CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGESTS

JANUARY TO DECEMBER 2015

Prof. Ramon S. Esguerra
JANUARY 2015
People of the Philippines vs. Manolito Opiana y Tanel
G.R. No. 200797, 12 January 2015
Elements of Illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs
Facts:
Pursuant to a buy-bust operation, accused Opiana was charged with the sale of
illegal drugs and possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of Sections 5 and 11,
Article 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The RTC and the CA convicted the accused for violations
of Sections 5 (sale of illegal drugs) and 11 (possession of dangerous drugs) of R.A. No.
9165.
Issue:
Whether or not accused is guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article 2 of R.A.
No. 9165.
Held:
YES, the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements of
accuseds violation of Section 5, Article 2, R.A. No. 9165:
(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.
What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence.
Similarly, the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements of the
illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, Article 2, R.A. No. 9165,
to wit: accused was shown to have been in possession of 0.74 gram of shabu, a
prohibited drug; his possession was not authorized by law; and that he freely and
consciously possessed the said illegal drug.

People of the Philippines vs. Arnaldo Bosito y Chavenia

G.R. No. 209346, 12 January 2015

2
Elements of self-defense, and treachery as qualifying circumstances for murder
Facts:
Accused Bosito was charged with murder, which is defined and penalized under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The information states that the accused, with
intent to kill and with treachery, and while armed with a bolo, attacked, assaulted, and
hacked the victim, Bonaobra, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple mortal wounds
which directly caused his death. Upon arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty and
invoked self-defense. The RTC declared that Bosito was guilty of the crime of murder
attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and abuse of superior strength due
to the sudden and unexpected attack made by Bosito. The RTC stated further that
accuseds version of self-defense was incredulous and unbelievable since he was
unharmed and unwounded compared to the number of hacking wounds sustained by
the victim. The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. Both courts gave credence to the
testimony of the witness, Adonis Bosito (Adonis), and disregarded accuseds claim of
self-defense. Both courts stated that Adonis testified in a straightforward and candid
manner that accused mercilessly hacked Bonaobra four times, with his bolo.
Issue:
Whether or not accused is guilty of murder?
Held:
YES, accused admitted hacking Bonaobra, although in self-defense. By invoking
self-defense, accused admits killing the victim and the constitutional presumption of
innocence is effectively waived. It then becomes incumbent upon accused to prove the
following elements of self-defense:
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense.
Bosito claims that the unlawful aggression consisted of Bonaobras group
ganging up on him and attempting to stab him with a knife. However, aside from
Bositos self-serving testimony, the defense did not present any witness to corroborate
his testimony that Bonaobra pulled a knife and tried to stab him. Likewise, Bosito failed
to present the knife which he said he grabbed during the tussle and kept in his
possession. In People v. Satonero, the Supreme Court held that the failure to account for
the non-presentation of the weapon allegedly wielded by the victim is fatal to the plea of
self-defense.

Also, the means employed by Bosito to prevent or repel the supposed unlawful
aggression was beyond reasonably necessary. The number, nature, and gravity of the
wounds sustained by Bonaobra reveal a determined effort to kill and contradict Bositos
claim of self-defense. Bonaobra sustained and died from multiple hack wounds. He
received the first blow to his head after which, Bosito still continued to thrust his bolo to
him three more times.
In People v. Obordo, the Supreme Court held that self-defense, to be successfully
invoked, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of
criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. Accused failed to present
adequate evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, his claim of self-defense cannot stand.
Further, treachery qualified the crime to murder in this case. The essence of
treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the
victim of any chance to defend himself. Here, the sudden attack of the accused with a
bolo against Bonaobra while they were watching a card game caught the victim by
surprise. Bonaobra was unprepared and had no means to put up a defense. Such
aggression insured the commission of the crime without risk on the accused. The trial
court correctly held that abuse of superior strength is deemed absorbed in treachery.
Since treachery qualifies the crime of murder, the generic aggravating circumstance of
abuse of superior strength is necessarily included in the former.

People of the Philippines vs. Palmy Tibayan and Rico Z. Puerto

G.R. Nos. 209655-60, 14 January 2015
Syndicated Estafa and the Ponzi scheme
Facts:
Private complainants in this case filed multiple criminal cases for syndicated
estafa against the incorporators and directors of Tibayan Group Investment Company,
Inc. (TGICI), an open-end investment company. Private complainants alleged that
TGICI enticed them to invest due to the offer of high interest rates, as well as the
assurance that they would recover their investments. After private complainants gave
their money to TGICI, they received a Certificate of Share and post-dated checks,
representing the amount of the principal investment and the monthly interest earnings,
respectively. Upon encashment, however, the checks were dishonored, as the account
was already closed, prompting private complainants to bring the unfunded checks to the
TGICI office to demand payment but to no avail. Upon investigation, the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) found that TGICI was engaged in selling securities to the

4
public without the required SEC registration, in violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
8799, otherwise known as "The Securities Regulation Code." Further, TGICI was also found
to have submitted a fraudulent Treasurers Affidavit to the SEC.
In their defense, the accused denied conspiring with each other to defraud
private complainants, claiming that their signatures on the Articles of Incorporation of
TGICI were forged, and that they are no longer the directors of TGICI. After trial, the
RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple estafa only, as the
prosecution failed to allege in the information that the accused and the other directors/
incorporators formed a syndicate with the intention of defrauding the public. The
prosecutor also failed to adduce documentary evidence substantiating its claims. The
CA, however, modified the trial courts ruling, and held the accused guilty of syndicated
estafa, upon a finding that TGICI and its subsidiaries were engaged in a Ponzi scheme
which relied on subsequent investors to pay its earlier investors an act that Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1689, defining syndicated estafa, aims to punish.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused are guilty of syndicated estafa.
Held:
YES, the accused are guilty of Syndicated Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code, in relation to P.D. No. 1689, the elements of which are as follows:
1. estafa or other forms of swindling, as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), is committed;
2. the estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five (5) or more
persons; and
3. defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by
stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative, "samahang
nayon(s)," or farmers associations, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.
In this case, TGICIs modus operandi is to induce the public to invest in it on the
undertaking that their investment would be returned with a very high monthly interest
rate ranging from three to five and a half percent (3%-5.5%). Under such lucrative
promise, the investing public are enticed to infuse funds into TGICI. However, as the
directors/incorporators of TGICI knew from the start that TGICI was operating without
any paid-up capital and had no clear trade by which it could pay the assured profits to
its investors, they could not comply with their guarantee and had to simply abscond

5
with their investors money. Thus, the CA correctly held that the accused used TGICI to
engage in a Ponzi scheme, resulting in the defraudation of its investors.
A Ponzi scheme is a type of investment fraud that involves the payment of
purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Its
organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities
claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the
perpetrators focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage
investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate
business. It is not an investment strategy but a gullibility scheme, which works only as
long as there is an ever-increasing number of new investors joining the scheme. It is
difficult to sustain the scheme over a long period of time because the operator needs an
ever larger pool of later investors to continue paying the promised profits to early
investors. The idea behind this type of swindle is that the "con-man" collects his money
from his second or third round of investors and then absconds before anyone else shows
up to collect. Necessarily, Ponzi schemes only last weeks, or months at the most.
All the elements of Syndicated Estafa, committed through a Ponzi scheme, are
present in this case, considering that:
1. the incorporators/directors of TGICI comprising more than five (5) people,
including the accused, made false pretenses and representations to the
investing public - in this case, the private complainants - regarding a
supposed lucrative investment opportunity with TGICI to solicit money from
them;
2. said false pretenses and representations were made prior to or simultaneous
with the commission of fraud;
3. relying on the same, private complainants invested their hard earned money
into TGICI; and
4. the incorporators/directors of TGICI ended up running away with private
complainants' investments, obviously to the latter's prejudice.

