Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
GR No 175940
February 6, 2008
Facts:
Sometime in April 1997, Col. Zoila Lachica (Lachica) was tipped off by a
female walk-in informant that a group, led by a Chinese national, was
engaged in drug trafficking in Pasay City. Upon verification of said
information, a meeting took place between Lachica and the informant where
the latter was able to arrange a drug deal with appellant in the vicinity of
Heritage Hotel. Appellant was apprehended. While on the run, Lagradilla
saw the man throw the money inside a passing white Toyota car driven by a
certain Chito Cua (Cua). Instead of pursuing the man, Lagradilla blocked the
white Toyota car and arrested Cua.
Finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible as against the
bare and self-serving assertions of appellant, the trial court rendered a
decision finding appellant guilty as charged.
In finding appellant guilty, the appellate court strongly relied on the
testimonies of the police officers and dismissed the imputed inconsistencies
in their statements as being minor.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the guilt of appellant
Held:
For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following
elements must be proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction actually
took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus
delicti.
The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. While appellants
defense engenders suspicion that he probably perpetrated the crime
charged, it is not sufficient for a conviction that the evidence establishe a
strong suspicion or probability of guilt. It is the burden of the prosecution to
Zafra vs People
GR No 190749
April 25, 2012
Facts:
Zafra and Marcelino were charged with Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The
prosecutions lone witness, SPO4 Apolinario Mendoza (SPO4 Mendoza),
testified that on 12 January 2003, at around 4:30 in the afternoon, he
conducted surveillance in front of a sari-sari store at the corner of Miraflor
Subdivision and P. Castro Street in Balagtas, Bulacan, due to reported drug
trafficking in the area. SPO4 Mendoza found there the group of Zafra,
Marcelino, and a certain Marlon Daluz (Daluz) standing and facing each
other. In that position, he saw Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu, while
Daluz was holding an aluminum foil and a disposable lighter. Seeing this
illegal activity, SPO4 Mendoza single-handedly apprehended them.
On the following day, 13 June 2003, SPO4 Mendoza brought the accused
and the items to the crime laboratory for urine sampling and laboratory
examination, respectively. The test of the items resulted to positive
presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
The RTC, Branch 76, Malolos, Bulacan, in a decision dated 11 June 2008,
convicted Zafra and Marcelino for the crime of possession of shabu.
Issue:
WON the prosecution failed to prove petitioners guilt beyond reasonable
doubt
Held:
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the
elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be established with
moral certainty. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti
of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of
WON the RTC erred in giving weight and credence to the extra-judicial
confessions of Arnaldo and Flores
Held:
An extra-judicial confession is a declaration made voluntarily and without
compulsion or inducement by a person under custodial investigation, stating
or acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the commission
of a crime. The right of an accused to be informed of the right to remain
silent and to counsel contemplates the transmission of meaningful
information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an
abstract constitutional principle. Such right contemplates effective
communication which results in the subject understanding what is
conveyed.
In the case at bar, appellants Arnaldo and Flores failed to discharge their
burden of proving that they were forced or coerced to make their respective
confessions. Other than their self-serving statements that they were
maltreated by the PAOCTF officers/agents, they did not present any
plausible proof to substantiate their claims.
Villareal vs People
GR No 151258
February 1, 2012
Facts:
Seven Freshmen Law students of Ateneo de Manila University School of Law
have been initiated by the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity on February 1991.
The initiation rites started when the neophytes were met by some members
of the mentioned fraternity at the lobby of the Ateneo Law School.
Fraternity members subjected neophytes to paddling and additional hours of
physical pain. After the last session of beatings, Lenny Villa could not walk.
Later that night, he was feeling cold and his condition worsened. He was
brought to the hospital but was declared dead on arrival.
Criminal case was filed against 26 fraternity members and was
subsequently found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
homicide and penalized with reclusion perpetua.
On January 10 2002, CA modified the criminal liability of each of the
accused according to individual participation.
Accused Villareal petitioned for review on Certriori under Rue 45 on the
grounds that the CA made 2 reversible errors: first, denial of due process
and second, conviction absent proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Investigating Justice found that The master lists of cases submitted by
the Clerk of Court, CA, en banc, disclose that, as of September 30, 2006,
there were seventy one motions for reconsideration still pending
resolution; further, there were one hundred seventy nine motions for
reconsideration which were resolved beyond the ninety-day period. Further,
there were four hundred nine cases which had been decided beyond the
twelve month period prescribed in the 1987 Constitution.
Issue:
WON respondent Justice failed to discharge the basic duty of a justice with
diligence and efficiency
Held:
In the case of respondent Justice Asuncion, the prolonged delay in deciding
or resolving such a staggering number of cases/matters assigned to him,
borders on serious misconduct which could subject the respondent to the
maximum administrative sanction.
The Investigating Justice recommends the maximum penalty for each of the
two offenses.
WHEREFORE, for having incurred undue delay in the disposal of pending
motions for reconsideration in several cases, as recommended by the
Investigating Justice, Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion of the Court of
Appeals is SUSPENDED from office without pay, allowances and other
monetary benefits for a period of THREE MONTHS.
For gross ignorance of the law and manifest undue interest, Associate
Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion of the Court of Appeals is hereby ordered
DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of retirement benefits,
except leave credits.
Salvador vs Limsiaco
AM No. MTJ-08-1695
April 16, 2008
Facts: