ud&e a6ellanaUs denial of said %otions. "t did not address 5h, in other cases, ud&e a6ellana had &ranted si%ilar%otions si&ned onl + the accused. Fithout an satisfactor +asis for the difference in his rulin& on these %otions,ud&e a6ellana had acted ar+itraril to the preudice of the PAO la5ers.

ud&e a6ellana hi%self ad%itted that he often %entioned his pre6ious acco%plish%ents as counsel in +i& andcontro6ersial cases, clai%in& that he onl did so to i%press upon the parties that he %eant +usiness and that he relied&reatl upon @od to sur6i6e the trials and threats to his life. Fe are not persuaded.

The pre6ious Code of udicial Conduct specificall 5arned the ud&es a&ainst see;in& pu+licit for personal6ain&lor.=1 ain&lor, in its ordinar %eanin&, refers to an indi6idualUs e*cessi6e or ostentatious pride especiall inoneUs o5n achie6e%ents.= E6en no lon&er e*plicitl stated in the Ne5 Code of udicial Conduct, ud&es are still

proscri+ed fro% en&a&in& in self-pro%otion and indul&in& their 6anit and pride + Canons ' on "nte&rit/ and (on Propriet/ of the Ne5 Code.

Fe ha6e pre6iousl stron&l re%inded ud&es in that:

Canon (, Rule (.)( of the Code of udicial Conduct sas in no uncertain ter%s that a ud&e should not see; pu+licit for personal 6ain&lor. A parallel proscription, this ti%e for la5ers in &eneral, is found in Rule 9.)' ofthe Code of Professional Responsi+ilit: a la5er shall not use or per%it the use of an false, fraudulent,%isleadin&, decepti6e, undi&nified, self-laudator or unfair state%ent or clai% re&ardin& his


25/53

9/ A fine of %ore than P (),))).)) +ut not e*ceedin& P =),))).))

The OCA reco%%ended that ud&e a6ellana +e suspended 5ithout salar and +enefits for three %onths.34vv)053 @i6en the &ra6it and nu%+er of 6iolations co%%itted + ud&e a6ellana, 5e dee% it appropriate to i%posesuspension 5ithout salar and +enefits for a period of three %onths and one da.

FERE0ORE, ud&e Er5in . a6ellana is found @H"LT of &ross i&norance of the la5 and &ross %isconduct. eis SHSPENDED fro% office 5ithout salar and other +enefits for a period of three 9/ %onths and one '/ da 5itha STERN FARN"N@ that the repetition of the sa%e or si%ilar acts in the future shall +e dealt 5ith %ore se6erel.Let a cop of this Decision +e attached to his records 5ith this Court.

SO ORDERED.


Associate ustice

FE CONCHR:

2(RI( L#UR!ES P* (* SERE$#


LUC(S P* BERS(2I$

Associate ustice2(RI$ S* "ILL(R(2(& 'R*

Associate ustice

BIE$"E$I!# L* RE4ES

Associate ustice


26/53

RULE 11,


!anila

0"RST D""S"ON

)*R* $o* 1;0,1+ $o8ember -3& -01,

PE#PLE #F %E P%ILIPPI$ES& Plaintiff-Appellee,6s.R#BER# "EL(SC#& Accused-Appellant.

D E C " S " O N

LE#$(R!#.!E C(SR#& J.

Fe resol6e the present appeal fro% the Decision'

dated Au&ust (1, ())2 of the Court of Appeals in [email protected]. CR.-.C. No. )99'1, entitled People of the Philippines 6. Ro+erto elasco 5hich affir%ed 5ith %odification theDecision( dated !arch 1, ())7 of the Re&ional Trial Court RTC/ of !alolos, ulacan, ranch '9 in Cri%inal Cases

No. 9182-!-())(, 917)-!-())(, 917'-!-())( and '=1-!-())9. The trial court found appellant Ro+erto elasco&uilt +eond reasona+le dou+t of the cri%e of three counts of rape under Article (-A of the Re6ised Penal Codeas char&ed in Cri%inal Cases No. 9182-!-())(, 917)-!-())( and 917'-!-())(. The trial court also foundappellant &uilt +eond reasona+le dou+t of the cri%e of acts of lasci6iousness in Cri%inal Case No. '=1-!-())9.

The pertinent portions of the three "nfor%ations char&in& appellant 5ith one count each of the felon of rape inCri%inal Cases No. 917)-!-())(, 917'-!-())( and '=1-!-())9 read as follo5s:

3Cri%inal Case No. 917)-!-())(4

That on or a+out the (8th da of Dece%+er ())', in the %unicipalit of !alolos, pro6ince of ulacan, Philippines,and 5ithin the urisdiction of this onora+le Court, the a+o6e-na%ed accused, +ein& the stepfather of 3Lisa94, a%inor '= ears of a&e, did then and there 5ilfull, unla5full and feloniousl, + %eans of force and inti%idation,ha6e carnal ;no5led&e of his stepdau&hter 3Lisa4 a&ainst her 5ill and 5ithout her consent.=

3Cri%inal Case No. 917'-!-())(4

That on or a+out the (7th da of Dece%+er, ())', in the %unicipalit of !alolos, pro6ince of ulacan, Philippines,and 5ithin the urisdiction of this onora+le Court, the a+o6e-na%ed accused, +ein& the stepfather of 3Lisa4, a %inor '= rs. of a&e, did then and there 5ilfull, unla5full and feloniousl + %eans of force and inti%idation, ha6ecarnal ;no5led&e of his stepdau&hter 3Lisa4 a&ainst her 5ill and 5ithout her consent.1

3Cri%inal Case No. '=1-!-())94

That on or a+out the (2th da of Dece%+er, ())', in the %unicipalit of !alolos, pro6ince of ulacan, Philippines,and 5ithin the urisdiction of this onora+le Court, the a+o6e-na%ed accused +ein& the stepfather of 3Lisa4, a %inor'= ears of a&e, did then and there 5ilfull, unla5full and feloniousl + %eans of force and inti%idation, ha6ecarnal ;no5led&e of his stepdau&hter 3Lisa4 a&ainst her 5ill and 5ithout her consent.

On the other hand, the accusator portion of the "nfor%ation char&in& appellant 5ith the felon of acts oflasci6iousness in Cri%inal Case No. 9182-!-())( stated:

That on or a+out the ('st da of Dece%+er, ())(, in the %unicipalit of !alolos, pro6ince of ulacan, Philippines,and 5ithin the urisdiction of this onora+le Court, the a+o6e-na%ed accused, ta;in& ad6anta&e of his %oralascendanc and influence o6er his stepdau&hter 3Lisa4, a '1-ear old child, 5ith le5d desi&ns, did then and there

5ilfull, unla5full and feloniousl + %eans of force and inti%idation ;iss and touch the pri6ate parts ofco%plainant a&ainst her 5ill and consent.8

Appellant 5as arrai&ned for the t5o char&es of rape in Cri%inal Case Nos. 917)-!-())( and 917'-!-())( andone char&e of acts of lasci6iousness in Cri%inal Case No. 9182-!-())( on 0e+ruar 9, ())9 to 5hich he entered a

plea of not &uilt on all char&es.7 e 5as later arrai&ned on !arch '(, ())9 for the third char&e of rape in Cri%inalCase No. '=1-!-())9 to 5hich he li;e5ise pleaded not &uilt.2

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt9


27/53

After pre-trial, the cases 5ere consolidated and the trial court conducted oint hearin&s on the %erits. The prosecution intended to present the 6icti% Lisa and Dr. "6an Richard ira, the %edico-le&al officer 5hoe*a%ined her. o5e6er, after Lisa co%pleted her testi%on, the presentation of Dr. ira 5as dispensed 5ithupon the defenseUs ad%ission of the due e*ecution of the %edical certificate and the stipulation of the prosecutionthat the cause of the 6icti%Us non-6ir&in state 5as not deter%ined + Dr. ira.') The defense, in turn, presentedappellant and his nephe5, Roderic; Palconet.

The %aterial facts accordin& to the prosecution and restated in the AppelleeUs rief are:

Appellant is the li6e-in partner of 3AAA4, the %other of pri6ate co%plainant 3Lisa4. 3Lisa4 staed 5ith the% in theirhouse in * * *, !alolos, ulacan since she 5as fourteen '=/ ears old.

On Dece%+er (8, ())', at around '':)) oUcloc; in the %ornin&, 3Lisa4 5as at the sala 5atchin& tele6ision.!o%entaril, appellant approached her and thereafter, re%o6ed his shorts and under5ear as 5ell as that of 3LisaUs4.e then %ounted 3Lisa4 and inserted his penis into her 6a&ina. e 5arned her not to report the incident to an+od,other5ise, he 5ill ;ill +oth 3Lisa4 and her %other. After satisfin& his lust, appellant left 5ithout sain& a 5ord. Atthe ti%e of the incident, 3Lisa4 and 3appellant4 5ere alone in the house as 3LisaUs4 +rother and %other 5ere out for5or;.

The follo5in& da, or on Dece%+er (7, ())', appellant a&ain approached 3Lisa4 and re%o6ed +oth their shorts andunder5ear. e 5ent on top of her and inserted his penis into her 6a&ina. She 5as a&ain threatened not to tell anoneof the incident. The incident too; place outside the fa%ilUs +edroo% at around '':)) oUcloc; in the %ornin& 5hile3LisaUs4 %other and +rother 5ere not in the house.

The ne*t da, or on Dece%+er (2, ())', also at around '':)) oUcloc; in the %ornin&, 3Lisa4 5as raped for the thirdconsecuti6e ti%e + appellant 5hile the 5ere alone in the house. 3Lisa4 testified that 5hite fluid ca%e out ofappellantUs penis. Li;e in pre6ious incidents, she 5as threatened not to tell anone of the incident.

A ear thereafter, or on Dece%+er (', ())(, at %idni&ht, 5hen the other %e%+ers of the fa%il 5ere asleep,appellant atte%pted to insert his penis into 3LisaUs4 6a&ina 5hile the latter 5as sleepin& on her foldin& +ed. Thisti%e, 3Lisa4 cried. Althou&h appellant succeeded in touchin& and ;issin& 3LisaUs4 pri6ate parts, he did not pushthrou&h 5ith his intention of rapin& her for fear of &ettin& cau&ht + the other fa%il %e%+ers 5ho 5ere sleepin&

ust a fe5 feet a5a fro% the%. The %edico le&al report su+%itted + pu+lic phsician Richard "6an ira statesthat 3Lisa4 is in a non-6ir&in state that she had shallo5 healed h%enal lacerations at ( and 9 oUcloc; positions anddeep healed lacerations at and 8 oUcloc; positions.'' Citations o%itted./

Con6ersel, the defense offered a different 6ersion of e6ents 5hich 5as retold in the AppellantUs rief in this 5ise:

0or si* / das a 5ee; in Dece%+er ())' and Dece%+er ())(, 3appellant4 5as 5or;in& as a %ason in aran&aCain&in, !alolos, ulacan. e lea6es their house at 8:)) oUcloc; in the %ornin& to &o to 5or; and arri6es at 1:9) inthe afternoon.

e 5as 3the4 li6e-in partner of 3LisaUs4 %other. e 5as at 5or; on the (8th, (7th and (2th of Dece%+er ())' 5ithhis nephe5 Roderic; Palconet 5hile he 5as at ho%e on the ('st of Dece%+er ())(. The accusations a&ainst hi%

5ere insti&ated + 3LisaUs4 father 5ho 5as %ad at hi% for ha6in& a li6e-in relationship 5ith 3LisaUs4 %other.

