De Castro-Criminal Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law
2015)
BOOK 1 (Articles 1-99, RPC)
FELONIES
(Stages of execution)
The Court cannot simply assume that there was attempted rape simply because
accused undressed himself and the offended party, plus the fact that accused did
rape the latter on three other occasions. Thus, for there to be an attempted rape,
the accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the
vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance, the penetration, however slight, is not completed. - People of the
Philippines vs. Domingo Dominguez, Jr., alias Sandy, G.R. No. 180914,
November 24, 2010
The crime of robbery remained unconsummated because Elmer Lagdaan refused to
give his money to Joseph Barra and no personal property was shown to have been
taken. It was for this reason that Elmer Lagdaan was shot. Joseph Barra can only
be found guilty of attempted robbery with homicide. People of the Philippines
vs. Joseph Barra, G.R. No. 198020, July 10, 2013
CONSPIRACY
Acts of conspiracy of each accused need not be directly proved as it can be
inferred from the acts of the accused prior to, during or subsequent to the
incident. What is material is that the actions of the accused pertain to a joint
purpose, concert of action or community of interest in conspiracy an act one is the
act of all. - People of the Philippines vs. Arnold Garchitorena y Camba
A.K.A. Junior; Joey Pamplona A.K.A. Nato and Jessie Garcia y Adorino, G.
R. No. 175605, August 28, 2009
Conspiracy is always predominantly mental in composition because it consists
primarily of a meeting of minds and intent. It is present when the accused by their
acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing
another so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and
their acts though apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative,
indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of
sentiments. Clearly, it is attendant in circumstances when there was concerted
action between the accused-appellants before, during and after the offense which
ably demonstrated their unity of design and objective in successfully committing
the crime. - People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Serrano and Anthony
Serrano, G.R. No. 179038, May 6, 2010
Neither can the rapid turn of events be considered to negate a finding of conspiracy.
Unlike evident premeditation, there is no requirement for conspiracy to exist that
there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation
and reflection. Instead, conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree,
expressly or impliedly, to commit the subject felony. - People of the Philippines
Page 1 of 32

2015)
vs. Restituto Carandang, Henry Milan and Jackman Chua, G.R. No. 175926,
July 6, 2011
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. While it is mandatory to prove it by
competent evidence, direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy it may be
deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was
perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts
point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.
The mere circumstance that accused did not personally perform all the acts
necessary to consummate the crime is irrelevant when conspiracy is proven, since
in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. - People of the Philippines vs.
Allan Niegas y Fallore, G.R. No. 194582, November 27, 2013
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
It is well settled that unlawful aggression presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected
or imminent dangernot merely threatening and intimidating action. Thus, unless
the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the other, there can be no
selfdefense on the part of the latter. - Severino David, Jr. y Echane and Timoteo
Gianan vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 136037, August 13, 2008
When self-defense is invoked by an accused, the three (3) elements of self-defense,
namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity
of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself, must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence.
In conspiracy, it does not matter who inflicted the mortal wound, as the act of one is
the act of all, and each incurs the same criminal liability. - People of the
Philippines vs. Ramon Regalario, Marciano Regalario, Sotero Regalario,
Bienvenido Regalario and Noel Regalario, G.R. No. 174483, March 31, 2009
A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof. He must prove all the
elements of self-defense. However, the most important of all the elements is
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
Moreover, factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of the
witnesses credibility are entitled to great weight and respect particularly when the
Court of Appeals affirms the said findings, and will not be disturbed absent any
showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts and circumstances which could
substantially affect the outcome of the case. It is the trial judge who had the
opportunity to observe the witnesses demeanor and deportment on the stand, and
the manner in which they gave their testimonies. The trial judge therefore is in a
better position to determine the veracity of the witnesses testimony. - People of
the Philippines vs. Efren Laurio y Rosales, G.R No. 182523, September 13,
2012
Page 2 of 32

2015)
Self-defense, under Article 11, paragraph 1, and accident, under Article 12,
paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, are affirmative defenses which the accused
is burdened to prove, with clear and convincing evidence. Such affirmative defenses
involve questions of facts adduced to the trial and appellate courts for resolution. By
admitting killing the victim in self-defense or by accident without fault or without
intention of causing it, the burden is shifted to the accused to prove such affirmative
defenses. He should rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness of that of the prosecution. If the accused fails to prove his affirmative
defense, he can no longer be acquitted. - People of the Philippines vs. Marcial
Malicdem, G.R. No. 184601, November 12, 2012
Under paragraph 4, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, to successfully invoke
avoidance of greater evil as a justifying circumstance, the following requisites
should be complied with: (1) the evil sought to be avoided actually exists (2) the
injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it and (3) there be no other
practical and less harmful means of preventing it. Moreover, Punzalan failed to
satisfy the third requisite that there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it. Under paragraph 4, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, infliction of
damage or injury to another so that a greater evil or injury may not befall ones self
may be justified only if it is taken as a last resort and with the least possible
prejudice to another. If there is another way to avoid the injury without causing
damage or injury to another or, if there is no such other way but the damage to
another may be minimized while avoiding an evil or injury to ones self, then such
course should be taken. - People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Punzalan, Jr.,
G.R. No. 199892, December 10, 2012
A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof. He must prove all the
elements of self-defense. However, the most important of all the elements is
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression must be proved
first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or
incomplete. - People of the Philippines vs. Gary Vergara y Oriel and Joseph
Inocencio y Paulino, G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
To take advantage of superior strength is to use force out of proportion to the means
available to the person attacked to defend himself.
Tying the victim hog-style after rendering him immobilized constituted outraging or
scoffing at the corpse of the victim.
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, it must be spontaneous, in such a
manner that it shows the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the
authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save
them the trouble and expense of finding and capturing him. People of the
Philippines vs. Ramon Regalario, Marciano Regalario, Sotero Regalario,
Bienvenido Regalario and Noel Regalario, G.R. No. 174483, March 31, 2009
Page 3 of 32

2015)
It is basic in our penal law that treachery is present when the offender employs
means, methods or forms which tend directly and especially to insure the execution
of the crime, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. - People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Asilan y Tabornal,
G.R. No. 188322, April 11, 2012
When the victim was stabbed by accused, the latter inside the trial, judicial notice
can be taken that when the tricycle driver is seated on the motorcycle, his head is
usually higher or at the level of the roof of the side car which leaves his torso
exposed to the passengers who are seated in the side car. Hence, there was no way
for Jesus to even be forewarned of the intended stabbing of his body both from the
people seated in the side car and those seated behind him. Thus, treachery is
present. There is treachery when the means, methods, and forms of execution gave
the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and such
means, methods, and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted
by the accused without danger to his person. What is decisive in an appreciation of
treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to
defend himself.
Furthermore, in a case of special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there
must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was
the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated in the
course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. - People of
the Philippines vs. Joel Aquino y Cendana, G.R. No. 201092, January 15,
2014
The accused, charged for the felony of murder, questions the appreciation of the
qualifying circumstance of abuse of strength when the same was not in the
Information. The Court ruled that even if abuse of superior strength was properly
alleged and proven in court, it cannot serve to qualify or aggravate the felony at
issue since it is jurisprudentially settled that when the circumstance of abuse of
superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter. People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Dadao, Antonio Sulindao, Eddie
Malogsi (deceased) and Alfemio Malogsi, G.R. No. 201860, January 22,
2014
TREACHERY
The essence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery is the suddenness, surprise
and the lack of expectation that the attack will take place, thus, depriving the victim
of any real opportunity for self-defense while ensuring the commission of the crime
without risk to the aggressor. - People of the Philippines vs. Dante Jadap, G.R.
No. 177983, March 30, 2010
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
Page 4 of 32

