People vs Ong

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

overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of

evidence required.

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

conviction. Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the

prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Be that as it may, the mere
fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable
mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. And, while
jurisprudence has refined the enumerated duties of an apprehending officer
in a drug case and has thus described the equivalent requirements for a
proper chain of custody of the corpus delicti, still, the case at bar cannot
pass the constitutional requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Petitioners were acquitted.
People vs Reyes
GR No. 178300
March 17, 2009
Facts:
On 11 August 1999, an Information was filed before the RTC charging
appellants with the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with
homicide. During their arraignment, appellants, assisted by a counsel de
oficio, pleaded "Not guilty" to the charge. Trial on the merits thereafter
followed.
Appellant Arnaldo testified that he was an "asset" of the PAOCTF. He denied
having met with Atty. Uminga. He was not assisted by the latter when he
was forced by the PAOCTF to make a written extra-judicial confession on the
kidnapping of the Yao family. Further, he claimed that while he was under
the custody of PAOCTF, a certain Major Paulino utilized him as a drug
pusher. Upon failing to remit the proceeds of the drug sale, he was beaten
up by PAOCTF agents and thereafter included as accused with appellants
Reyes and Flores for the kidnapping of the Yao family.
Subsequently, appellant Reyes was arrested . On 10 August 1999, agents of
the PAOCTF arrested appellant Flores. Afterwards, appellant Flores, with the
assistance of Atty. Rous, executed a written extra-judicial confession
detailing his participation in the incident.
The RTC convicted the 3 accused and sentenced each to suffer the penalty
of death. The Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming with
modifications the RTC Decision.
Issue:

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.

Consequently, petitioner Villareal died on 13 March 2011 and filed a Notice

of Death of Party on 10 August 2011.
Issue:
WON accused-petitioner Dizon was deprived of due process of law when the
trial court forfeited his right to present evidence
Held:
The trial court should not have deemed the failure of petitioner to present
evidence on 25 August 1993 as a waiver of his right to present evidence. On
the contrary, it should have considered the excuse of counsel justified,
especially since counsel for another accused General had made a lastminute adoption of testimonial evidence that freed up the succeeding trial
dates; and since Dizon was not scheduled to testify until two weeks later. At
any rate, the trial court pre-assigned five hearing dates for the reception of
evidence. If it really wanted to impose its Order strictly, the most it could
have done was to forfeit one out of the five days set for Dizons testimonial
evidence. Stripping the accused of all his pre-assigned trial dates
constitutes a patent denial of the constitutionally guaranteed right to due
process.
Nevertheless, as in the case of an improvident guilty plea, an invalid waiver
of the right to present evidence and be heard does not per se work to
vacate a finding of guilt in the criminal case or to enforce an automatic
remand of the case to the trial court.
People vs Gumimba
GR No 174056
February 27, 2007
Facts:
Rogelio Gumimba and Ronie Abapo were charged with the crime of rape
with homicide of an 8-year old child. On 10 March 1999, the RTC
promulgated its Decision. On the basis of appellant's plea of guilty, the RTC
found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime as charged.
Appellant was sentenced to suffer the death penalty and ordered to
indemnify the heirs of the victim. Except for the lone testimony of appellant,
the RTC held that no other evidence was adduced to prove the participation
of Abapo. Moreover, the court a quo found that appellant's testimony

implicating Abapo was not worthy of credence coming as it did from a

polluted source.
Issue:
WON THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
ON THE BASIS OF HIS IMPROVIDENT PLEA OF GUILTY
Held:
Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if such
plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient
and credible evidence to convict the accused, the conviction must be
sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the
accused but on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.
Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, only the fact that
such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is
immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply. The statements are admissible
as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary
but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.
The decision of the CA is affirmed with modifications.
Re Complaint Against Justice Elvi John Asuncion of the CA
AM No 06-6-8-CA
March 20, 2007
Facts:
Before Us are two (2) administrative cases against Justice Elvi John S.
Asuncion of the Court of Appeals [CA]. The first stems from an unsigned
letter dated February 17, 2006, addressed to Chief Justice Artemio V.
Panganiban, complaining that Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion has been sitting
on motions for reconsideration for six months to more than a year unless
the parties come across. The second administrative case is based on a
verified complaint dated August 22, 2006 filed by Atty. Roberto C. Padilla
with the Office of the Court Administrator, charging Justice Elvi John S.
Asuncion with culpable dereliction of duty, malicious delay in the
administration of justice and gross ignorance of the law in connection with
CA-G.R. SP No. 60573, entitled Philippine National Bank v. NLRC and
Erlinda Archinas.

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:

In his affidavit-complaint, the complainant averred that, on October 21,

2001, he filed an ejectment case in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)
of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental. Respondent judge
presided over that court.
On May 21, 2003, respondent judge finally rendered a decision dismissing
the ejectment case for lack of cause of action.
The complainant filed a notice of appeal which the MCTC granted. On followup, however, he was informed that the records had not yet been
transmitted to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). He also discovered that the
MCTC's clerk of court, respondent John O. Negroprado, failed to attach his
position paper to the cases records and to issue a certificate on the
completeness of said records. The complaint was amended to include
Negroprado for undue delay in transmitting the complete records of the
case to the RTC and for not issuing the certificate.
Issue:
WON respondent Judge should be held administratively liable for undue
delay in rendering a decision and gross inefficiency
Held:
The Constitution mandates that all cases or matters filed before all lower
courts shall be decided or resolved within 90 days from the time the case is
submitted for decision. Judges are enjoined to dispose of the courts
business promptly and expeditiously and decide cases within the period
fixed by law. Failure to comply within the mandated period constitutes a
serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy
disposition of their cases. It also undermines the peoples faith and
confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute.
Decision making, among other duties, is the most important duty of a
member of the bench.
Under Rule 140, Section 9 (1), as amended by Administrative Matter No. 018-10-SC, respondent judges undue delay in rendering a decision is
classified as a less serious offense. WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Manuel
Q. Limsiaco, Jr. is hereby found GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a
decision.