RODER"CI PALCONET, the 3appellantUs4 nephe5 and co-5or;er at Cain&in, !alolos, ulacan, a6erred that fro%7:)) oUcloc; in the %ornin& to 1:)) oUcloc; in the afternoon of the (8th, (7th and (2th of Dece%+er ())', he 5as5ith 3appellant4.'( Citations o%itted./

At the conclusion of trial, the trial court con6icted appellant on all the char&es le6eled a&ainst hi%. The dispositi6e portion of the !arch 1, ())7 Decision of the trial court reads:

FERE0ORE, &i6en the fore&oin&, the Court finds the accused &uilt +eond reasona+le dou+t of the cri%e of rapeon three 9/ counts as char&ed in Cri%. Case Nos. 9182-!-)(, 917)-!-)(, and 917'-!-)( and here+ sentenceshi% to suffer the penalt of reclusion perpetua for each count total: three reclusion perpetua/.

The Court li;e5ise finds the accused &uilt +eond reasona+le dou+t of the cri%e of Acts of Lasci6iousness inCri%. Case No. '=1-!-)9, and here+ sentences hi% to suffer the indeter%inate penalt of si* / %onths of arresto%aor as %ini%u% to si* / ears of prision correccional as %a*i%u%.

The accused is li;e5ise directed to inde%nif the pri6ate co%plainant in the a%ount of P'1),))).)).'9

Appellant ele6ated his case to the Court of Appeals 5hich denied his appeal and affir%ed 5ith %odification the trialcourt ud&%ent in a Decision dated Au&ust (1, ())2, the dispositi6e portion of 5hich states:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt13


28/53

FERE0ORE, in li&ht of the fore&oin&, the decision of the trial court is A00"R!ED 5ith !OD"0"CAT"ONS asfollo5s:

'. "n Cri%inal Case Nos. 9182-!-)(, 917)-!-)( and 917'-!-)(, appellant Ro+erto elasco is held lia+leto pa the 6icti% P1),))).)) as ci6il inde%nit P1),))).)) %oral da%a&es and P(1,))).)) e*e%plarda%a&es for each count of rape in addition to the penalt of reclusion perpetua

(. "n Cri%inal Case No. '=1-!-)9, appellant Ro+erto elasco is sentenced to suffer the indeter%inate prison ter% of four =/ %onths of arresto %aor as %ini%u% to four =/ ears of prision correccional as%a*i%u% for the act of lasci6iousness. e is also held lia+le to pa the 6icti% P9),))).)) %oral da%a&esand P(),))).)) ci6il inde%nit.'=

ence, appellant resorted to the present appeal, puttin& for5ard the follo5in& assi&n%ent of errors:

"

TE COHRT A HO @RAEL ERRED "N NOT 0"ND"N@ TE FARRANTLESS ARREST O0 TEACCHSED-APPELLANT AS "LLE@AL.

""

TE COHRT A HO @RAEL ERRED "N NOT 0"ND"N@ TAT ACCHSED-APPELLANTUSR"@TS HNDER REPHL"C ACT NO. 8=97 AN ACT DE0"N"N@ CERTA"N R"@TS O0 PERSONARRESTED, DETA"NED OR HNDER CHSTOD"AL "NEST"@AT"ON AS FELL AS TE DHT"ES O0TE ARREST"N@, DETA"N"N@ AND "NEST"@AT"N@ O00"CERS, AND PRO"D"N@ PENALT"ES0OR "OLAT"ONS TEREO0/ FERE "OLATED.

"""

TE COHRT A HO @RAEL ERRED "N @""N@ FE"@T AND CREDENCE TO TE PR"ATECO!PLA"NANTUS "NCRED"LE TEST"!ON.

"

TE COHRT A HO @RAEL ERRED "N 0"ND"N@ TE ACCHSED-APPELLANT @H"LTDESP"TE TE PROSECHT"ONUS 0A"LHRE TO PROE "S @H"LT EOND REASONALEDOHT.'1

The petition is 5ithout %erit.

Appellant essentiall focuses his defense on t5o issues: first, the preli%inar issue surroundin& the 6alidit of his5arrantless arrest and, second, the su+stanti6e issue concernin& the e6idence used to con6ict hi% for three counts of rape and one count of acts of lasci6iousness.

Fith re&ard to purported irre&ularities that attended appellantUs 5arrantless arrest, 5e are of the sa%e persuasion asthe Court of Appeals 5hich ruled that such a plea co%es too late in the da to +e 5orth of consideration.

urisprudence tells us that an accused is estopped fro% assailin& an irre&ularit of his arrest if he fails to raise thisissue or to %o6e for the


29/53

5as indeed raped. !oreo6er, he clai%s that the alle&ed 6icti%Us failure to resist or to 5a;e her +rother and %otheri%%ediatel after the alle&ed se*ual %olestation on Dece%+er (', ())( or to shout for help fro% their nei&h+ors5ho 5ere in close pro*i%it to their house ne&ated the credi+ilit of her accusations.

Appellant also reasons that the alle&ed 6icti%Us 5illin&ness to li6e in the sa%e house 5ith hi% despite 5hat healle&edl did to her, ta;en to&ether 5ith her failure to i%%ediatel report the alle&ed se*ual assaults to the

authorities, further eroded the relia+ilit of the 6icti%Us state%ents. 0inall, he points out that he could not ha6e possi+l co%%itted the cri%es attri+uted to hi% +ecause, durin& the ti%es and dates the alle&ed cri%inal acts too; place, he clai%s to +e so%e5here else.

"n short, appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to pro6e his &uilt +eond reasona+le dou+t. o5e6er, after acareful re6ie5 of the records of this case, 5e can safel conclude that such an assertion of innocence cannot +eupheld.

"t is settled in urisprudence that in a prosecution for rape, the accused %a +e con6icted solel on the +asis of thetesti%on of the 6icti% that is credi+le, con6incin&, and consistent 5ith hu%an nature and the nor%al course ofthin&s.'7 0urther%ore, it is a*io%atic that 5hen it co%es to e6aluatin& the credi+ilit of the testi%onies of the5itnesses, &reat respect is accorded to the findin&s of the trial ud&e 5ho is in a +etter position to o+ser6e thede%eanor, facial e*pression, and %anner of testifin& of 5itnesses, and to decide 5ho a%on& the% is tellin& the

truth.'2

Lastl, in order for a discrepanc or inconsistenc in the testi%on of a 5itness to ser6e as a +asis forac


30/53

As his principal defense a&ainst all these cri%inal char&es, appellant pro6ided an ali+i. e %aintains that, at the ti%eof the three rape incidents as 5ell as the one instance of acts of lasci6iousness, he 5as 5or;in& at a construction sitein aran&a Cain&in, !alolos Cit, ulacan 5ith his nephe5 Roderic; Palconet 5ho 5as the onl 5itness he

presented in court in order to corro+orate his ali+i.

Ti%e and a&ain, 5e ha6e repeated the le&al doctrine that for ali+i to prosper, it %ust +e pro6ed that durin& the

co%%ission of the cri%e, the accused 5as in another place and that it 5as phsicall i%possi+le for hi% to +e at thecri%e scene.(7 0urther%ore, 5e ha6e also esta+lished in urisprudence that, in order for a corro+oration of an ali+i to +e considered credi+le, it %ust necessaril co%e fro% disinterested 5itnesses.(2

"n the case at +ar, the testi%on of appellantUs sole corro+oratin& 5itness re6eals that the distance +et5een theconstruction site and the appellantUs house 5here the instances of rape and acts of lasci6iousness occurred isrelati6el short and can +e co6ered + a %ere fi6e-%inute tra6el + %otor 6ehicle. The rele6ant portion of saidtesti%on reads as follo5s:

30"SCAL OSON4

Fhen ou said Cain&in, it 5as a +aran&a of !alolos CitV

A es, sir.

And ou can reach aran&a Cain&in fro% the place of the house of !r. elasco up to r&. Cain&in, it 5ill ta;eonl fi6e 1/ %inutes rideV

A "t can +e if there is no traffic, sir .9)

!oreo6er, the testi%on of appellantUs nephe5, 5hich is undou+tedl co%in& fro% a close relati6e, cannot, in an5a, +e descri+ed as disinterested and un+iased. Therefore, considerin& these factual circu%stances, appellantUsdefense of ali+i certainl cannot prosper.

"n 6ie5 of the fore&oin&, 5e therefore affir% the con6iction of appellant for three counts of the felon of si%ple rape

and for one count of the felon of acts of lasci6iousness. The a5ard of P1),))).)) as ci6il inde%nit, andP1),))).))as %oral da%a&es for each count of si%ple rape is correct in addition to the penalt of reclusion perpetua. o5e6er,the a5ard of e*e%plar da%a&es for each count of si%ple rape shall +e increased toP9),))).)) pursuant to

pre6ailin& urisprudence.9' The a5ard of P(),))).)) as ci6il inde%nit and P9),))).)) as %oral da%a&es for acts of lasci6iousness is proper in addition to the penalt of an indeter%inate prison ter% of four =/ %onths of arresto%aor as %ini%u% to four =/ ears of prision correccional as %a*i%u%.

o5e6er, +efore 5e conclude, 5e clarif an o6ersi&ht in the assi&n%ent of case nu%+ers to the correspondin&felonies char&ed 5hich 5as co%%itted + the trial court in the dispositi6e portion of its !arch 1, ())7 Decision andrepeated + the Court of Appeals in its Au&ust (1, ())2 Decision. "n +oth rulin&s, the cri%inal char&e of acts oflasci6iousness 5as erroneousl attri+uted to Cri%inal Case No. '=1-!-())9 5hen, in fact, the "nfor%ation filed forsaid case e*plicitl indicated the cri%inal char&e of rape. On the other hand, the correspondin& "nfor%ation as 5ellas the e6idence presented in Cri%inal Case No. 9182-!-())( clearl points to a cri%inal char&e of acts of

lasci6iousness. Thus, the correct attri+ution of cri%inal cases 6is a 6is cri%es char&ed should +e Cri%inal Case Nos.917)-!-())(, 917'-!-())( and '=1-!-())9 5ere for rape and Cri%inal Case No. 9182-!-())( 5as for acts oflasci6iousness.

FERE0ORE, pre%ises considered, the Decision dated Au&ust (1, ())2 of the Court of Appeals in [email protected]. CR.-.C. No. )99'1, findin& appellant Ro+erto elasco @H"LT in Cri%inal Case Nos. 917)-!-())(, 917'-!-())(and '=1-!-())9 for a total of three 9/ counts of rape for 5hich he is to suffer the penalt of reclusion perpetua foreach count, as 5ell as, in Cri%inal Case No. 9182-!-())( for one count of acts of lasci6iousness for 5hich he is tosuffer the indeter%inate prison ter% of four =/ %onths of arresto %aor as %ini%u% to four =/ ears of prisioncorreccional as %a*i%u%, is here+ A00"R!ED 5ith the !OD"0"CAT"ONS that:

'/ The e*e%plar da%a&es to +e paid + appellant Ro+erto elasco for each count of si%ple rape isincreased fro% T5ent-0i6e Thousand Pesos P(1,))).))/ to Thirt Thousand Pesos P9),))).))/

(/ Appellant Ro+erto elasco is ordered to pa the pri6ate offended part interest on all da%a&es a5ardedat the le&al rate of si* percent Q/ per annu% fro% the date of finalit of this ud&%ent.

No pronounce%ent as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_190318_2013.html#fnt31


31/53

RULE 11=


!anila

0"RST D""S"ON

)*R* $o* -00,0 'anuary 1=& -01

PE#PLE #F %E P%ILIPPI$ES& Plaintiff-Appellee,6s.!#$(L! "(S@UE< y S($!I)($ A !#$& Accused-Appellant,

D E C " S " O N

LE#$(R!#.!E C(SR#& J.

The case +efore this Court is an appeal fro% the Decision'

dated !a 9', ()'' of the Court of Appeals in [email protected]. No. )=()'. Said decision affir%ed 5ith %odification the oint Decision( dated Au&ust ())2 of theRe&ional Trial Court RTC/ of !anila, ranch =', in Cri%inal Case Nos. 27-'='8= and 27-'='81, 5hichcon6icted the appellant Donald as


32/53

infor%ation to Police Superintendent PBSupt./ Pepito Do%anta, the co%%andin& officer of their office. PB"nsp.0aardo 5as then instructed to for% a tea% and conduct a possi+le +u-+ust a&ainst alias Don. She for%ed a tea% onthe sa%e da, 5hich consisted of herself, PO( Tra%+ulo, PO' A&ra6ante, PO' Pedrosa, PO' Sisteno, and PO' De laRosa. PB"nsp. 0aardo 5as the tea% leader. Fith the help of the infor%ant, she 5as a+le to set up a %eetin& 5ithalias Don. The %eetin& 5as to +e held at around 2:)) p.%. on that da at CindUs Restaurant located in Felco%eRotonda. She 5as onl supposed to %eet alias Don that ni&ht +ut she decided to +rin& the tea% alon& for securitreasons.'8

At a+out 2:)) p.%. on e6en date, PB"nsp. 0aardo and her tea% 5ent to the %eetin& place 5ith the infor%ant. The%e%+ers of her tea% positioned the%sel6es strate&icall inside the restaurant. The infor%ant introduced PB"nsp.0aardo to alias Don as the +uer of sha+u. She as;ed alias Don if he 5as indeed an e%ploee of the N" and hereplied in the affir%ati6e. The a&reed to close the deal 5herein she 5ould +u (1) &ra%s of sha+u forP(1),))).)).The also a&reed to %eet the follo5in& da at CindUs Restaurant around '):)) to '':)) p.%.'7

"n the e6enin& of April (, '227, PB"nsp. 0aardo and her tea% 5ent +ac; to CindUs Restaurant. Alias Don 5asalread 5aitin& for her outside the esta+lish%ent 5hen she arri6ed. e as;ed for the %one and she replied that shehad the %one 5ith her. She +rou&ht fi6e &enuine P1)).)) +ills, 5hich 5ere inserted on top of fi6e +undles of pla%one to %a;e it appear that she had P(1),))).)) 5ith her. After she sho5ed the %one to alias Don, he su&&estedthat the &o to a %ore secure place. The a&reed for the sale to ta;e place at around ':9) to (:)) a.%. on April 9,

'227 in front of alias DonUs apart%ent at 81 alde? St., Sa%paloc, !anila. The tea% proceeded to the FesternPolice District FPD/ Station alon& H.N. A6enue for coordination. After5ards, the tea% held their final +riefin& +efore the proceeded to the tar&et area. The a&reed that the pre-arran&ed si&nal 5as for PB"nsp. 0aardo to scratchher hair, 5hich 5ould si&nif that the deal had +een consu%%ated and the rest of the tea% 5ould rush up to thescene. The tea% then tra6elled to the address &i6en + alias Don.'2

Fhen the tea% arri6ed at the tar&et area around ':'1 a.%. on April 9, '227, the t5o 6ehicles the used 5ere par;edalon& the corner of the street. PB"nsp. 0aardo and the infor%ant 5al;ed to5ards the apart%ent of alias Don andstood in front of the apart%ent &ate. Around ':=1 a.%., alias Don ca%e out of the apart%ent 5ith a %ale co%panion.Alias Don de%anded to see the %one, +ut PB"nsp. 0aardo told hi% that she 5anted to see the dru&s first. Alias Don&a6e her the +i& +ro5n en6elope he 5as carrin& and she chec;ed the contents thereof. "nside she found a plasticsachet, a+out ')*7 inches in si?e, 5hich contained 5hite crstalline su+stance. After chec;in& the contents of theen6elope, she assu%ed that the sa%e 5as indeed sha+u. She then &a6e the +u-+ust %one to alias Don and

scratched her hair to si&nal the rest of the tea% to rush to the scene. PB"nsp. 0aardo identified herself as a narcoticsa&ent. The t5o suspects tried to flee +ut PO( Tra%+ulo 5as a+le to stop the% fro% doin& so. PB"nsp. 0aardo too;custod of the sha+u. Fhen she as;ed alias Don if the latter had authorit to possess or sell sha+u, he replied in thene&ati6e. PB"nsp. 0aardo put her initials S0 on the &enuine P1)).)) +ills +elo5 the na%e of eni&no A