Fantastico, et al. v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 190912, 12 January 2015
Abuse of superior strength
Facts:
Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva (the accused) were convicted of
attempted murder. Accused claim that the prosecution was unable to prove the presence

6
of treachery, abuse of superior strength, or any other qualifying circumstance in this
case.
Issue:
Whether or not the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior
strength are present in this case.
Held:
THERE WAS NO TREACHERY IN THIS CASE. There is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without
risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The
essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift,
deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must
concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no
opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were
deliberately or consciously adopted.
In this case, the victim went to accuseds house to offer reconciliation to their
mother due to a previous disagreement. Upon reaching their house, the victim asked the
accused where he can find their parents, to which the accused responded, putang ina
mo, ang kulit mo, lumayas ka, punyeta ka. In his anger, the victim kicked the door open
and a brawl ensued between the accused, who were armed, and the victim. The accused,
without any warning, hit the victim on the back of his head with a lead pipe which
caused his death. These facts show that the incident happened at the spur of the
moment, and negates the possibility that the accused consciously adopted means to
execute the crime committed. There is no treachery where the attack was not
preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation
on the part of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim. Since the incident
was spontaneous, the second element of treachery is wanting.
THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH IS
PRESENT IN THIS CASE. The RTC was correct in finding that it was a lopsided attack
as the victim was unarmed, while his attackers were all armed (rattan stick, tomahawk
and lead pipe), and the victim was also drunk. This establishes the element of abuse of
superior strength.
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of
forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of

7
strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by
him in the commission of the crime.

FEBUARY 2015
People of the Philippines vs. Mera "Joy" Eleuterio Nielles, et al.
G.R. No. 200308, 23 February 2015
Qualified Theft
Facts:
Private complainant Juanita Flores (Flores) was engaged in the business of
guaranteeing purchase orders and gift checks of Shoemart and Landmark, and
disposing, selling or transferring said purchase orders and gift checks for consideration.
When Flores business grew, accused Mera Joy Nielles (accused) was assigned to bill
and collect from sub-guarantors, and to encash and deposit checks. On 15 July 2004,
accused collected P640,353.86 from sub-guarantors. Instead of remitting said amount to
private complainants account, the accused issued fifteen (15) personal checks in the
amount of P640,353.86, and deposited them to Flores account. All the checks were
dishonored upon presentment due to "account closed." The accused thereafter
absconded. The accused was charged with the crime of qualified theft. In her defense,
the accused claims that mere issuance of the checks does not prove unlawful taking of
the unaccounted amount, which is an element of the crime of theft. The accused insists
that, at most, the issuance of the checks proves that the same was issued for a
consideration. After trial, the accused was found guilty of qualified theft, which was
affirmed by the CA.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of qualified theft.
Held:
YES, the accused is guilty of qualified theft, the elements of which are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

taking of personal property;

that said property belongs to another;
that the said taking was done with intent to gain;
that it was done without the owners consent;
that it was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against
persons, or of force upon things; and
6. that it was done with grave abuse of confidence.

The taking of the amount collected by the accused was obviously done with
intent to gain as she failed to remit the same to Flores. Intent to gain is presumed from
the act of unlawful taking. Further, the unlawful taking was accomplished by the
accused without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, or of force upon
things, as the payment to her of said amount was voluntarily handed to her by the subguarantors. Since she was known to be entrusted with the collection of payments, the
circumstance of grave abuse of confidence that rendered the simple theft as qualified
theft was also proven. The accused herself testified that as a cashier, her functions and
responsibilities included billings and collections from their agents, and making deposits
and withdrawals in behalf of Flores. In this case the prosecution established beyond
reasonable doubt that the amount of P640,353.86 actually belonged to Flores; that the
accused stole the amount with intent to gain and without Flores consent; that the
taking was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, or
of force upon things; and that it was committed with grave abuse of confidence.

Benabaye v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 203466, 25 February 2015
Estafa, juridical possession
Facts:
Accused Cherry Ann Benabaye (Benabaye) was the loans bookkeeper of Siam
Bank, Inc. (Siam Bank), Iligan City Branch. As such, she was the authorized to collect
and/or accept loan payments of Siam Banks clients and issue provisional receipts
therefor, accomplish a cash transfer slip at the end of each banking day detailing the
amounts of money that she has received, and remit such payments to her supervisor.
Later, pursuant to an audit investigation, it was found that there were non-remittances of
some loan payments received from clients. Benabaye was then directed to explain the
discrepancies between the provisional receipts she had issued and the unremitted
money involved. Dissatisfied with her explanation, Siam Bank filed a criminal case for
estafa against Benabaye.
Issue:
Whether Benabaye may be held liable for estafa for the unaccounted money.
Held:
NO, Benbaye is not liable for estafa. A sum of money received by an employee on
behalf of an employer is considered to be only in the material possession of the

9
employee. The material possession of an employee is adjunct, by reason of his
employment, to a recognition of the juridical possession of the employer.
Benabaye was merely a collector of loan payments from Siam Bank's clients. At
the end of every banking day, she was required to remit all cash payments received
together with the corresponding cash transfer slips to her supervisor. As such, the
money merely passes into her hands and she takes custody thereof only for the duration
of the banking day. Hence, as an employee of Siam Bank, specifically, its temporary cash
custodian whose tasks are akin to a bank teller, she had no juridical possession over the
missing funds but only their physical or material possession.
There is an essential distinction between the possession of a receiving teller of
funds received from third persons paid to the bank, and an agent who receives the
proceeds of sales of merchandise delivered to him in agency by his principal. In the
former case, payment by third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself; the
teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds received, and has no independent right
or title to retain or possess the same as against the bank. An agent, on the other hand,
can even assert, as against his own principal, an independent, autonomous, right to
retain the money or goods received in consequence of the agency.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the estafa charge against Benabaye,
without prejudice, however, to the filing of the appropriate criminal charge against her
as may be warranted under the circumstances.

MARCH 2015
People of the Philippines v. Marcelino Oloverio
G.R. No. 211159, 18 March 2015
Treachery, Passion and Obfuscation
Facts:
Accused Marcelino Oloverio (accused) was charged with murder qualified by
treachery for stabbing Dolfo Gulane (victim) with a bolo. In his defense, accused
claims that at the time and day of the incident, the victim had been accusing him of
having an incestuous relationship with his mother. Accused allegedly kept his cool until
the victim mocked him by asking in a loud voice, how many times did you have sexual
intercourse with your mother? When the victim allegedly attempted to draw his bolo,
accused was able to stop him by drawing his own bolo. They grappled with it, and
eventually, the accused ended up stabbing the victim. The trial court convicted the

10
accused of murder and ruled that the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation was not present in this case.
Issues:

Held:

(a) Whether or not treachery was sufficiently established in this case; and
(b) Whether or not passion and obfuscation may be appreciated as mitigating
circumstances in this case.