2015)
defense which the offended party might make. - People of the Philippines vs.
Samson Escleto, G.R. No. 183706, April 25, 2012
Treachery is present 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. - People of the Philippines vs.
Ramil Rarugal alias "Amay Bisaya," G.R. No. 188603, January 16, 2013
The manner by which appellant deliberately rolled the grenade on the ground
towards the dance floor packed with the unsuspecting revelers, leaving one dead
and scores wounded in the aftermath of the sudden blast was accompanied with
treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. - People of the
Philippines vs. Ramil Mores, G.R. No. 189846, June 26, 2013
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at
some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was
physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate
vicinity.
The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done
in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. - People of the Philippines vs.
Lito Hatsero, G.R. No. 192179, July 3, 2013
Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly
and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of
any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk
to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims. People of the Philippines vs. Gerry Sabangan and Noli Bornasal, G.R. No.
191722, December 11, 2013
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt
from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. An act done by me
against my will is not my act. The force contemplated must be so formidable as to
reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his
will. A threat of future injury is not enough. - People of the Philippines vs.
Nelida Dequina y Dimapanan, Joselito Jundoc y Japitana & Nora Jingabo y
Cruz, G.R. No. 177570, January 19, 2011
Page 5 of 32

2015)
For the defense of Bulagao that he was suffering from mental retardation be given
credit, There must be a showing from the findings of the psychologist that Bulagao
had the same mental or psychological condition at the time of the said
incidents. The RTC noted that the psychological examination of Bulagao was
conducted more than a couple of years after the dates of the complained of
incidents. Even assuming that accused-appellant was of such mental state at the
time of the incidents, the psychologist testified that accused-appellant had the
capacity to discern right from wrong. - People of the Philippines vs. Aniceto
Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, October 5, 2011
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
When the prosecution fails to prove the exact date of the commission of the offense
and there is a question whether the accused reached the age of majority at the time
of the commission, such question shall be resolved in favor of the accused and
therefore shall benefit from the mitigating circumstance of minority. People of the
Philippines vs. Richard O. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009
PAROLE
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.
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 provides that persons convicted of offenses
punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion
perpetua, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. - People of the Philippines vs.
Vicente Candellada, G.R. No. 189293, July 10, 2013
BOOK II (Articles 114-365, RPC) and related Special Laws
FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR
ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
In the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officials or by
private persons, it is unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or the
intent to injure a third person; the principal thing punished is the violation of the
public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. Romeo D. Lonzanida vs. People Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 160243-52,
July 20, 2009
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
When all the elements of the crimes charged were present thereby establishing the
guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the accused, no error has been committed in the
Page 6 of 32

2015)
courts decision of conviction. In fact, settled is the principle that findings of the trial
courts which are factual in nature are accorded respect when no glaring errors;
gross misapprehension of facts; and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported
conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The rule finds an even more
stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Serrano and Anthony Serrano, G.R. No.
179038, May 6, 2010
Tuan was charged with illegal possession of prohibited drugs and contended that he
should not be convicted to such crime due to discrepancies and testimony of the
witnesses. The court ruled that Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies
of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the
central fact of the crime, do not impair their credibility. Testimonies of witnesses
need only corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning the
principal occurrence. - People of the Philippines vs. Estela Tuan y Baludda,
G.R. No. 176066 August 11, 2010
The failure of the arresting police officers to comply with said DDB Regulation No. 3,
Series of 1979 is a matter strictly between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the
arresting officers and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case for
the reason that the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is
considered consummated once the sale or transaction is established. - People of
the Philippines vs. Chito Gratil y Guelas, G.R. No. 182236, June 22, 2011
In the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to
successfully prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. The conspicuous variance in the testimonies for the prosecution
casts serious doubt on the arresting teams due care in the custody of the
confiscated illegal drug. We declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer the
testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a
specimen of shabu, and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the
evidence before it was finally offered in court, fatally conflicts with every proposition
relative to the culpability of the accused. - People of the Philippines vs. Edwin
Ulat y Aguinaldo @ Pudong, G.R. No. 180504, October 5, 2011
In a buy-bust operation, the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police
officers conducting the operation are not only authorized, but duty-bound, to
apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of
or used in the commission of the crime. - People of the Philippines vs. Gregg C.
Buenaventura, G.R. No. 184807, November 23, 2011
Legaspi claims that she was instigated into committing the crime as charged, as she
was the one approached by San Andres, who was then looking to buy shabu cannot
stand. To use instigation as a defense, the accused must prove with sufficient
evidence that the government induced him to commit the offense. Legaspi was
Page 7 of 32

2015)
never forced, coerced, or induced to source the prohibited drug. Unless there is
clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust operation team
were inspired by improper motive or did not properly perform their duty, their
testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. - People of the
Philippines vs. Nenita Legaspi y Lucas, G.R. No. 173485, November 23,
2011
Prior surveillance is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, especially if the buybust team is accompanied to the target area by their informant. Furthermore, the
failure of the police officers to use ultraviolet powder on the buy-bust money is not
an indication that the buy-bust operation was a sham. The use of initials to mark the
money used in a buy-bust operation has been accepted by the SC. - People of the
Philippines vs. Benjamin Amansec y Dona, G.R. No. 186131, December 14,
2011
Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust
team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their
duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.
Settled is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is
evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or
deviation from the regular performance of their duties. - People of the
Philippines vs. Marcos Sabadlab y Narciso @ "Bong Pango G.R. No.
186392, January 18, 2012
In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to
prosecution witnesses who are police officers on the ground that they are presumed
to have performed their duties in a regular manner. The exception is when there is
evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or
deviation from the regular performance of their duties. In the case at bar, accusedappellants only evidence of ill motive on the part of the NBI operatives is his own
testimony of frame-up and extortion, a very common defense in dangerous drugs
cases. We have held that such defense is viewed with disfavor, for it can be easily
concocted. To substantiate such a defense, therefore, the evidence must be clear
and convincing. - People of the Philippines vs. Arnel Clarite y Salazar, G.R.
No. 187157, February 15, 2012
The Court stresses that the objective test in buy-bust operations demands that the
details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This
must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the
offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the
consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The
manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an
informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and
the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer,
must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens
are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. - People of the Philippines vs.
Page 8 of 32

2015)
Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro alias "Rose,"
February 29, 2012
G.R. No. 188132,
It is settled that Sec. 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations on
account of the law enforcers failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. People of the Philippines vs. Jesusa Figueroa y Coronado, G.R. No. 186141,
April 11, 2012
Illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs is committed when the following
elements concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is
identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. - People of the
Philippines vs. Jimmy Biyala Velasquez, G.R. No. 177224, April 11, 2012
This Court has already ruled in several cases that the failure of the arresting officer
to comply strictly with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal. It will not
render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible. What is of utmost important is the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Also, in every prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of
the drug, i.e., the corpus delicti, as evidence in court is material. In fact, the
existence of the dangerous drug is crucial to a judgment of conviction. It is,
therefore, indispensable that the identity of the prohibited drug be established
beyond doubt. Even more than this, what must also be established is the fact that
the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered
in court as exhibit. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it
ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed.
Finally, the Court acknowledged that a testimony about a perfect chain is not
always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.
The Court stresses that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. - People of the
Philippines vs. Maricar Brainer y Mangulabnan, G.R. No. 188571, October
10, 2012
The elements that should be proven in both the sale and possession of dangerous
drugs intrinsically include the identification of what was seized by police officers to
be the same item examined and presented in court. This identification must be
established with moral certainty and is a function of the rule on the chain of
custody. - People of the Philippines vs. Meriam Guru y Kazan, G.R. No.
189808, October 24, 2012
This Court has reviewed and scrutinized in detail the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and found glaring inconsistencies that relate to the identity of the
prohibited drug allegedly confiscated from Del Rosario. The patent inconsistency
Page 9 of 32