33/53

alias Don at CindUs Restaurant in Felco%e Rotonda, ue?on Cit. At that %eetin&, PO( Tra%+ulo sa5 PB"nsp.0aardo tal; to alias Don. PB"nsp. 0aardo later told the %e%+ers of the tea% that she con6inced alias Don that she5as a &ood +uer of sha+u and the latter de%anded a second %eetin& to see the %one. After the initial %eetin&,PB"nsp. 0aardo +riefed PBSupt. Do%anta a+out 5hat happened. PO( Tra%+ulo stated that on April (, '227, PB"nsp.0aardo 5as furnished 5ith fi6e &enuine P1)).)) +ills to&ether 5ith the +oodle pla %one. PB"nsp. 0aardo placedher initials in the &enuine +ills +elo5 the na%e eni&no A


34/53

ni&ht duties, and durin& re&ular office hours and in the a+sence of the la+orator technician, he 5ould 5ei&h thespeci%ens. As su+poena cler;, he 5ould recei6e su+poenas fro% the trial courts. Fhen there is no che%ist, he5ould &et a Special Order to testif, or +rin& the dru& speci%ens, to the courts.

On ' April '227, Donald as


35/53

the cri%e of iolation of Sec. ', Art. """ in Relation to Sec. ( e-(/ Art. " of R.A. =(1 as A%ended +atas Pa%+ansa ilan& '82 and here+ sentences hi% to suffer the penalt of S"J / !ONTS and ONE'/ DA to 0OHR =/ EARS and a fine of 0OHR TOHSAND P

=,))).))/ PESOS.

The su+ect sha+u (=8.27 &ra%s and =.)9 &ra%s, respecti6el/ are here+ forfeited in fa6or of the &o6ern%ent andthe ranch Cler; of Court is here+ directed to deli6er andBor cause the deli6er of the said sha+u to the Philippine

Dru& Enforce%ent A&enc PDEA/, upon the finalit of this Decision.=7

The ud&%ent of the Court of Appeals

On appeal,=2 the Court of Appeals affir%ed the con6iction of the appellant. The appellate court ruled that the prosecution sufficientl pro6ed the ele%ents of the cri%es of ille&al sale and ille&al possession of sha+u. Thetesti%on of PB"nsp. 0aardo on the conduct of the +u-+ust operation 5as found to +e clear and cate&orical. As theappellant failed to adduce an e6idence that tended to pro6e an ill %oti6e on the part of the police officers tofalsel char&e the appellant, the Court of Appeals held that the presu%ption of re&ularit in the perfor%ance ofofficial duties on the part of the police officers had not +een contro6erted in this case.

The dispositi6e portion of the Court of Appeals decision stated:

FERE0ORE, pre%ises considered, the instant appeal is here+ DEN"ED. The Au&ust , ())2 Decision of theRe&ional Trial Court, ranch =' of the Cit of !anila in Cri%inal Cases No. 27-'='8=-81, findin& appellantDonald as


36/53

deli6er of the thin& sold and the pa%ent therefor .1 As held in People 6. Chua Tan Lee,18 in a prosecution of ille&alsale of dru&s, 5hat is %aterial is proof that the accused peddled illicit dru&s, coupled 5ith the presentation in courtof the corpus delicti. On the other hand, the ele%ents of ille&al possession of dru&s are: '/ the accused is in

possession of an ite% or o+ect 5hich is identified to +e a prohi+ited dru& (/ such possession is not authori?ed +la5 and 9/ the accused freel and consciousl possessed the said dru&.17

"n the case at +ar, the testi%onies of PB"nsp. 0aardo and PO( Tra%+ulo esta+lished that a +u-+ust operation 5asle&iti%atel carried out in the 5ee hours of April 9, '227 to entrap the appellant. PB"nsp. 0aardo, the poseur-+uer, positi6el identified the appellant as the one 5ho sold to her si* plastic +a&s of sha+u that 5ere contained in a +i& +ro5n en6elope for the price of P(1),))).)). She li;e5ise identified the si* plastic +a&s of sha+u, 5hich containedthe %ar;in&s she placed thereon after the sa%e 5ere sei?ed fro% the appellant. Fhen su+ected to la+oratore*a%ination, the 5hite crstalline po5der contained in the plastic +a&s tested positi6e for sha+u. Fe find thatPB"nsp. 0aardoUs testi%on on the e6ents that transpired durin& the conduct of the +u-+ust operation 5as detailedand strai&htfor5ard. She 5as also consistent and un5a6erin& in her narration e6en in the face of the opposin&counselUs cross-e*a%ination.