(a) NO, the presence of treachery has not been sufficiently established. For treachery to be
appreciated, the following elements must be proven: (1) the employment of means of
execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate;
and (2) the means of execution was deliberately adopted. The mere suddenness of an
attack should not be the sole basis in finding treachery. There must be evidence to show
that the accused deliberately or consciously adopted the means of execution to ensure its
success. In this case, the attack, while sudden, cannot be said to have been unexpected
or unprovoked. The accused alleged that before the attack, the victim had been insulting
him and mocking him in a loud voice saying How many times did you have sexual
intercourse with your mother? This utterance, along with testimonies of the victims
previous insults, would have been sufficient provocation for the accused to stab him. The
accused tapped the victim on the shoulder as if to call his attention. He waited until the
victim was facing him before he started stabbing. Further, the accused was insulted and
mocked by the victim. The utterances made by the victim were sufficient to provoke the
accused.
(b) YES, passion and obfuscation may be appreciated in favor of the accused. To successfully
plead the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, the accused must be able
to prove the following: (1) that there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce
such condition of mind; and (2) that said act which produced the obfuscation was not far
removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during
which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. Passion and obfuscation as
mitigating circumstances need not be felt only in the seconds before the commission of
the crime. It may build up and strengthen over time, until it can no longer be repressed
and will ultimately motivate the commission of the crime. Here, the prosecution did not
deny that the victim insulted the accused on various occasions. The court ruled that
passion may linger and build up over time as repressed anger enough to obfuscate
reason and self-control.

Jacaban v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 184355, 23 March 2015

11
Illegal possession of firearms
Facts:
Arnulfo Jacaban (Jacaban) was charged with illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866,1 as amended by Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 8294. In his defense, Jacaban claims that he does not own the house where the
firearm was found.
Issue:
Whether or not Jacaban may be held liable for illegal possession of firearms.
Held:
YES, Jacaban should be held liable for illegal possession of firearms, the essential
elements of which are:
1. the existence of subject firearm; and
2. the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have
the corresponding license for it. The unvarying rule is that ownership is
not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
What the law requires is merely possession, which includes not only
actual physical possession, but also constructive possession or the
subjection of the thing to ones control and management.
Once the prosecution evidence indubitably points to possession without the requisite
authority or license, coupled with animus possidendi or intent to possess on the part of the
accused, conviction for violation of the said law must follow. Animus possidendi is a state
of mind, the presence or determination of which is largely dependent on attendant
events in each case. It may be inferred from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the
accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances.
Even assuming that Jacaban is not the owner of the house where the items were
recovered, the ownership of the house is not an element of the crime under P.D. No.
1866, as amended. While Jacaban may not be the owner, he indeed had control of the
house as shown by the following circumstances: (1) When the Presidential Anti-

1 CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION,

MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION, OF
FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN
THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND
IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND
FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES."

12
Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) went to the house to serve the search warrant,
Jacaban was very angry and restless and even denied having committed any illegal act,
but he was assured by P/SInsp. Dueas that he has nothing to answer if they would not
find anything, thus, he consented to the search being conducted; (2) while the search was
ongoing, Jacaban merely observed the conduct of the search and did not make any
protest at all; and (3) Jacaban did not call for the alleged owner of the house.

People v. Orosco
G.R. No. 209227, 25 March 2015
Robbery with homicide
Facts:
Accused Orosco and a certain John Doe had an argument with Yap, the store
owner. When Yap opened the door of her store, John Doe placed his left arm around
Yaps neck and covered her mouth with his right hand. Orosco, on the other hand, went
behind her and restrained her hands. John Doe then stabbed Yap on the chest and
Orosco then took a stash of bills under a religious icon or santo inside Yaps store. Yap
was rushed to the hospital, but was declared dead on arrival.
Issue:
Whether Orosco may be held liable for robbery with homicide.
Held:
YES, Orosco is liable for robbery with homicide. When a homicide takes place by
reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part shall be guilty of the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide, whether they actually participated in
the killing, unless there is proof that there was an endeavor to prevent the killing. Here,
the Court found that Orosco acted in conspiracy with John Doe in perpertrating the
crime against Yap. In fact, Orosco played a crucial role in the killing of the victim to
facilitate the robbery. He was behind the victim holding her hands while John Doe
grabbed her at the neck. His act contributed in rendering the victim without any means
of defending herself when John Doe stabbed her chest. Having acted in conspiracy with
his co-accused, Orosco is equally liable for the killing of Yap.

13

APRIL 2015
People of the Philippines v. Angel Mateo
G.R. No. 198012, 22 April 2015
Illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa
Facts:
The accused were charged with illegal recruitment committed in large scale
under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, and five (5) counts of estafa. For their defense, the accused
denied that they are recruiters, claiming that they do not know any of the private
complainants. After trial, the lower courts found them guilty of the crimes charged.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused are guilty of illegal recruitment committed in large
scale and estafa.
Held:
YES, the accused are guilty of illegal recruitment committed in large scale, the
elements of which are:
1. the person charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under
Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042;
2. the accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in
the recruitment of workers; and
3. the accused committed the same against three or more persons
individually or as a group.
These elements are obtaining in this case. First, the trial court found the accused
to have undertaken a recruitment activity when they promised the private complainants
employment in Japan for a fee. Second, the Certification issued by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) reveals that the accused neither have a license
nor authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. Third, there were five (5)
private complainants.
Anent the charge for estafa, it is well-settled that a person convicted for illegal
recruitment under R.A. No. 8042 may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for
estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of estafa are:

14

1. the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of

deceit; and
2. the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable
of pecuniary estimation.
All these elements are likewise present in this case. Here, the accused committed
deceit against the private complainants by making it appear as though they had the
authority and resources to send them to Japan for employment; that there were available
jobs for them in Japan for which they would be hired although, in truth, there were
none; and, that by reason or on the strength of such assurance, the private complainants
parted with their money in payment of the placement fee, documentation and hotel
accommodations. All these representations were actually false and fraudulent and thus,
the accused must be made liable under par2(a), Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

Raymundo E. Zapanta vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 192698-99, 22 April 2015
Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act; and Infidelity in the Custody of Documents
Facts:
Accused Zapanta was the vault/records keeper of the Registry of Deeds, Davao
City. He was charged with (a) violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; and (b) infidelity in the
custody of documents under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in conspiracy
with the Registrar of Deeds, Atty. Gadia, for allegedly causing the wrongful issuance of
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-285369, and deleting the encumbrance annotated
on TCT No. T-256662, to the damage and prejudice of the owner of the latter title.

Issues:
Whether or not accused Zapanta was in conspiracy with Atty. Gadia for the
crimes charged.

Held:
NO, Zapanta did not conspire with Atty. Gadia. To hold an accused guilty as a
co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in

15
furtherance of the complicity. Conspiracy can be inferred from, and established by, the
acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interests. What is determinative is proof establishing
that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose. There must be intentional
participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and
purpose. Conspiracy must, like the crime itself, be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Suppositions based on mere presumptions and not on solid facts do not constitute proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
Zapanta conspired with Atty. Gadia in committing the crimes charged. No testimonial or
documentary evidence was presented to substantiate Zapanta's direct or indirect
participation in the anomalous registration of TCT No. T-285369, and in the
concealment/disappearance of the original TCT No. T-256662. Not a scintilla of proof
was adduced to show with absolute certainty that Zapanta was the one who actually
withdrew the original TCT No. T-256662 from the vault of the Register of Deeds.
Accordingly, Zapanta was acquitted of the crimes charged.