2015)
between the testimonies of PO2 Mendoza and PO3 Besmonte necessarily leads us to
doubt that the plastic sachet of shabu identified in court is the same one allegedly
seized from Del Rosario. In light of the foregoing, we find merit in Del Rosarios
claim that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the
very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act
No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to
have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drugs
unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily
open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus,
to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug,
evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same
illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant otherwise, the
prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fail. - People of the
Philippines vs. Ronald Del Rosario, G.R. No. 188107, December 5, 2012
It may be gleaned that to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation is
as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer second, the turnover of the illegal
drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer third, the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. We agree with the finding
of the Court of Appeals. A perusal of the records of the case revealed that after the
dangerous drugs were seized from Lapasaran, the same were marked RML and
RML1 by the buy-bust team. PO1 Saez and PO2 Maglana then turned over RML
and RML1 to investigating officer P/SInsp. Obong, who in turn, delivered the same
to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Based on the Physical Science Report
timed, dated and signed by Forensic Chemist Bonifacio, RML and RML1 tested
positive for the presence of shabu. Lastly, both sachets were then presented and
turned over by P/SInsp. Bonifacio to the court. The Certificate of Inventory, request
for laboratory examination and the consequent testimonies in Court leaves no doubt
in the Courts mind that the chain of custody rule was duly followed. - People of
the Philippines vs. Renato Lapasaran, G.R. No. 198820, December 10, 2012
When prosecuting an illegal possession of dangerous drugs case, the following
elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object,
which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by
law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug; With regards
to Chain of Custody, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the
evidence has been tampered or meddled with, the presumptions that the integrity
of such evidence had been preserved and that the police officers who handled the
seized drugs had discharged their duties properly and with regularity remain. People of the Philippines, vs. Malik Manalao y Alauya, G.R. No. 187496,
February 06, 2013
Page 10 of 32

2015)
The elements that must be established for the successful prosecution of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs, viz: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the same.
What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the
contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate
the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. The
chain of custody of the seized drugs in a buy-bust operation had been sufficiently
established when there was proof of the following: first, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover
and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court. - People of the Philippines vs. Linda Alviz y Yatco and Elizabeth De La
Vega y Bautista, G.R. No. 177158, February 06, 2013
A testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain." The arresting officers failure to conduct a
physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from De Jesus will not render
his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as they
were able to nonetheless preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
said items. This is what is of utmost importance as the seized items are what would
be used in the determination of De Jesus guilt or innocence.
What is significant is that the links in the chain of custody were all accounted for by
the prosecution, from the time the items were confiscated from De Jesus, up to the
time they were presented in court during trial as proof of the corpus delicti. In any
case, unless De Jesus can show that there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering with
the evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been
preserved, and that the police officers discharged their duties properly and with
regularity, will remain. - People of the Philippines vs. Victor De Jesus y Garcia,
G.R. No. 198794, February 06, 2013
Noncompliance with Section 21(1), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 regarding
chain of custody, does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized
inadmissible because what is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are preserved which would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused. - People of the Philippines vs. Lolita Quesido
y Badarang, G.R. No. 189351, April 10, 2013
Page 11 of 32

2015)
Denial or frameup is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of

the Dangerous Drugs Law. As such, it has been viewed by the court with disfavor for
it can just as easily be concocted.
When the accused is charged with the sale of illicit drugs, the following defenses
cannot be set up: (1) that facilities for the commission of the crime were
intentionally placed in his way or (2) that the criminal act was done at the
solicitation of the decoy or poseurbuyer seeking to expose his criminal act or (3)
that police authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently
assisted in its commission. - People of the Philippines vs. Marilyn Aguilar y
Manzanillo, G.R. No. 191396, April 17, 2013
Marking of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation may be
undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is
done in the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. - People of the
Philippines vs. Dante L. Dumalag, G.R. No. 180514, April 17, 2013
When, of all the individuals who came into direct contact with or had physical
possession of the shabu allegedly seized from the accused, only the arresting officer
testified for the specific purpose of identifying the evidence, and his testimony
miserably failed to demonstrate an unbroken chain as it ended with his
identification of the money and seized items he marked and documents he signed,
then the requirement of chain of custody is broken. In effect, the custodial link
ended with the arresting officer when he testified that he brought the seized items,
together with the accused, to the police station. Such a break in the chain of
custody is fatal to the prosecutions case, and the accused must be acquitted. People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Enriquez y Delos Reyes, G.R. No.
197550, 25 September 2013
The failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of R.A. 9165 does not
necessarily render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated
from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Consistency
with the chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized
items to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain
and are eventually the ones offered in evidence should be done (1) in the
presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.
Thus, even if the police officers failed to immediately make an inventory and
marking of the seized sachet of shabu at the place where the accused was
apprehended does not destroy the integrity and evidentiary value of said sachet of
shabu, if the chain of custody could be continuously traced from its receipt by the
arresting officer, the transfer to the police laboratory for examination, it being kept
in police custody awaiting trial, and its presentation as evidence before the RTC. People of the Philippines vs. Giovanni Ocfemia y Chavez, G.R. No. 185383,
September 25, 2013
Page 12 of 32

2015)
While the accused may not be convicted of illegal sale of shabu due to the absence
of all the elements of the crime, they may still be convicted for illegal delivery of
shabu if all its elements are present and proven by the prosecution. The accused
may also be convicted for illegal possession of dangerous drugs as the crime of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. - People of the Philippines vs. Michael Maongco y Yumonda
and Phans Bandali y Simpal, G.R. No. 196966, October 23, 2013
The testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operations are
credible when they are consistent in establishing the elements of illegal sale of
shabu, despite their consistencies on peripheral matters. In addition, objections to
the alleged violation to the chain of custody rule must be made during trial and not
first time on appeal, otherwise the objection must be denied. - People of the
Philippines vs. Marilyn Santos and Arlene Valera, G.R. No. 193190,
November 13, 2013
Non-compliance with Section 21 does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the
items seized inadmissible because what is essential is that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved which would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The failure to take
photographs and to make an inventory of the seized evidence, and the lack of
participation of the representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official in the operation will not render the evidence seized
as inadmissible. - People of the Philippines vs. Marissa Castillo, G.R. No.
190180, November 27, 2013
In dangerous drugs cases, the failure of the police officers to make a physical
inventory and to photograph the sachets of shabu, as well as to mark the sachets at
the place of arrest, do not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence or
automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody of the said drugs. What is
of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused. - People of the Philippines vs. Asir Gani and
Normina Gani, G.R. No. 198318, November 27, 2013
What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust
operation is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to wit: (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, which the prosecution has
satisfactorily established. - People of the Philippines vs. Roselito Taculod y
Elle, G.R. No. 198108, December 11, 2013
When the prosecution was able to establish the elements for conviction for the
crime of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, illegal possession of regulated
and prohibited drugs and the guilt of the accused, the Court must affirm the
decision of trial court and the CA.
Page 13 of 32