Apart fro% her description of the e6ents that led to the e*chan&e of the dru& speci%ens sei?ed and the +u-+ust%one, PB"nsp. 0aardo further testified as to the reco6er fro% the appellant of another '( pieces of plastic sachetsof sha+u. After the latter 5as arrested, PB"nsp. 0aardo stated that PO( Tra%+ulo conducted a +od search on the

appellant. This search resulted to the confiscation of '( %ore plastic sachets, the contents of 5hich also tested positi6e for sha+u. The testi%on of PB"nsp. 0aardo 5as a%pl corro+orated + PO( Tra%+ulo, 5hose o5n accountdo6etailed the for%erUs narration of e6ents. oth police officers also identified in court the t5el6e plastic sachets ofsha+u that 5ere confiscated fro% the appellant.

"n People 6. Tin& H,12 the Court e*plains that credence shall +e &i6en to the narration of the incident + prosecution 5itnesses especiall so 5hen the are police officers 5ho are presu%ed to ha6e perfor%ed their dutiesin a re&ular %anner, unless there +e e6idence to the contrar. "n the instant case, the appellant failed to ascri+e,%uch less satisfactoril pro6e, an i%proper %oti6e on the part of the prosecution 5itnesses as to 5h the 5ouldfalsel incri%inate hi%. The appellant hi%self e6en testified that, not onl did he not ha6e an %isunderstandin&5ith PB"nsp. 0aardo and PO( Tra%+ulo prior to his arrest, he in fact did not ;no5 the% at all.)"n the a+sence ofe6idence of such ill %oti6e, none is presu%ed to e*ist.'

The records of this case are also silent as to an %easures underta;en + the appellant to cri%inall orad%inistrati6el char&e the police officers herein for falsel fra%in& hi% up for sellin& and possessin& ille&al dru&s.Such a %o6e 5ould not ha6e +een a dauntin& tas; for the appellant under the circu%stances. ein& a re&ulare%ploee of the N", the appellant could ha6e easil sou&ht the help of his i%%ediate super6isors andBor the chiefof his office to e*tricate hi% fro% his predica%ent. "nstead, 5hat the appellant offered in e6idence 5ere %ere

photocopies of docu%ents that supposedl sho5ed that he 5as authori?ed to ;eep dru& speci%ens in his custod.That the ori&inal docu%ents and the testi%onies of the si&natories thereof 5ere not at all presented in court didnothin& to help the appellantUs case. To the %ind of the Court, the e6idence offered + the appellant failed to

persuade a%id the positi6e and cate&orical testi%onies of the arrestin& officers that the appellant 5as cau&ht red-handed sellin& and possessin& a considera+le a%ount of prohi+ited dru&s on the ni&ht of the +u-+ust operation.

"t is apropos to reiterate here that 5here there is no sho5in& that the trial court o6erloo;ed or %isinterpreted so%e%aterial facts or that it &ra6el a+used its discretion, the Court 5ill not distur+ the trial courtUs assess%ent of the

facts and the credi+ilit of the 5itnesses since the RTC 5as in a +etter position to assess and 5ei&h the e6idence presented durin& trial. Settled too is the rule that the factual findin&s of the appellate court sustainin& those of thetrial court are +indin& on this Court, unless there is a clear sho5in& that such findin&s are tainted 5ith ar+itrariness,capriciousness or palpa+le error .(

On the +asis of the fore&oin&, the Court is con6inced that the prosecution 5as a+le to esta+lish the &uilt of theappellant of the cri%es char&ed.

The Penalties

Anent the proper i%posa+le penalties, Section '1 and Section ', Article """, in relation to Section ()9/ of Repu+licAct No. =(1, as a%ended + Repu+lic Act No. 812, state:

SEC. '1. Sale, Ad%inistration, Dispensation, Deli6er, Transportation and Distri+ution of Re&ulated Dru&s. - The penalt of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ran&in& fro% fi6e hundred thousand pesos to ten %illion pesos shall +e i%posed upon an person 5ho, unless authori?ed + la5, shall sell, dispense, deli6er, transport or distri+ute anre&ulated dru&. Not5ithstandin& the pro6isions of Section () of this Act to the contrar, if the 6icti% of the offenseis a %inor, or should a re&ulated dru& in6ol6ed in an offense under this Section +e the pro*i%ate cause of the deathof a 6icti% thereof, the %a*i%u% penalt herein pro6ided shall +e i%posed. SEC. '. Possession or Hse ofRe&ulated Dru&s. - The penalt of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ran&in& fro% fi6e hundred thousand pesos

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt62


37/53

to ten %illion pesos shall +e i%posed upon an person 5ho shall possess or use an re&ulated dru& 5ithout thecorrespondin& license or prescription, su+ect to the pro6isions of Section () hereof.

SEC. (). Application of Penalties, Confiscation and 0orfeiture of the Proceeds or "nstru%ents of the Cri%e. - The penalties for offenses under Sections 9, =, 8, 7 and 2 of Article "" and Sections '=, '=-A, '1 and ' of Article """ ofthis Act shall +e applied if the dan&erous dru&s in6ol6ed is in an of the follo5in&


38/53

i%posa+le penalt. "n Cri%inal Case No. 27-'='81, no fine is i%posa+le considerin& that in Repu+lic Act No.=(1, as a%ended, a fine can +e i%posed as a conuncti6e penalt onl if the penalt is reclusion perpetua to death.1

"ncidentall, the Court notes that +oth parties in this case ad%itted that the appellant 5as a re&ular e%ploee of the N" 0orensics Che%istr Di6ision. Such fact, ho5e6er, cannot +e ta;en into consideration to increase the penaltiesin this case to the %a*i%u%, in accordance 5ith Section (= of Repu+lic Act No. =(1, as a%ended.Such a special

a&&ra6atin& circu%stance, i.e., one that 5hich arises under special conditions to increase the penalt for the offenseto its %a*i%u% period,8 5as not alle&ed and char&ed in the infor%ations. Thus, the sa%e 5as properl disre&arded + the lo5er courts.