JUNE 2015
Bernardo U. Mesina vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 162489, 17 June 2015
Malversation
Facts:
The accused, a public officer holding the position of Local Treasurer Officer I at
Caloocan City, collects taxes and fees. He was charged with malversation of public funds
for allegedly misappropriating, misapplying, embezzling and converting to his personal
use and benefit public funds in the sum of P167,876.90, to the damage and prejudice of
the City Government of Caloocan.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of malversation.

Held:
YES, the accused is guilty of malversation of public funds, the elements of which
are:

16

1. that the offender is a public officer;

2. that he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of
his office;
3. that the funds or property were public funds or property for which he was
accountable; and
4. that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.
The foregoing elements were duly established against the accused. The
prosecution proved, firstly, that the accused was a public officer with the position of
Local Treasurer Officer I of Caloocan City; secondly, that by reason of his position, he
was tasked to collect fees and taxes regularly levied by the Main City Hall, including
market fees, miscellaneous fees, real property taxes, and the subject patubig (local water
system) collection; and, thirdly, that all of the fees and taxes collected were
unquestionably public funds for which he was accountable. As to the fourth element of
misappropriation, the accused failed to rebut the presumption of malversation under
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code that he had misappropriated the patubig collection
for his personal use.
Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the
culpa is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged
differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is still committed; hence,
a conviction is proper. All that is necessary for a conviction is sufficient proof that the
accused accountable officer had received public funds or property, and did not have
them in his possession when demand therefor was made without any satisfactory
explanation of his failure to have them upon demand. For this purpose, direct evidence
of the personal misappropriation by the accused is unnecessary as long as he cannot
satisfactorily explain the inability to produce or any shortage in his accounts.

JULY 2015
People of the Philippines vs. Arsenio D. Misa III
G.R. No. 212336, 15 July 2015
Statutory rape
Facts:
The accused was charged for raping AAA, a minor, who is 8 years of age. Later,
the information was amended to reflect AAAs age to 11 years old. During trial, the
accused denied knowing AAA and raping her. The trial court found the accused guilty

17
of statutory rape, since AAA was below 12 years old at the time of the incident, and that
carnal knowledge was proven.
On appeal, the CA noticed that while the prosecution presented AAA's birth
certificate as Exhibit 'H' in its formal offer of exhibits, no such document was
surrendered by the prosecution to the trial court. Thus, the CA modified the judgment
and convicted the accused of simple rape only because AAA' s minority was not proven.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of simple rape.

Held:
YES, the accused should be convicted of simple rape only. For a successful
prosecution of statutory rape, there are two elements which must be proven, to wit: (1)
that the victim was under 12 years of age at the time of the incident and (2) carnal
knowledge by the assailant of the victim.
For minority to be considered as an element of a crime or a qualifying
circumstance in the crime of rape, it must not only be alleged in the Information, but it
must also be established with moral certainty. Under Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence,
the victim's birth certificate is the best evidence of her age. Absent AAA's certificate of
live birth, and other means by which her age as alleged in the Information could have
been ascertained beyond doubt, the crime committed is simple rape only.

Santiago v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 20023, 15 July 2015
Bigamy
Facts:
Accused Santiago married Santos during the subsistence of the latters marriage
with Galang. Santiago and Santos were then charged with bigamy. Santiago argues that
for there to be a conviction for bigamy, the second marriage should be proven valid by
the prosecution. In this case, she argued that her marriage with Santos was void due to
the lack of a marriage license.
Issue:

18
Whether or not Santiago may be absolved from criminal liability considering that
her marriage with Santos was void for lack of a marriage license.
Held:
NO, Santiago may not be absolved from criminal liability for bigamy even if her
second marriage was void.
Santiagos affirmative defense in this criminal case of bigamy is that her marriage
with Santos was void for having been secured without a marriage license. However, the
records reveal that Santiago and Santos themselves falsified their Certificate of Marriage
by misrepresenting that they were exempted from the license requirement based on their
fabricated claim that they had already cohabited as husband and wife for at least five (5)
years prior their marriage.
The ruling in Tenebro v. Court of Appeals was reiterated in this case that the States
penal laws on bigamy should not be rendered nugatory by allowing individuals to
deliberately ensure that each marital contract be flawed in some manner, and to thus
escape the consequences of contracting multiple marriages, while beguiling throngs of
hapless women with the promise of futurity and commitment.
It is a basic concept of justice that no court will lend its aid to x x x one who has
consciously and voluntarily become a party to an illegal act upon which the cause of
action is founded. Santiago cannot be allowed to use her illegal act to escape criminal
conviction. Thus, Santiago and Santos were found guilty of bigamy.

AUGUST 2015
People v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 197953, 5 August 2015
Falsification of Public Documents
Facts:
On 17 December 1997, accused Romeo De Luna (De Luna) and the
Municipality of Lavezares, in which Quintin B. Saludaga (Mayor Saludaga) is the
mayor, entered into a pakyaw contract for the construction of pumps. At the time the
contract was executed, De Luna was not a bona fide pakyaw contractor. Sometime in
January 1999, Mayor Saludaga, conniving with De Luna, allegedly issued and signed a
mayors permit and antedated its validity to cover the period of 27 August 1997 until 30

19
December 1997 to make it appear that De Luna was a legitimate pakyaw contractor at the
time the contract was executed. Arthus Adriatico (Adriatico), the revenue collection
clerk, also issued an antedated official receipt (subject OR) for the mayors permit.
Mayor Saludaga, Adriatico, and De Luna (the accused), were later charged with
falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The
Sandiganbayan dismissed the case for failure to prove the alleged falsification of public
documents.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused are guilty of falsification of public documents.
Held:
NO, they are not guilty of falsification of public documents, the elements of
which are:
(1)
(2)
(3)

The offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a

narration of facts;
He has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him;
and
The facts narrated by him are absolutely false.

The prosecution must prove that the public officer or employee had taken
advantage of his official position in making the falsification. The offender is considered
to have taken advantage of his official position when: (1) he has the duty to make or
prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) he has the
official custody of the document which he falsifies. Moreover, in falsification of public or
official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent
to injure a third person because in the falsification of a public document, what is
punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
solemnly proclaimed.
The Sandiganbayan correctly dismissed the criminal case because the
prosecution failed to prove some elements of the crime, namely: (i) that the offenders
took advantage of their official positions; and (ii) that they falsified a document by
making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
First, the Sandiganbayan was not convinced that Mayor Saludaga took advantage
of his official position to falsify the subject OR. The prosecutions evidence failed to
establish that he was in any way involved in the execution and issuance of the subject
OR. Although Mayor Saludaga signed the mayors permit, the Sandiganbayan ruled that
it is the issuance of the subject OR to support the mayors permit which is crucial in

20
determining his culpability for the crime charged against him. As it was not shown that
Mayor Saludaga had any involvement in its issuance, he could not have taken advantage
of his position as Mayor and knowingly made untruthful narration of facts in the said
document.
Second, the Sandiganbayan was not persuaded that the subject OR was in fact
falsified. While Adriatico admitted that he issued the subject OR and that he antedated it
to August 27, 1997, the Sandiganbayan held that such act does not constitute falsification.
It held that if the statements are not altogether false, there being some colorable truth in
them, the crime of falsification is deemed not to have been committed. Adriatico did not
necessarily make an untruthful statement of fact as to the date, there being truth that the
payment received was for a past transaction.
Finally, the Sandiganbayan held that the prosecution failed to prove that De Luna
was not a bona fide pakyaw contractor when the contracts were executed in December
1997.
There is also no conspiracy among Mayor Saludaga, Adriatico and De Luna. As a
rule, conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused. However, it is required
that said acts must clearly manifest a concurrence of wills, a common intent or design to
commit a crime. The concurrence of will and common intent or design to commit a
crime is not clearly manifest in the present case. Here, the charge of conspiracy simply
does not hold water. No convincing evidence was presented to show how Mayor
Saludaga, Adriatico and De Luna conspired to commit the crime.