2015)
As to imposition of penalties in illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, illegal
possession of regulated and prohibited drugs, as provided by law, it shall depend on
the amount sold and possessed by the accused. - People of the Philippines vs.
Donald Vasquez y Sandigan, G.R. No. 200304, January 15, 2014
For there to be illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be
present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the
consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery to the buyer of the thing sold and
receipt by the seller of the payment therefor. Thus, upon delivery of the illicit drug
to the buyer and the receipt of the payment by the seller, illegal sale of dangerous
drugs is committed. - People of the Philippines vs. Joselito Morate y Tarnate,
G.R. No. 201156, January 29, 2014
In cases of illegal sale of regulated and prohibited drugs, it is necessary that the
identity and integrity of the seized drugs and other related articles have been
preserved from the time they were confiscated from the accused until their
presentation as evidence in court. The following links must be established in the
chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; third, the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turn over
and submission of the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the
court. When the seizing officer (the poseur-buyer) failed to mark the seized illegal
drugs and it was only when the drugs were turned over to the investigating officer
that they were marked, there is already failure on the part of the prosecution to
establish the evidences chain of custody and the Court can no longer consider or
even safely assume that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated
dangerous drug were properly preserved. - People of the Philippines vs.
Hermanos Constantino, Jr. y Binayug, a.k.a. "Jojit,"G.R. No. 199689, March
12, 2014
MURDER
The Court held that while there were indeed discrepancies in the testimony of the
prosecution witnessed, they are not sufficient to negate the guilt of accused. As
long as the testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing statements
neither dilute the credibility nor the veracity of their testimony. - People of the
Philippines vs. Darwin Bernabe Garcia, G.R. No. 185726, October 16, 2009
Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non, without which there can be no selfdefense, whether complete or incomplete. - People of the Philippines vs.
Page 14 of 32

2015)
Alberto Tabarnero and Gary Tabarnero, G.R. No. 168169, February 24,
2010
Donald Pais was killed by the accused appellants however, the latter denied such
allegations. The court ruled that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused
must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission
of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus
delicti or within its immediate vicinity. - People of the Philippines vs. Roberto
Asis and Julius Pearanda, G.R. No. 177573, July 7, 2010
Basic is the rule that in order to affirm the conviction of an accused person, the
prosecution must establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A finding of guilt
must rest on the strength of the prosecutions own evidence, not on the weakness
or even absence of evidence for the defense. People of the Philippines vs.
Rosendo Rebucan y Lamsin, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011
The Court agrees with Cleofe and Leonardo that alibi is indeed a good defense and
could certainly exculpate a person accused of a crime. However, this is true only if
the accuseds alibi strictly meets the following requisites: 1. His presence at another
place at the time of the commission of the crime; and 2. The physical impossibility
of his presence at the scene of the crime. - People of the Philippines vs. Cleofe
Baroquillo y Villanueva and Leonardo Mahilum y Caete, G.R. No. 184960,
August 24, 2011
In a number of cases, surveyed in People v. Rivera, we ruled that treachery cannot
be appreciated simply because the attack was sudden and unexpected. We can not
presume that treachery was present merely from the fact that the attack was
sudden. The suddenness of an attack, does not of itself, suffice to support a finding
of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was made all of a
sudden and the victim's helpless position was accidental. . . . While it appears that
the attack upon the victim was sudden, the surrounding circumstances attending
the stabbing incident, that is, the open area, the presence of the victims families
and the attending eyewitnesses, works against treachery. If accused-appellant
wanted to make certain that no risk would come to him, he could have chosen
another time and place to stab the victim. - People of the Philippines vs.
Vicente Vilbar, G.R. No. 186541, February 1, 2012
There is treachery or alevosia when the offender commits any of the crimes against
the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from any defense which the offended party might make. The testimonial evidence
gathered in this case clearly indicates that the victims who were simply engaged in
conversation in a private residence were caught entirely by surprise with the
assailants swift, deliberate and unexpected attack using multiple firearms thereby
negating the possibility for the victims to escape or defend themselves. - People of
the Philippines vs. Diosdado Camat and Mamerto Dulay, G.R. No. 188612,
July 30, 2012
Page 15 of 32

2015)
To hold the accused liable for murder, the prosecution must prove that: (1) a person
was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and
(4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide. - People of the Philippines vs.
Mark Joseph Zapuiz y Ramos "Jaymart," G.R. No. 199713, February 20,
2013
Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive
upon the Supreme Court when supported by evidence on record. Thus, when the
trial court gave credence to the testimony of the witnesses who saw that the
accused and his son set fire on the victims house and later shoot the victim and the
CA affirmed the trial courts findings, the SC will affirm the conviction of the accused
for murder.
The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must
be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the
criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. When
the time it took the accused and his son to device their plan, plot where the
gasoline should be poured, and procure the gasoline and the firearms, as well as the
time it took to go to Antonio Ardets house, and even the time when they waited for
Antonio Ardet to come out of the house, all afforded the accused sufficient
opportunity to reflect upon the consequences of his act to kill his brother-in-law and
his determination to commit the cold-blooded deed from the time of its conception
until it was carried out, it clearly shows that the accused and his son had a
previously and carefully crafted plan to kill the victim. - People of the Philippines
vs. Gary Alinao, G.R. No. 191256, September 18, 2013
To successfully prosecute the crime of murder, the following elements must be
established: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3)
that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in
Article 248of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or
infanticide. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without
warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. In order for treachery to be
properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack,
the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously
and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack
employed by him. These elements are extant in the facts of this case and as
testified to by Roger above-quoted.
In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. It does not need to be proven by direct
evidence and may be inferred from the conduct before, during, and after the
commission of the crime indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and
concurrence of sentiments as in conspiracy.
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove the following: (i) that he
was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime; and (ii)
that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its
Page 16 of 32

2015)
commission. Physical impossibility involves the distance and the facility of access
between the crime scene and the location of the accused when the crime was
committed. The accused must demonstrate that he was so far away and could not
have been physically present at the crime scene and its immediate vicinity when
the crime was committed. - People of the Philippines, vs. Rolando Las Pias,
Jimmy Delizo and Merwin Las Pias, G.R. No. 191723, July 23, 2014
HOMICIDE
It is axiomatic that a person who invokes accident must prove that he acted with
due care. This was belied by the conduct of the Lanuza when he allegedly received
the shotgun from the private complainant. As he himself admitted, he received the
shotgun by placing his pointer finger, also known as the trigger finger because it is
used to squeeze the trigger, inside the trigger guard and over the trigger itself.
Worse, he did so while the barrel of the gun was pointed at the private complainant.
- People of the Philippines vs. Rodel Lanuza y Bagaoisan, G.R. No. 188562,
August 17, 2011
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
Villacorta is not totally without criminal liability. He is guilty of slight physical injuries
under Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code for the stab wound he inflicted upon
Cruz. Although the charge in the instant case is for murder, a finding of guilt for the
lesser offense of slight physical injuries may be made considering that the latter
offense is necessarily included in the former since the essential ingredients of slight
physical injuries constitute and form part of those constituting the offense of
murder. - People of the Philippines vs. Orlito Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412,
September 7, 2011
RAPE
Courts usually give greater weight to
sexual assault, especially a minor, as
willing to undergo a public trial and put
of exposing her own degradation were
offender apprehended and punished.
the testimony of a girl who is a victim of

in this case, because no woman would be
up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor
it not to condemn an injustice and have the
It is enough that there is the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female
sex organ. The mere touching by the male organ of the labia of the pudendum of
the womans private part is sufficient to consummate rape. It was therefore
consummated rape which accused-appellant committed. - People of the
Philippines vs. Mario Castro, G.R. No. 172874, December 17, 2008
In the prosecution of criminal cases, especially those involving the extreme penalty
of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to
constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be
established. Qualifying circumstances or special qualifying circumstances must be
proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself; otherwise, there can
Page 17 of 32