All told, the Court finds no reason to o6erturn the con6iction of the appellant.

FERE0ORE, the Court of Appeals Decision dated !a 9', ()'' in [email protected]. CR.-.C. No. )=()' is A00"R!ED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

ERESI( '* LE#(R!#.!E C(SR#

Associate ustice

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_200304_2014.html#fnt67


39/53

RULE 11

E$ B($C

PE#PLE #F %EP%ILIPPI$ES&

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- 6ersus -

'#SELI# (* L#PI&

Accused-Appellant.

)*R* $o* 1333-

Present:PHNO, C.J.,H"SH!"N@,NARES-SANT"A@O,CARP"O,AHSTR"A-!ART"NE#,CORONA$,CARP"O !ORALES,A#CHNA,T"N@A,C"CO-NA#AR"O,ELASCO, R.,

NACHRA,REESLEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and R"ON, JJ. Pro%ul&ated: Dece%+er '8, ())7

*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*

!ECISI#$

LE#$(R!#.!E C(SR#& J */

efore us on auto%atic re6ie5 is the Decision 3'4 of the Court of Appeals CA/ dated une 9), ()) in CA!

G.R. CR!H.C. No. 839:; 5hich affir%ed, 5ith %odifications, the decision 3(4 of the Re&ional Trial Court RTC/ of

ulanao, Ta+u;, Ialin&a, ranch (1, in Cri%inal Case No. 71-())9, findin& herein accused-appellant &uilt +eond

reasona+le dou+t of the cri%e of @ualifie5 Rape co%%itted a&ainst his o5n dau&hter and sentencin& hi% to suffer

the e*tre%e penalt of death.

Consistent 5ith "eo)(e v. Ca*a(quinto, 394 the Court 5ithholds the real na%e of the rape 6icti%. "nstead,

fictitious initials of AAA are used to represent her. Also, the personal circu%stances of the 6icti% or an other

infor%ation tendin& to esta+lish or co%pro%ise her identit, as 5ell as those of her i%%ediate fa%il or household

%e%+ers, is not disclosed in this decision.3=4 "n this re&ard, the %other is referred to as .

"n three 9/ separate "nfor%ations314 dated Septe%+er '1, ())9, accused-appellant 5as char&ed 5ith three9/ counts of rape co%%itted a&ainst his o5n '=-ear old dau&hter AAA on Septe%+er 1, 8, and 2, ())9. E*cept for the dates of the co%%ission of the cri%e, the "nfor%ations 5ere identicall 5orded, thus:

CR"!. CASE NO. 71-())9The undersi&ned accuses 3accused-appellant4, a detention prisoner at the PNP of Ta+u;,

of the cri%e of RAPE, defined and penali?ed under Repu+lic Act Nu%+ered 7919, co%%itted asfollo5s:

That on or a+out Septe%+er 1, ())9 at San ulian, Ta+u;, Ialin&a, and 5ithin the

urisdiction of this onora+le Court, the accused, throu&h force, threat and inti%idation, did thenand there 5illfull, unla5full and feloniousl ha6e carnal ;no5led&e of her dau&hter 3AAA4,5ho is a %inor, fourteen '=/ ears of a&e, a&ainst her 5ill.

CONTRAR TO LAF.34

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/177742.htm#_ftn7


40/53

On No6e%+er =, ())9, accused-appellant, dul assisted + Att. !arcelino I. Facas of the Pu+licAttornes Office PAO/, entered a plea of not &uilt in Cri%inal Case Nos. 71-())9, 7-())9 and 78-())9. 384

On No6e%+er '), ())9, the PAO la5er 6er+all %o6ed to +e relie6ed as counsel for accused-appellant

and 5ith the latters concurrence, the %otion 5as &ranted. "n his stead, Att. Daniel Dape& of the "nte&rated ar of the Philippines Le&al Aid Pilot Proect 5as appointed as accused-appellants counsel +e o-i'io.374

Durin& the pre-trial conference held on No6e%+er '(, ())9, accused-appellant, assisted + counsel,

%anifested his desire to plea-+ar&ain. "n open court, he e*pressed 5illin&ness to plead &uilt in Cri%inal Case No.71-())9, on the condition that the "nfor%ations in Cri%inal Case Nos. 7-())9 and 78-())9 +e 5ithdra5n. icti%AAA, assisted + her %other and the pro6incial prosecutor, e*pressed her confor%it thereto.324

Thus, accused-appellant entered a ne5 plea of &uilt to the cri%e of rape in Cri%inal Case No. 71-())9.

3')4 This 5as done 5ith the assistance of counsel +e o-i'io and after the trial court conducted searchin& in


41/53

the ce%ent floor of their unfinished house for so%e ti%e and that her father started stain& 5iththe% onl in ())( since he had +een stain& in La&una as a soldier in the Philippine Ar%.

Terrified and dis&usted + 5hat happened to her, the 6icti% left ho%e on Septe%+er '),())9. She staed in the house of Rita Car+onel in San 0rancisco, Ta+u;, Ialin&a. On Septe%+er '', ())9, 34 ca%e loo;in& for her and it 5as onl then that the 6icti% re6ealed the se*ual

assaults co%%itted + her father. Fithout dela, 34 acco%panied her dau&hter to the policehead


42/53

E*plicitl, 5hen the accused pleads &uilt to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searchin& in


43/53

"s it not therefore the lac; of %one that to fi&ht a case and

remedial law (cases in criminal procedure)

Documents