David v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 208320, 19 August 2015
Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents
Facts:
Hella Philippines, Inc. (Hella) learned that the accused, Hellas Traffic and
Customs Coordinator, had been misrepresenting the amounts she wrote on several
Bureau of Customs (BOC) Form No. 38-A, by making it appear that payments of
additional taxes were made to BOC, when in fact there was none, and misappropriating
said payments for her own personal use. The RTC found the accused guilty of the
complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the complex crime of Estafa through
Falsification of Commercial Documents?

21

Held:
YES, it was duly proven during the trial that accused falsified several BOC Form
No. 38-A, a commercial document, to facilitate and insure the commission of estafa. BOC
Form No. 38-A is a commercial document used by authorized collecting banks, such as
Land Bank, as official receipt for the payment of additional or deficiency customs taxes
and duties. The falsification of the BOC forms, which are commercial documents, was a
necessary means to commit estafa. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses clearly
established that the accused used fake BOC forms to liquidate her cash advances for the
alleged payment of additional taxes and duties to the BOC through the authorized Land
Bank branches.
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), when a single act constitutes
two or more crimes, a complex crime is committed for which only one penalty is
imposed. Complex crimes under Article 48 refer to either (1) an act which constitutes
two or more grave or less grave offenses; or (2) an offense which is a necessary means for
committing another. The phrase "necessary means" under Article 48 of the RPC does not
mean indispensable; otherwise, the offense as a "necessary means" to commit another
would be an indispensable element of the latter and would be an ingredient thereof. For
instance, the crime of simple estafa is ordinarily committed in the manner defined under
the RPC; but if the accused resorts to falsification merely to facilitate and insure the
commission of estafa, then he is guilty of the complex crime of estafa through falsification.
In this case, it was duly proven during the trial that accused falsified several BOC Form
No. 38-A, a commercial document, in order to facilitate and insure the commission of
estafa.

SEPTEMBER 2015 Criminal Cases:

PEOPLE v. POSADA
G.R. NO. 196052, 2 SEPTEMBER 2015
Violation of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act; Search
Warrants
Facts: The RTC and CA found Jocelyn and Francisco Posada (the accused) guilty of
violating Section 11, Article II, of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for illegal possession of shabu.
Issue: Whether or not all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are
present in this case.

22

Held: YES, all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are present in this
case, to wit: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a
prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the
accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug. The prosecution was able to
establish the presence of all the required elements for violation of Section 11, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165.
Evidence showed that early in the morning of April 8, 2006, police officers went to the
house of the accused in Virac, Catanduanes, to implement a search warrant. While the
police officers were escorting the accused, they saw one of them throw something on the
pavement, which turned out to be plastic sachets containing shabu. The police officers
also found plastic sachets of shabu inside a matchbox hidden in a plastic bag of charcoal
near the stove. When accused Jocelyn Posada was asked during trial about the picture
showing the location of the charcoal stove, she categorically declared that it was
charcoal and the place where I place the charcoal. Thus, the RTC correctly appreciated
the admission that she had control over this item.
From these established facts, it is clear that accused knowingly possessed shabu - a
prohibited drug - without legal authority to do so in violation of Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165.

PEOPLE v. SAMSON
G.R. NO. 214883, 2 SEPTEMBER 2015
Self-defense theory; Parricide
Facts: The RTC and CA found Cristina Samson (Cristina) guilty of parricide
committed against her husband Gerry Delmar (Gerry). During one of their quarrels,
Cristina stabbed Gerry with a knife causing his death. According to her, Gerry was
drunk that night and was beating her. She said that Gerry was pointing the knife to her
but she managed to get it from him and used it to defend herself. When her husband
Gerry grabbed her, the knife she was holding accidentally stabbed his chest. She asked
for help and Gerry was brought to the hospital. On the contrary, one of their daughters
who witnessed the fight, claim that her mother got hold of the knife and deliberately
stabbed her father. Cristina invoked the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
Issue: Whether or not Cristinas invocation of self-defense deserves merit.
Held: YES. To invoke self-defense in order to escape criminal liability, it is incumbent
upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the
following requisites under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code,

23
viz: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself. All these elements were present in this case.
There is unlawful aggression when Gerry held a knife and attempted to kill Cristina who
was asking and pleading him to stop. The second element of reasonable necessity is also
present. The lone stab wound located on the Gerrys chest supports the argument that
Cristina feared for her life and this fear impelled her to defend herself by stabbing him. It
was a reasonable means chosen by her in view of the attending circumstances, to wit: her
stronger husband, who had earlier pointed the said knife to her throat, approached her
and grabbed her arm despite her plea that he refrain from coming near her; and that she
had no other available means or any less deadly weapon to repel the threat other than
the knife in her hand. For the last element, the Supreme Court found that Cristinas act
of pushing her husband does not constitute sufficient provocation for she was just trying
to protect herself.

PEOPLE v. CARRERA
G.R. NO. 215731, 2 SEPTEMBER 2015
Violation of R.A. No. 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act
Facts: An informant arrived at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and
reported illegal drug activities of a certain alias Latif in Caloocan City. Thereafter, a
team conducted a buy bust operation in Caloocan where IO1 Samson acted as the
poseur-buyer. During the buy-bust operation, Latif handed to IO1 Samson a
transparent plastic wrapped with electrical tape. Upon receipt of the plastic with
crystalline substance, IO1 Samson and his team arrested Latif who was subsequently
identified as accused Rolando Carrera (accused). In his defense, the accused claimed
that at the time of the arrest, he was just waiting for his tricycle passenger, Jocelyn
Carrera. The RTC found him guilty of violation Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise
known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and he filed an appeal to the CA
which was denied.
Issue: Whether or not accused is guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited
drugs.
Held: The accused is guilty only of the crime of illegal delivery of prohibited drugs as
defined under Section 5, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165.

24
IO1 Samson, as the poseur-buyer, admitted that while he was in possession of the
marked money he failed to effect payment even after the seller delivered the item to him.
There being no payment, no sale was ever consummated between the parties. There
being no consummated sale, accused cannot be found guilty of illegal sale. While he is
still liable for an offense under R.A. No. 9165, he is not guilty of illegal possession of a
prohibited drug.
As accused was charged with illegal sale and delivery of a prohibited drug under
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, based on the information and the evidence
presented, he may be found liable of illegal delivery of prohibited drugs.

PEOPLE v VILLARIEZ
G.R. NO. 211160, 2 SEPTEMBER 2015
Murder
Facts: A shooting incident transpired in a cemetery which rattled the public. Witnesses
saw accused Villariez and his two brothers position themselves behind the victim,
Enrique, before Villariez fired a gun at him, who then and there collapsed. Villariez and
his two (2) brothers denied the accusation stating that they were also shocked when the
incident happened as they were there attending a funeral of a relative. Villariez and his
two (2) brothers were charged with murder committed in conspiracy with each other.
Subsequently, one of Villariez brothers died while the other was exonerated. After trial,
the RTC found only Villariez guilty of the crime of homicide. The CA affirmed the RTCs
decision with modification that it was guilty not of homicide but murder.
Issue: 1. Whether or not Villariez is guilty of murder.
2. Whether or not the case against Villariez should be dismissed since his coconspirator died and the case against another co-conspirator was already dismissed.
Held:
1. YES, Villariez is guilty of murder. Treachery should be appreciated as a qualifying
circumstance in this case. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack
on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. Here,
Enriques son witnessed that it was Villariez who shot his father at the back. Enrique,
deep in thought while listening to the burial service, was unprepared and had no means
to put up a defense. Enrique was shot unexpectedly which insured the commission of
the crime without risk to Villariez. This treacherous act qualified the killing to murder.

25
2. NO. The prosecutions failure to establish conspiracy due to the death of a coconspirator and the dismissal of the case against another co-conspirator does not defeat
the conviction of Villariez for the offense charged and proven during the trial.
In US v. Vitug, the Information charged that the accused committed the specific acts
therein attributed to him, and that he committed those acts in conspiracy with his coaccused. There, the Supreme Court ruled that the commission of the specific acts
charged against the accused constituted the offense charged, and the failure to establish
the conspiracy in no way prevented conviction of the accused for the offense charged
and proven.

PEOPLE v HIDALGO ET. AL.

G.R. NO. 203313, 2 SEPTEMBER 2015
Violation of RA 8353 Anti Rape Law; Conspiracy
Facts: Three (3) sets of Information were filed against Roberto Hidalgo (Roberto), his
16 year old son Don Juan, and Michael Bombasi (Bombasi) for three (3) counts of rape
against AAA. AAA was hired by Roberto as a house helper and nanny of his child. One
evening, the three took turns on raping AAA. Due to accuseds threats to her life, it took
AAA almost one month to file a case against the accused. The RTC found the accused
guilty for the crime of rape. The CA affirmed the decision with modification, finding that
there is conspiracy between the three accused. Roberto claims that AAA failed to
specifically point out the overt acts committed by him which would indicate that there
was a conspiracy in raping her. He insisted that AAAs testimony was too broad and
general to indicate a common purpose in committing the crime of rape.
Issue: Whether or not there is conspiracy to commit rape between the three (3) accused.
Held: YES, there is conspiracy among them. The Supreme Court (SC) found that the
prosecution was able to prove that the three accused conspired with one another to
commit carnal knowledge with AAA through the use of force and threat. Contrary to the
allegation of Roberto that the narration of AAA was too uniform, almost general and
lacked specific details, the SC found her testimony sufficient in details to sustain
conviction.
In this case, the acts of Roberto, Don Juan and Bombasi clearly demonstrated unity of
action to have carnal knowledge of AAA: (1) both Roberto and Bombasi tied AAA's
hands at her back, while a handkerchief was already tied in her mouth; (2) both men
turned AAA around, touched her body and started to take her clothes off; (3) Roberto
succeeded in undressing AAA, went on top of her and placed his penis inside her
vagina; (4) after satisfying his lust, Roberto got off from AAA and Bombasi took his tum

26
and inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina; (5) after Bombasi, Don Juan went on top of
AAA, kissed her shoulders and lips and also inserted his penis inside AAA' s vagina; (6)
when they were satiated in their sexual desires, the three accused untied the rope
binding AAA and threatened to cut off her tongue and kill her family in case she would
tell them what happened. Unmistakably, these acts demonstrated a concerted effort to
rape AAA.

PEOPLE v REGASPI
G.R. NO. 198309, 07 SEPTEMBER 2015
Rape; Alibi and Denial
Facts: Accused Regaspi was charged with rape. Victim AAA, who attended a dance
party with her friends, stayed in a tricycle while drinking beer. Regaspi pointed a knife at
her, placed a tablet on her glass of beer and ordered her to drink the same, which caused
her to lose her consciousness. Later, AAA found herself in a nipa hut and Regaspi on top
of her forcing her to have sexual intercourse with him. After the rape was consummated,
Regaspi left her. On the other hand, Regaspi denied the accusation claiming that it was
AAA who offered a drink to him and asked him to dance. Later, AAA left him, and that
was the last time Regaspi allegedly saw her that night. The next day, he allegedly saw
AAA sleeping in the chapel at the chapel near the dance hall. He purportedly woke her
up but AAA simply smiled at him and went home. The RTC found Regaspi guilty of the
crime of rape which was affirmed by the CA.
Issue: Whether or not Regaspi is guilty of the crime of rape.
Held: YES. In light of the positive identification by AAA, whose narration of the incident
was found credible by both the RTC and the CA, Regaspis proffered defense of denial
fails. Regaspis denial could not prevail over AAAs direct, positive, and categorical
assertion. For Regaspis alibi to be credible and given due weight, he must show that it
was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission. The Court has consistently held that denial is an intrinsically weak defense
which must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. No
jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all
defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove, and for which reason, it is
generally rejected. For the alibi to prosper, the accused must establish the following: (1)
he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was
physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission. These,
unfortunately, Regaspi failed to prove. Further, and more importantly, Regaspis
allegations remain uncorroborated.

27
Regaspi likewise claims that it is unbelievable that he would attack AAA in a public
place. Rape cases, however, are not always committed in seclusion. It is settled that lust
is no respecter of time or place, and rape defies constraints of time and space.
He also points out that AAA did not seem to have offered any resistance during the
supposed ordeal. For two (2) hours, there was no indication that she tried to punch, bite
or scratch the accused. She never shouted or cried for help. But the lack of resistance on
the part of the complainant is not inconsistent with a claim of rape. Lack of resistance
does not automatically mean that the complainant consented to the sexual act, especially
when the accused had intimidated said person into submission. Here, AAA was not only
intimidated but likewise rendered unconscious. True, there was no test conducted to
determine that AAA was indeed drugged, but this is of little relevance as the same is not
an indispensable element in a prosecution for rape. It is sufficient that the prosecution
was able to prove that AAA had been sedated by Regaspi at the time the latter had
carnal knowledge of her.

OCTOBER 2015 Criminal Cases

PEOPLE v DIONALDO, ET. AL.
G.R. NO. 210841, 14 OCTOBER 2015
Violation of R.A. No. 9165 ComprehensiveDangerous Drug Act
Facts: Police officer De la Pea received information that a certain Erik Manok (Erik)
was selling drugs in Laguna. He was instructed by the Chief of Police to investigate the
area and if it is positive, to conduct a buy-bust operation. The buy-bust operation was
conducted after which, Erik was arrested. Accused Erik Manok denied the accusations
against him and contends that he was forced by armed men who abducted him from his
house to admit that he was selling shabu. The defense presented two (2) witnesses to the
alleged forcible entry of armed men into Eriks house. The RTC later found Erik guilty of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165,
otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which was affirmed by
the CA.
Issue: Whether or not all the elements for illegal sale of dangerous drugs are present in
this case.
Held: NO, not all the elements for the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are
present in this case, to wit: (1) the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or
the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) the buyer and seller were identified.
Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or regulated drug as

28
evidence. The narcotic substance itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense
and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction.
Here, the Supreme Court found that the second element is wanting. It appears that the
subject 0.03 gram of shabu allegedly confiscated from Mirondo was never presented in
evidence during the trial for identification by the prosecution witnesses POI Signap and
SP04 de la Pefia, albeit the same had been formally offered by the prosecution.
Accordingly, the prosecution failed to prove the indispensable element of corpus delicti of
the case.
In sustaining the prosecution's case, the RTC and the CA inevitably relied on the
evidentiary presumption that official duties had been regularly performed. It must be
emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties can
be rebutted by contrary proof, being a mere presumption, and more importantly, it is
inferior to, and could not prevail over, the constitutional presumption of innocence.

AMBAGAN, JR. v PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 204481-82, 14 OCTOBER 2015
Homicide as Principal by Inducement
Facts: Santos, a policeman, apprehended the armed men of accused Ambagan, the
mayor of Cavite. Mayor Ambagan repeatedly tried to ask Santos if they can settle the
matter, but the latter rejected him, telling him to just wait for the Group Director. Later
on, a heated argument ensued between Santos and Mayor Ambagan. Out of anger,
Mayor Ambagan ordered his men to kill Santos and his co-officer, Domingo (the
victims). Ronnel Bawalan, brother of Domingo, allegedly witnessed the incident. The
Sandiganbayan found Mayor Ambagan guilty as principal by inducement for the death
of Santos and Domingo.
Issue: Whether Mayor Ambagan can be held guilty for double homicide as principal by
inducement.
Held: NO, Mayor Ambagan is cannot be held guilty as principal by inducement.
The Sandiganbayan adjudged Mayor Ambagan guilty of two (2) counts of homicide as
principal by inducement for allegedly uttering Sige, yan pala ang gusto mo. Mga kasama
banatan na ninyo yan, which impelled Mayor Ambagans body guards to open fire at the
victims. The conviction of a person as a principal by inducement requires (1) that the
inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and

29
(2) that such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material
executor.
As applied, the Sandiganbayan would have been correct in holding Mayor Ambagan
criminally liable if he indeed made the utterance immediately before the shooting
incident. However, the Supreme Court did not believe that Mayor Ambagan indeed
made the declaration that started the fray. There were substantial inconsistencies in the
testimonies prosecutions witnesses. These contradictions refer not only to minor details
but even to the facts constituting important aspects of the case, seriously eroding the
weight of the evidence of the prosecution, and casting reasonable doubt on the
culpability of Mayor Ambagan.
The Supreme Court found that the statements made by Ronnel Bawalan taken as a
whole does not foreclose the probability that Mayor Ambagan did not initiate the
firefight, and casts reasonable doubt as to his guilt as principal by inducement. The scant
evidence for the prosecution casts serious doubts as to the guilt of Mayor Ambagan as
principal by inducement. It was not convincingly established, beyond reasonable doubt,
that he indeed ordered his men to open fire at the victims.

NOVEMBER 2015 Criminal Cases

PEOPLE v DALAWIS
G.R. NO. 197925, 9 NOVEMBER 2015
Habitual Delinquency
Facts: An informant went to the police station informing its officers that a certain Edwin
Dalawis (Dalawis) is selling drugs in Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City. The police officers
then formed a team and conducted the buy-bust operation. After the consummation of
the sale, the police officers arrested Dalawis and Lagmay and was able to confiscate
sachets of shabu. The RTC found Dalawis guilty of violating Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, with
no parole because he is a habitual delinquent having been convicted of violations of R.A.
No. 9165 before. The CA affirmed the RTCs decision.
Issue: Whether or not the accused may be considered as a habitual delinquent.
Held: NO, accused is not a habitual delinquent. The Supreme Court held that the RTC
erred in withholding the benefit of parole from Dalawis on the ground of habitual
delinquency in spite of the express mandate of Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), viz.:

30
Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of
habitual delinquency. - Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and
habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of
diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following
rules:
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the
additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the
additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods;
and
( c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to
the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to
the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two
penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith shall
in no case exceed 30 years.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual
delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or
last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes
a third time or oftener.
It is clear that habitual delinquency is considered only with respect to the crimes
specified in Article 62. In the instant case, Dalawis was charged with violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Law, the same crime adjudged in his two (2) prior convictions, and not
of crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, as
required by the RPC. Hence, the law on habitual delinquency is simply inapplicable to
Dalawis.

PEOPLE v ZABALA
G.R. NO. 203087, 23 NOVEMBER 2015

31
Conspiracy to commit Murder
Facts: While Joseph Agapay (Joseph) was walking along a road, accused Romeo and
Edgardo (the accused) suddenly appeared and followed him from behind. Later,
Josephs friends, who were following him, heard the latters outcry and saw Romeo place
his left hand on Josephs shoulder and instantly box the latter, while Edgardo held
Josephs hand from behind. Joseph struggled to free himself from Edgardos hold until
they fell down the nearby creek. After mauling Joseph, Edgardo smashed his head with
a stone, which led to his death. The RTC found Romeo and Edgardo guilty of the crime
of murder committed in conspiracy with each other, which was affirmed by the CA.
Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty of murder committed in conspiracy with
each other.
Held: YES. 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. It was convincingly shown that both accused had
acted in concert to achieve a common purpose of assaulting and killing Joseph. Accused
were together when they followed Joseph walking along the road; Romeo held Joseph by
his shoulder and boxed him while Edgardo held Joseph's hands from behind; accused
Romeo told Joseph's friends who saw what was happening to go home and not to be
involved; accused continued mauling Joseph and when he fell to the ground
unconscious, accused Edgardo smashed his face with a stone. Accused walked away
together from the crime scene as soon as they had achieved their common purpose.
The Supreme Court also found that treachery qualified the crime to murder. There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the
offended party might make. Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely:
(a) the employment of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity
to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution was
deliberately and consciously adopted.
Joseph was walking home unsuspecting of the imminent danger to his life. Accused
came from behind and in a sudden and unexpected manner assaulted Joseph who was
not able to defend himself from such attack. In fact, he was continuously mauled until he
fell to the ground unconscious and then accused Edgardo smashed his head with a
stone. Even if the attack is frontal but is sudden and unexpected, giving no opportunity
for the victim to repel it or defend himself, there would be treachery. All told, the RTC
did not err in convicting accused of the crime of murder as all the elements of the crime

32
are present, to wit: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed that person; (c) that the
killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248,
and (d) the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide.

PEOPLE v SALIBAD
G.R. NO. 210616, 25 NOVEMBER 2015
Murder
Facts: Accused Edgardo shot Raymundo Dacuyan (Raymundo), a security guard,
which led to his death. Prosecution witnesses claim that they were talking to Raymundo
at that time, and when he turned around, Edgardo suddenly appeared and shot him. In
his defense, Edgardo claimed that his life was in danger at that time which led him to
the river where Raymundo was. Edgardo asked permission to pass but Raymundo tried
to get hold of the gun tucked under Edgardos shirt. He allegedly refused because it was
his only protection. They grappled and accidentally the gun fired and hit Raymundo.
The RTC found Edgardo guilty of murder which was affirmed by the CA.
Issue: Whether or not the element of treachery was present in this case.
Held: YES. As for the qualifying circumstance of treachery, paragraph 16, Article 14
of the Revised Penal Code defines treachery as the direct employment of means,
methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense
which the offended party might make. The RTC and CA correctly ruled that the
eyewitnesses were able to establish treachery on the basis of Manuel and Diegos
testimony that Edgardo shot the victim immediately after arriving as the latter
turned around after talking to the witnesses. The Supreme Court has ruled that the
essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest
provocation on the part of the person attacked.

JANUARY 2016 Criminal Cases

CHENG v PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 174113, 13 JANUARY 2016
Estafa
Facts: Three (3) separate Informations were filed charging accused Paz Cheng (Cheng)
with the crime of Estafa. Complainant Rowena Rodriguez (Rodriguez) entered into an
agreement under which, Rodriguez will deliver jewelries to Cheng on three (3) different

33
dates. Cheng issued a check worth P120,000.00 as security for the jewelries. When Cheng
failed to deliver the jewelries, Rodriguez tried to encash the check but it was dishonored
because the drawee account has insufficient funds and is already closed. Cheng denied
the agreement and receiving of jewelry from Rodriguez. The RTC found Cheng guilty of
estafa which was affirmed by the CA.
Issue: Whether or not Cheng is guilty of estafa.
Held: YES, Cheng is guilty of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
the elements of which are as follows: ( 1) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other
personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (2) misappropriation or
conversion by the offender of the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the
money or property; (3) the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of
another; and (4) demand by the offended party that the offender return the money or
property received.
In this case, the elements of Estafa, as defined and penalized under Article 315 of the
RPC, are present, considering that: (a) Rodriguez delivered the jewelry to Cheng for the
purpose of selling them on commission basis; ( b) Cheng was required to either remit the
proceeds of the sale or to return the jewelry after one month from delivery; (c) Cheng
failed to do what was required of her despite the lapse of the aforesaid period; (d)
Rodriguez attempted to encash the check given by Cheng as security, but such check was
dishonored twice for being drawn against insufficient funds and against a closed
account; (e) Rodriguez demanded that Cheng comply with her undertaking, but the
latter disregarded such demand; and (j) Cheng's acts clearly prejudiced Rodriguez who
lost the jewelry and/or its value.

PEOPLE v CASACOP
G.R. NO. 210454, 13 JANUARY 2016
Violation of sections 5, 11 and 12 of R.A. No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act
Facts: Acting on an informants tip that a certain Edong was selling shabu, the Chief of
Police of San Pedro, Laguna formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. The team
went to the house of Edong and upon consummation of the sale they arrested him. The

34
police officers were able to confiscate transparent plastic sachets containing shabu which
Edong sold to the poseur-buyer in exchange for the marked money. Two (2) more plastic
sachets containing shabu were found inside his pocket. The RTC found Edong guilty of
violating Sections 5, 11, and 12 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which was affirmed by the CA.
Issue: What are the criminal violations of Edong under R.A. No. 9165?
Held: Edong is guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu.
All the elements for the illegal sale of shabu were established. PO 1 Signap, the poseurbuyer, positively identified Edong as the person who sold him the white crystalline
substance in one plastic sachet which was later proven to be positive for shabu. In
exchange for this plastic sachet, PO 1 Signap handed the marked money used for
payment. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the
seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.
All the elements in the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and
paraphernalia were likewise established. Found in accused's pocket after he was caught
in flagrante were two (2) more plastic sachets containing shabu, an improvised glass
tooter containing shabu residue and the rolled aluminum foil with shabu residue.

PEOPLE v SOLINA
G.R. NO. 196784, 13 JANUARY 2016
Illegal Recruitment and Estafa
Facts: Solina represented to private complainants that she has the capacity to contract
workers abroad which led them to believe and pay her the placement fees. Solina was
later charged with illegal recruitment in large scale under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042,
otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, and six (6)
counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC found Solina
guilty as charged which was affirmed by the CA.
Issue: Whether or not Solina is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.
Held: YES, Solina is guilty of both illegal recruitment committed in large scale and
estafa.
All the elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are present in this case,
namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him
to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the offender undertakes

35
any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13
(b) 14 of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34
of the said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042); and (3) the offender committed the
same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. More importantly, all
the said elements have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Solina is also guilty of six (6) counts of estafa under Article 315, par. 2 (a) or the Revised
Penal Code, as amended. It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted
separately of illegal recruitment under R.A. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and
estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of estafa are: (a)
that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b)
that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended
party or third person.
As found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, Solina defrauded the private complainants
into believing that she had the authority and capability to send them for overseas
employment in Japan and because of such assurances, private complainants each parted
with P20,000.00 in exchange for said promise of future work abroad. Still, Solina's
promise never materialized, thus, private complainants suffered damages to the extent
of the sum of money that they had delivered to her.

FEBRUARY 2016 Criminal Cases

PEOPLE v PADIT
G.R. NO. 202978, 01 FEBRUARY 2016
Rape
Facts: A four-year old child (AAA) went out of their house to buy bread. When she
passed by the house of accused Padit, the latter called her to get inside. Padit was AAAs
neighbor and the uncle of her mother. AAA played inside the house but was thereafter
molested and raped by Padit. When AAAs mother went to find her, Padit told her that
she was inside his house watching him weave. Padit then went back inside the house
and, after a few minutes, brought AAA outside. When AAA mother asked her why
shes not answering, AAA told her mother what happened. The next day they filed a
criminal complaint against Padit. The RTC found Padit guilty of the crime of rape and
the CA affirmed the same.
Issue: Whether or not Padit is guilty of the crime of rape.
Held: YES, settled is the rule that testimonies of child-victims are normally given full
weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been

36
raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has, in fact, been
committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined
to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative
vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which
she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and
sincerity. Considering that AAA was only four (4) years old when she was raped and
was only five (5) years old when she took the witness stand, she could not have invented
a horrible story. For her to fabricate the facts of rape and to charge the accused falsely of
a crime is certainly beyond her mental capacity.

PALO v PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 192075, 10 FEBRUARY 2016
Violation of section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drug Act
Facts: PO3 Capangyarihan, a police officer, was walking along a dark alley in Valenzuela
City together with a boy who was a victim of a stabbing incident, and his co-officer, PO1
Santos. While they were walking towards accused Palos direction, they saw Palo talking
to Daguman. They also noticed that Palo was holding a plastic sachet in his hand who
was then showing it to Daguman. Believing that the plastic sachet contained shabu, from
the manner by which Palo was holding the sachet, PO3 Capangyarihan immediately
approached him, held and recovered from his hand the said plastic sachet. Right there
and then, Palo was arrested along with Daguman. According to Palo they were framed
up by the police officers. The RTC found Palo guilty of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs penalized under Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which was affirmed by the CA.
Issue: Whether or not Palo is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Held: YES. The Supreme Court found that the elements of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs were proven by the prosecution in this case. P03 Capangyarihan
testified in a clear and straightforward manner that when he chanced upon Palo, the
latter was caught red-handed in the illegal possession of shabu and was arrested in
flagrante delicto. On direct examination, the police officer positively identified Palo as the
person holding, scrutinizing and from whom the plastic sachet was confiscated. After
conducting a chemical analysis, the forensic chemical officer certified that the plastic
sachet recovered from the Palo was found to contain 0.03 gram of shabu. Nowhere in the
records was it shown that Palo was lawfully authorized to possess the dangerous drug.
Furthermore, Daguman admitted that Palo intentionally sought and succeeded in
getting hold of shabu. Clearly, Palo knowingly possessed the dangerous drug, without
any legal authority to do so, in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

37