2015)
be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form. As a qualifying circumstance of
the crime of rape, the concurrence of the victims minority and her relationship to
the accused-appellant must be both alleged and proven beyond reasonable doubt. People of the Philippines vs. Joselito A. Lopit, G.R. No. 177742, December
17, 2008
The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force,
threat, or intimidation against her will or without her consent; the exact time of its
commission is not an essential element to the crime. - People of the Philippines
vs. Jaime Cadag Jimenez, G.R. No. 170235, April 24, 2009
The mere touching by the male organ of the labia of the pudendum of the womans
private part is sufficient to consummate rape. - People of the Philippines vs.
Jessie Mariano, G.R. No. 168693, July 19, 2009
In cases of rape, the force and intimidation is viewed from the perspective of the
victim. There need not be physical force provided that the victim succumbed to the
act out of fear. Furthermore, the sweetheart theory as a defense does not carry any
weight when it is not accompanied by independent proof. - People of the
Philippines vs. Alberto Buban, G.R. No. 172710, October 30, 2009
The sweetheart defense, being an affirmative defense, must be established with
convincing evidenceby some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos,
love letters, notes, pictures and the like. In this case, there was no evidence offered
to prove that what transpired between accused and victim was consensual. People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Grande, G.R. No. 170476, December
23, 2009
It has consistently been held that no family member would expose a fellow family
member to the ignominy of a rape trial or to the shame and scandal of having to
undergo such an ordeal merely to satisfy their alleged motive if the charge is not
true. - People of the Philippines vs. Herminigildo Salle Sobusa, G.R. No.
181083, January 21, 2010
It is doctrinally settled that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the
credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be
disturbed on appeal. - People of the Philippines vs. Marlon Barsaga Abella,
G.R. No. 177295, January 6, 2010
No parent would expose his or her own daughter to the shame and scandal of
having undergone such debasing defilement of her chastity if the charges were not
true. - People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Bagos, G.R. No. 177152,
January 6, 2010
AAA was raped by Romeo but the latter denied such accusation. The court ruled
that In order that the defense of alibi may prosper, the appellant must prove both
the presence of the appellant in another place at the time of the commission of the
Page 18 of 32

2015)
offense and the physical impossibility of him being at the scene of the crime.
People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Republo, G.R. No. 172962 July 8, 2010
AAA a ten year old girl was raped by Nelson Balunsat who is her first cousin. Nelson
denied allegation. It is settled that when the victims testimony is corroborated by
the physicians finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the
existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge. Laceration, whether healed
or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. - People of the
Philippines vs. Nelson Balunsat y Balunsat, G.R. No. 176743, July 28, 2010
AAA was raped by Magayon but the latter denied such allegation. The court ruled
that a rape victim, who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and
frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness. Moreover, when the
offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, where the victim was
only nine years old at the time the rape was committed, courts are inclined to lend
credence to their version of what transpired, not only because of their relative
vulnerability, but also because of the shame and embarrassment to which they
would be exposed by court trial, if the matter about which they testified were not
true. - People of the Philippines vs. Teddy Magayon, G.R . No. 175595 July
28, 2010
A certification from the Local Civil Registrar as to the date of birth of a victim of rape
is sufficient evidence to prove minority of a victim. - People of the Philippines vs.
Edgardo Ogarte, G.R. No. 182690, May 30, 2011
Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under the instances
provided for in the law. With the intrinsic nature of the said crime, only two parties,
namely the victim and the accused, are usually involved. As such, accuseds
defense of denial will not stand as against the victims positive identification and
credible testimony. This is especially so when it is qualified by minority and
relationship and the victim has no improper motive in purporting the accused as the
perpetrator. Moreover, in rape committed by a father or a person recognized by the
victim as her father, the prosecution need not prove the elements of force and
intimidation as the same was substituted by the formers moral ascendancy and
influence over the latter. - People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Miranda y
Michael, G.R. No. 176634, April 5, 2010
The spontaneity with which the victim has detailed the incidents of rape, the tears
she has shed at the stand while recounting her experience, and her consistency
almost throughout her account dispel any insinuation of a rehearsed testimony. The
eloquent testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her
non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges. - People of
the Philippines vs. Benjamin Padilla y Untalan, G.R. No. 182917, June 8,
2011
The Court has repeatedly held that the date of the commission of rape is not an
essential element of the crime. It is not necessary to state the precise time when
the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense.
Page 19 of 32

2015)
In statutory rape, time is not an essential element. What is important is that the
information alleges that the victim was a minor under twelve years of age and that
the accused had carnal knowledge of her, even if the accused did not use force or
intimidation on her or deprived her of reason. - People of the Philippines vs.
Noel Dion, G.R. No. 181035, July 4, 2011
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at
some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was
vicinity. - People of the Philippines vs. Arnel Manjares, G.R. No. 185844,
November 23, 2011
The date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime of
rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman.
Inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of
the crime are not grounds for acquittal. - People of the Philippines vs. Henry
Arpon y Juntilla, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011
It has long been established that the testimony of a rape victim, especially a child of
tender years, is given full weight and credit. A rape victim who testifies in a
categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains
consistent, is a credible witness. Furthermore, this Court has repeatedly ruled that
matters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique
opportunity to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness'
deportment on the stand while testifying, an opportunity denied the appellate
courts which usually rely only on the cold pages of the mute records of the case. In
incestuous rape of a minor, it is not necessary that actual force and intimidation be
employed. The moral ascendancy of appellant over the victim, his daughter, renders
it unnecessary to show physical force and intimidation. - People of the
Philippines vs. Daniel Ortega, G.R. No. 186235, January 25, 2012
Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative
evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive
declaration of a credible witness. Between the positive assertions of the [victim] and
the negative averments of the [appellant], the former indisputably deserve more
credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight. - People of the
Philippines vs. Paterno Sarmiento Samandre, G.R. No. 181497, February
22, 2012
Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the
positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the
crimes attributed to him. - People of the Philippines vs. Melecio De Los
Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 186499, March 21, 2012
Although the rape of a person under 18 years of age by the common-law spouse of
the victim's mother is punishable by death, this penalty cannot be imposed on the
offender because his relationship was not what was alleged in the Informations.
Thus, the offender is guilty only of three counts of simple rape, punishable
Page 20 of 32

2015)
by reclusion perpetua for each count. - People of the Philippines vs. Roger
Tejero, G.R. No. 187744, June 20, 2012
Even if the alleged romantic relationship were true, this fact does not necessarily
negate rape for a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiance and worse,
employ violence upon her on the pretext of love because love is not a license for
lust. - People of the Philippines vs. Marcial Bayrante y Boaquina, G.R. No.
188978, June 13, 2012
The Court held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous
rape of a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient
to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires. The absence of violence or
offer of resistance would not affect the outcome of the case because the
overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over his daughter takes
the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape cases committed by an
accused who did not have blood relationship with the victim. - People of the
Philippines vs. Antonio Osma, Jr. y Agaton, G.R. No. 187734, August 29,
2012
Following a long line of jurisprudence, full penetration of the female genital organ is
not indispensable. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ
into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Any penetration of the female
organ by the male organ, however slight, is sufficient. Penetration of the penis by
entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is
enough to justify conviction for rape.
Furthermore, in establishing the age of the victim, bare testimony of the victims
mother or a member of the family would suffice only if the victim is alleged to be
below seven years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12
years old.
Finally, the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was
at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was
vicinity. Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance between
the place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed
when the crime transpired, but more importantly, the facility of access between the
two places. - People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Viojela y Asartin, G.R.
No. 177140, October 17, 2012
After a careful review of the records of this case, we are persuaded that appellant is
indeed guilty of qualified rape. In People v. Pruna, 390 SCRA 577 (2002), we
formulated a set of guidelines that will serve as a jurisprudential benchmark in
appreciating age either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance
in order to address the seemingly conflicting court decisions regarding the
sufficiency of evidence of the victims age in rape cases. The Pruna guidelines are
as follows: 1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original
or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. 2. In the absence of
Page 21 of 32

2015)
a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate
and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove
age. 3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been
lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of
the victims mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity
who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or
date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on
Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: a. If the victim is
alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is
less than 7 years old b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what
is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old c. If the victim is alleged
to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than
18 years old. 4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or
the testimony of the victims mother or relatives concerning the victims age, the
complainants testimony suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by
the accused. 5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the
offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence
regarding age shall not be taken against him. 6. The trial court should always make
a categorical finding as to the age of the victim. - People of the Philippines vs.
Edgar Padigos, G.R. No. 181202, December 5, 2012
To raise the crime of simple rape to qualified rape, the twin circumstances of
minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur. When a
father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral
ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.
The absence of violence or offer of resistance would not affect the outcome of the
case because the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father over
his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape
cases committed by an accused who did not have blood relationship with the victim.
- People of the Philippines vs. Anastacio Amistoso y Broca, G.R. No.
201447, January 9, 2013
Gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will
or without her consent. We also previously declared that when a victim is
threatened with bodily injury as when the rapist is armed with a deadly weapon,
such as a knife or bolo, such constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring the victim to
submission to the lustful desires of the rapist. Thus, appellants succeeding in
having non-consensual sexual intercourse with ABC through intimidation using a
knife plainly constitutes the crime of rape. Delay in reporting an incident of rape is
not an indication of a fabricated charge and does not necessarily cast doubt on the
credibility of the complainant Not all rape victims can be expected to act
conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. - People of the Philippines
vs. Antonio Basallo y Asprec, G.R. No. 182457, January 30, 2013
In dealing with cases for rape, this Court has often acknowledged that there is often
a want of witnesses. Due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft of
witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself. Thus, in
the resolution of rape cases, the victims credibility becomes the primordial
Page 22 of 32

2015)
consideration. . Inconsistencies in the victims testimony do not impair her
credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter
the essential fact of the commission of rape. The testimonies of child-victims of rape
are to be given full weight and credence. Reason and experience dictate that a girl
of tender years, who barely understands sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to
any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true. - People of the
Philippines vs. Jonathan "Uto" Veloso y Rama, G.R. No. 188849, February
13, 2013
When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim. The
elements of the crime charged against accused-appellant are: (a) the victim is a
female over 12 years but under 18 years of age; (b) the offender is a parent,
ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; and (c) the
offender has carnal knowledge of the victim either through force, threat, or
intimidation. - People of the Philippines vs. Edmundo Vitero, G.R. No.
175327, April 3, 2013
In rape committed by close kin, such as the victims father, stepfather, uncle, or the
commonlaw spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or
intimidation be employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence
and intimidation.
The sweetheart theory, as a defense, necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first
element of rape. - People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Deligero y Bacasmot,
G.R.
No.
189280,
April
17,
2013
Romeo Bustamante was accused of raping his minor daughter. There were no other
witnesses and the prosecution was not able to establish the element of force and
intimidation. In convicting the accused, the Supreme Court held that in a
prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the
testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things. The Court also ruled that the moral
ascendancy of an accused over the victim renders it unnecessary to show physical
force and intimidation since, in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victims
father, stepfather, uncle, or the commonlaw spouse of her mother, moral influence
or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. - People of the
Philippines vs. Romeo Bustamante y Aliganga, G.R. No. 189836, June 5,
2013
The Revised Penal Code, as amended, punishes the rape of a mentally disabled
person regardless of the perpetrators awareness of his victims mental condition.
However, the perpetrators knowledge of the victims mental disability, at the time
he committed the rape, qualifies the crime and makes it punishable by death under
Article 266B, paragraph 10. - People of the Philippines vs. Moises Caoile, G.R.
No. 203041, June 5, 2013
Page 23 of 32

2015)
Article 266A(1)(d) provides the definition of the crime of statutory rape, the
elements of which are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman and
(2) that such a woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. As a special
qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape, the concurrence of the victims
minority and her relationship to the accused must be both alleged and proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
Full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the
rupture of the hymen necessary, to conclude that carnal knowledge took place the
mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis that is capable of consummating
the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge.
A mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the
positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the
crimes attributed to him. - People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Pamintuan y
Sahagun, G.R. No. 192239, June 5, 2013
The only subject of inquiry on statutory rape is the age of the woman and whether
carnal knowledge took place. - People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Piosang,
G.R. No. 200329, June 5, 2013
Accused-appellant Abel Diaz was convicted of the crime of rape. His appeal boils
down to a question of credibility of the prosecutions primary witness, the private
complainant Mara. He argues that the failure of Mara to make an outcry during the
two hours he allegedly stayed in her room makes her testimony not credible. In
rejecting his contention the Supreme Court ruled that the precise duration of the
rape is not material to and does not negate the commission of the felony. When one
is being raped, forcibly held, weak and in great pain, and in shock, she cannot be
reasonably expected to keep a precise track of the passage of time down to the last
minute. - People of the Philippines vs. Abel Diaz, G.R. No. 200882, June 13,
2013
What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court
of the substance seized as evidence. With respect to illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of
knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a
satisfactory explanation of such possession. - People of the Philippines vs.
Mercidita T. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 188310, June 13, 2013
Inconsistencies in a rape victims testimony do not impair her credibility, especially
if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of
the commission of rape.
It is not uncommon for a rape victim to initially conceal the assault against her
person for several reasons, including that of fear of threats posed by her assailant.
A rape charge only becomes doubtful when the victims inaction or delay in
Page 24 of 32

2015)
reporting the crime is unreasonable or unexplained. - People of the Philippines
vs. Roman Zafra y Serrano, G.R. No. 197363, June 26, 2013
If the testimony of the rape victim is clear, consistent and credible to establish the
crime beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction may be based on it, notwithstanding
its subsequent retraction. Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not
necessarily vitiate her original testimony. Thus, an affidavit of retraction of the
father of the victim unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence cannot
prevail over the positive declaration made by the victim herself. - People of the
Philippines vs. Carlito Espenilla, G.R. No. 192253, September 18, 2013
Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the rape victim, who was a minor, does
not warrant a finding of exculpating reasonable doubt when it fails to establish
beyond doubt the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged since the
credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor
inconsistencies in her testimony. - People of the Philippines vs. Jade Cuaycong
y Remonquillo, G.R. No. 196051, October 2, 2013
When the rape victims testimony which identified the accused as the rapist is clear,
categorical, consistent and credible, the defense of alibi will crumble and the
accused shall be held liable. Thus, if the victim was able to identify the accused in
the police station as the rapist and during trial, he will be convicted for rape even if
the rapist covered his face with his clothes and despite the incident taking place in
the dark of night. - People of the Philippines vs. Michael Espera y Cuyacot,
G.R. No. 202868, October 2, 2013
It is jurisprudentially settled that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be
convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible,
convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.
Furthermore, it is likewise settled that the factual findings of the trial court,
especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great weight and
respect, if not conclusiveness, since the trial court was in the best position as the
original trier of the facts in whose direct presence and under whose keen
observation the witnesses rendered their respective versions of the events that
made up the occurrences constituting the ingredients of the offense charged. Thus,
the testimony of a rape victim who is 15-year old girl which recounted the ordeal
she experienced at the hands of her own father, if delivered in a straightforward and
convincing manner, is sufficient to convict the accused. - People of the
Philippines vs. Ricardo M. Vidaa, G.R. No. 199210, October 23, 2013
When a rape victim is paralyzed with fear, she cannot be expected to think and act
coherently. Her failure to take advantage of an opportunity to escape does not
automatically vitiate the credibility of her account. Rape victims, especially child
victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when
placed in such a situation. The fact that AAA was not able to escape when she had
the opportunity to do so, her continued visit to their home after the incident, and
her delay in filing the complaint does not at all contradict her credibility. - People of
the Philippines vs. Daniel Alcober, G.R. No. 192941, November 13, 2013
Page 25 of 32

2015)
In rape cases, the accused may be convicted based solely on the testimony of the
victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent
with human nature and the normal course of things. Rape victims are not expected
to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that
they might be trying to obliterate it from their memory, thus, a few inconsistent
remarks in rape cases will not necessarily impair the testimony of the offended
party. - People of the Philippines vs. Welmo. Linsie y Binevidez, G.R. No.
199494, November 27, 2013
In a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the
testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things. The very nature of the crime of rape,
conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the credibility of the
complainants testimony because of the fact that, usually, only the participants can
directly testify as to its occurrence.
Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is brought to bear on
the victim and the latter submits out of fear the failure to shout or offer tenuous
resistance does not make voluntary the victims submission to the criminal acts of
the accused.
A love affair does not justify rape for a man does not have the unbridled license to
subject his beloved to his carnal desires against her will. - People of the
Philippines vs. Dalton Laurian, Jr. y Pugsot, G.R. No. 199868, December 11,
2013
It is a well-established rule that testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims,
are given full weight and credit. When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she
has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was
committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. Courts usually give
greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially
a minor, particularly in cases of incestuous rape, because no woman would be
willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor
of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and to have
the offender apprehended and punished. - People of the Philippines vs. Lino
Paldo, G.R. No. 200515, December 11, 2013
It is jurisprudentially settled that when a woman says she has been raped, she says
in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony
alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict
the accused. Thus, in this jurisdiction, the fate of the accused in a rape case,
ultimately and oftentimes, hinges on the credibility of the victims testimony. In this
regard, the Court defers to the trial courts assessment of the credibility of victims
testimony, most especially, when it is affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Furthermore, it is not absurd nor contrary to human experience that the victim gave
birth ten (10) months after the alleged sexual assault as there may be cases of long
Page 26 of 32

2015)
gestations. - People of the Philippines vs. Mervin Gahi, G.R. No. 202976,
February 19, 2014
When through evidence, the accused is guilty of rape through sexual assault but
the information charged against him is rape through carnal knowledge, the
accused cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual assault even though it was proven
during trial. This is due to the material differences and substantial distinctions
between the two modes of rape; thus, the first mode is not necessarily included in
the second, and vice-versa. Consequently, to convict the accused of rape by sexual
assault when what he was charged with was rape through carnal knowledge, would
be to violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. However, the accused, on the said information, may be
convicted of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness. - People of the
Philippines vs. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz, G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014
When the accused asserts that the cover of darkness and lack of lighting inside the
"kamalig" where the crime took place, utterly diminished victims ability to identify
him or anyone for that matter, is downright erroneous. The victim never claimed to
have seen her attacker inside the "kamalig." What was testified was the fact that
the victim saw appellant Jastiva when he walked past her by the open door of the
"kamalig" and his face was finally illuminated by the moonlight. The Court have held
that wicklamps, flashlight, even moonlight and starlight may, in proper situations,
be sufficient illumination, making the attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on
this ground unmeritorious. Furthermore, in other cases the Court ruled, If
identification of persons is possible even by the light of stars, with more reason that
one could identify persons by moonlight. - People of the Philippines vs. Aurelio
Jastiva, G.R. No. 199268, February 12, 2014
Under Section 3(b), Article I of Republic Act No. 7610, the term "child abuse" is
defined as the maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, which includes the
physical abuse of a child, among other acts. In this case, AAA positively identified
the accused-appellant as the person who kicked her in the buttocks, hit her head
with a hammer, and smashed her head on the wall on. Because of the said brutal
and inhumane acts of the accused-appellant, AAA suffered bruises and contusions
in different parts of her body. Furthermore, the Court finds no cogent reason to
disbelieve AAAs testimony, which was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr.
Rivamonte and Dr. Arellano that the victims hymen had "complete healed
lacerations at 1, 3, 6, 9 oclock positions." Jurisprudence provides that the eloquent
testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her nonPage 27 of 32

2015)
virgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges of rape. - People
of the Philippines vs. Hermenigildo Delen y Esco Billa, G.R. No. 194446,
April 21, 2014
Impregnation of a woman is not an element of rape. - People of the

Philippines vs. Joel Abat y Cometa, G.R. No. 202704, April 2, 2014
Jurisprudence instructs that when the credibility of a witness is of primordial

consideration, as in this case, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the
testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as
well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not
conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to
observe the demeanor of a witness and was in the best position to discern whether
they were telling the truth. - People of the Philippines vs. Renato Dela Cruz,
G.R. No. 192820, June 4, 2014
Pregnancy is not an essential element of rape. Whether the child which the rape
victim bore was fathered by the accused, or by some unknown individual, is of no
moment. What is important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge
of the victim against the latter's will or without her consent, and such fact was
testified to by the victim in a truthful manner. Thus, when the victim, a 17-year old
girl who was the house helper of the sister of the accused, categorically and
consistently testified that the accused had carnal knowledge of her while pointing a
gun in her mouth, the courts will give credence to her testimony and convict the
accused regardless of the pregnancy of the victim.
Inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of
the crime are not grounds for acquittal. As long as the inaccuracies concern only
minor matters, the same do not affect the credibility of witnesses. Truth-telling
witnesses are not always expected to give error-free testimonies considering the
lapse of time and treachery of human memory. Inaccuracies may even suggest that
the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed.
Authorities in forensic medicine agree that the determination of the exact date of
fertilization is problematic. The exact date thereof is unknown; thus, the difficulty in
determining the actual normal duration of pregnancy. Pregnancy is not an essential
element of the crime of rape. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was
fathered by the accused, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is
important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim
against the latter's will or without her consent, and such fact was testified to by the
victim in a truthful manner. - People of the Philippines vs. Democrito Paras,
G.R. No. 192912, June 4, 2014
Page 28 of 32

2015)
To convict an accused for statutory rape, two elements must be proven: 1.) the
victim is a female under 12 years of age or is demented; and the offender has
carnal knowledge of the victim. Thus, where the prosecution was able to present a
7-year old girls credible, positive and categorical testimony relative to the
circumstances surrounding her rape; and the physical evidence consistent with
victims assertion that she was raped, the accused must be held guilty of statutory
rape. - People of the Philippines vs. Renato Besmonte, G.R. No. 196228,
June 4, 2014
The Court differentiated the terms "deprived of reason" and "demented," as follows,
the term demented refers to a person who has dementia, which is a condition of
deteriorated mentality, characterized by marked decline from the individual's
former intellectual level and often by emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. On
the other hand, the phrase deprived of reason under paragraph 1 (b) has been
interpreted to include those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency, or
retardation. Thus, AAA, who was clinically diagnosed to be a mental retardate, can
be properly classified as a person who is "deprived of reason," and not one who is
"demented." - People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Cataytay y Silvano,
G.R. No. 196315, October 22, 2014
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006
In determining the age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability under R.A.
9344, Section 6 thereof clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary
of ones birth date, and not the mental age of the accused. Thus, a person who is
eighteen years old at the time of the commission of the crime of rape is not exempt
from criminal liability despite having a mental age of nine years old. - People of
the Philippines vs. Milan Roxas y Aguiluz, G.R. No. 200793, June 4, 2014
KIDNAPPING
While one of the essential elements of this crime (Art 270 - Kidnapping and failure
to return a minor) is that the offender was entrusted with the custody of the minor,
what is actually being punished is not the kidnapping but the deliberate failure of
that person to restore the minor to his parents or guardians. - People of the
Philippines vs. Aida Marquez, G.R. No. 181440, April 13, 2011
ROBERRY
A truth-telling witness is not always expected to give an error-free testimony
considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory. What is
primordial is that the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing
of statements dilute neither the witnesses credibility nor the veracity of his
testimony. Variations on the testimony of witnesses on the same side with respect
to minor, collateral, or incidental matters do not impair the weight of their united
testimony to the prominent facts. Inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters only
serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses for they erase
the suspicion of rehearsed testimony.
Page 29 of 32

2015)
The deprivation required by Article 267 means not only the imprisonment of a
person, but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever
length of time. It involves a situation where the victim cannot go out of the place of
confinement or detention or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move. In other
words, the essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty,
coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such
deprivation. - People of the Philippines vs. Alberto M. Basao alias "Dodong,"
Jovel S. Apole, Melquiades L. Apole, Estrelita G. Apole, Rolando A. Apole
alias "Bebot," Vicente C. Salon, Jaime Tandan, Renato C. Apole alias
"Boboy," Rolando M. Ochivillo alias "Allan," Lorenzo L. Apole, John Doe,
Peter Doe and Mike Doe, Jovel S. Apole, Rolando A. Apole, and Renato C.
Apole, G.R. No. 189820, October 10, 2012
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit
robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The
intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may
take place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without
reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons
intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration.
There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or
simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery and
homicide, must be consummated.
It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or that the victim
of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are
killed or that aside from the homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of
authority, is committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. Likewise
immaterial is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the felony
would still be robbery with homicide. - People of the Philippines vs. Welvin Diu
y Kotsesa, and Dennis Dayaon y Tupit, G.R. No. 201449 , April 3, 2013
B.P. 22
The elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are: (1) making, drawing, and issuance of
any check to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge of the maker, drawer, or
issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3)
subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit, or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause,
ordered the bank to stop payment. - Liberata Ambito and Basilio Ambito vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 127327, February 13, 2009
ESTAFA
The receipt by the drawer of the notice of dishonor is not an element of the offense.
The presumption only dispenses with the presentation of evidence of deceit if such
notification is received and the drawer of the check failed to deposit the amount
Page 30 of 32

2015)
necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of the notice of
dishonor of the check.
The elements of Estafa by means of deceit, whether committed by false pretenses
or concealment, are the following (a) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent
act or fraudulent means; (b) That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of
the fraud; (c) That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money
or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (d)
That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. - Jude Joby Lopez
vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166810. June 26, 2008
It is elementary that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is
negative and self-serving evidence which has far less evidentiary value than the
testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. - People of the
Philippines vs. Virginia Baby P. Montaner, G.R. No. 184053, August 31,
2011
It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal
recruitment and Estafa. Rodericks contention that he cannot be convicted of estafa
because the element of deceit is lacking is without merit, as private complainants
were able to establish, through their positive and credible testimonies, that
appellant acted in conspiracy with his co-accused to mislead private complainants
into believing that appellant and his co-accused, for a fee, can deploy private
complainants abroad for employment. - People of the Philippines vs. Angelita I.
Daud, Hanelita M. Gallemit and Roderick Gallemit y Tolentino, G.R. No.
197539, June 2, 2014
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale three (3) elements must concur: (a)
the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to
lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender
undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement"
under Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Art. 34 of the same Code (now Sec. 6, RA 8042); and, (c) the
offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a
group.
There are three ways of committing estafa under the above-quoted provision: (1) by
using a fictitious name; (2) by falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; and (3)
by means of other similar deceits. Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit
is indispensable. - People of the Philippines vs. Grace Calimon and Aida
Comila, January 29, 2009, G.R. No. 175229
Page 31 of 32

2015)
The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of
the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the
criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. - People of the Philippines
vs. Dolores Ocden, G.R. No. 173198, June 1, 2011
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. Both elements
are present, Ochoas deceit was evident in her false representation to private
complainants that she possessed the capability to send said private complainants to
Taiwan/Saudi Arabia for employment. Clearly deceived by Ochoas words and
actions, private complainants were persuaded to hand over their money to Ochoa to
pay for their placement and medical fees. Sadly, private complainants were never
able to leave for work abroad, nor recover their money. People of the Philippines
vs. Rosario "Rose" Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792, August 31, 2011
It was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that Roderick himself received the
placement fees from complainants and issued receipts for the same, given the
finding of the existence of conspiracy among Roderick and his co-accused Hanelita
and Daud to convict Roderick of Illegal recruitment in large scale. Direct proof of
previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. It may be deduced from
the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the
acts of the accused which point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and
community of interest. And Between the categorical statements of the private
complainants, on the one hand, and the bare denial of appellant, on the other hand,
the former must perforce prevail. - People of the Philippines vs. Angelita I.
Daud, Hanelita M. Gallemit and Roderick Gallemit y Tolentino, G.R. No.
197539, June 2, 2014
LIBEL
Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to
injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior
and unjustifiable harm. Malice is present when it is shown that the author of the
libelous remarks made such remarks with knowledge that it was false or with
reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity thereof. - Isagani M. Yambot, Letty
Jimenez-Magsanoc, Jose Ma. D. Nolasco, Artemio T. Engracia, Jr. and Volt
Contreras vs. Hon. Artemio Tuquero in his capacity as Secretary of Justice,
and Escolastico U. Cruz, Jr., G.R. No. 169895, March 23, 2011
Page 32 of 32

De Castro-Criminal Law

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

De Castro-Criminal Law

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

G.R. No. 188132,

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Denial or frameup is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

the testimony of a girl who is a victim of

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Impregnation of a woman is not an element of rape. - People of the

Jurisprudence instructs that when the credibility of a witness is of primordial

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Law

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen