People of the Philippines vs.

Alejandro Atop
G.R. 124303-05; Feb. 10, 1998

FACTS:
The accused is the common law husband of the victims grandmother (Like WTF). Sometime in 1991,
Regina Guafin (10) told her grandmother that his grandfather, Alejandro Atop (37), inserted his finger
into her vagina. Aside from not believing her, Trinidad (the grandmother) told her it was just a
manifestation of fatherly concern (I cant even.). Oct. 9, 1992 [1st rape]: As Regina (then 12 y/o) was
approaching Atop, he suddenly rushed towards her, removed her panty and inserted his male organ into
her vagina (well that escalated quickly). Aside from gagging her, he was also carrying he knife so she
couldnt do anything. This happened again sometime in 1993 [2nd rape] and on Dec. 26, 1994 [3rd
rape]. Every time, she told her grandmother but Trinidad wouldnt believe her. Dec. 31, 1994 [4th rape]:
She was molested in the presence of her aunt and Atops two nieces. Regina and the two nieces kicked
him so he stopped. January 1995: She was at her other grandfathers house when the accused came and
tried to force her to go home. He kept on pulling her until they reached a waiting shed where the
accused smashed her to the concrete wall. This explained all the bruises and abrasions in her body upon
medical examination. She only reported such incidents in January 1995 because she was afraid Atop will
kill her. She did not exactly tell the truth (in her sworn statement, she only said that a finger was
inserted) at first because Atop was still not apprehended (he was hiding). When finally he was arrested,
she requested the fiscal to re-investigate and then told them what was really done to her. He was found
guilty of 3 counts of rape and was sentenced to 2 terms of reclusion perpetua and death. In the other
rape incident (Dec. 31, 1994), he was found not guilty for insufficiency of evidence.

ISSUES/HELD/RATIO:
WON the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity is present: NO.
No evidence that the accused intentionally sought the darkness to do his dastardly acts.
WON relationship is present as an aggravating circumstance: NO.
There is no blood relationship or legal bond that links the two.
Scope of relationship:
Spouse
Ascendant
Descendant
Legitimate, natural or adopted sibling
Relative by affinity in the same degree (in-laws)
Since he is only a common-law husband, Court said nope.
WON the death penalty is rightfully applied: NO.
For rape, it can only be given if the victim is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent.
And since in this, Atop was the common law spouse of the grandmother, still nope.
SCs excuse: penal laws are construed in favor of the accused
(Because Atop was appealing that the RTC was wrong in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt)
WON he is: YES.
Recognized rule: testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature are each worthy of
full credence. In this case, she was 15 y/o.
[And I quote] It is unthinkable that complainant, a young lady of fifteen years, would allow her
private parts to be examined and would withstand the rigors of a public trial -- along with the shame,
humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own mortifying defilement -- if she was not in fact ravished.
 They said her tears and testimonies conveyed the hurt, the pain and the anguish she has
suffered and lived with during all the years.

People of the Philippines vs Casio

G.R. No. 211465 December 3, 2014

Facts: On May 2, 2008, International Justice Mission (IJM), a nongovernmental organization, coordinated
with the police in order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City. Chief PSI George
Ylanan, SPO1 Felomino Mendaros, SPO1 Fe Altubar, PO1 Albert Luardo, and PO1 Roy Carlo Veloso
composed the team of police operatives, Luardo and Veloso were designated as decoys, pretending to
be tour guides looking for girls to entertain their guests. IJM provided them with marked money, which
was recorded in the police blotter. The team went to Queensland Motel and rented adjacent Rooms 24
and 25. Room 24 was designated for the transaction while Room 25 was for the rest of the police team.
PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu Citys red
light district where the accused noticed them and called their attention. Negotiation occured and upon
the signal, the accused was arrested and the two minors were taken into custody by the DSWD officials.

Issue: Whether or not accused is liable for trafficking of persons.

Held: Yes. Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking in persons have been expanded to
include the following acts:

(1) The act of recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining,
harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victims consent or knowledge, within or across
national borders;

(2) The means used include by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction,
fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or,
the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over
another person

(3) The purpose of trafficking includes the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of
sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs

The Court of Appeals found that AAA and BBB were recruited by accused when their services were
peddled to the police who acted as decoys. AAA was a child at the time that accused peddled her
services.66 to work as a prostitute because she needed money. AAA also stated that she agreed Accused
took advantage of AAAs vulnerability as a child and as one who need money, as proven by the
testimonies of the witnesses.

Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under Republic Act No. 9208.

The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of
exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes
shall also be considered as trafficking in persons even if it does not involve any of the means set forth
in the preceding paragraph.
Accused is further guilty of qualified trafficking. SEC. 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. The following
are considered as qualified trafficking:

When the trafficked person is a child;

When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the Inter-Country
Adoption Act of 1995 and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation,forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a
syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group;
When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who exercise authority over
the trafficked person or when the offense is committed by a public officer or employee;
When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the military or law
enforcement agencies;
When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and
When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party dies, becomes
insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunod eficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

PEOPLE VS. SULPICIO DELA CERNA

21 SCRA 569 (1967) G.R. No. L-20911 October 30, 1967

FACTS: Early in the morning of February 3, 1958, Rafael Cabizares, accompanied by his wife, Hospicia, his
brothers Margarito and Romualdo, and his sons Gumercindo, Marcelo, Casiano, Juan and Lamberto, left
Barrio Cebuano headed for the poblacion of Tupi, Cotabato, bringing five sacks of corn loaded on a bull
cart to be milled in Tupi, Juan, Marcelo and Lamberto, who were all minors, were then going to school.
Upon approaching a hilly part, they had to stop since the carabao could not pull the bull cart uphill.
Rafael then requested his two brothers and his son Gumercindo to accompany him up the hill and carry
on their backs the sacks of corn. With Rafael leading, the four proceeded uphill.
As the four approached Sulpicio de la Cerna's house oiltop of the hill and were about to put down the
sacks of corn, appellant Sulpicio, who was in the house, fired at and hit Rafael, who fell down. Sulpicio
then ordered his companions to burn his house so that they would have an excuse. Meanwhile, Casiano,
Gumercindo, Marcelo and Romualdo brought the wounded Rafael Cabizares to the house of the latter's
father, Demetrio, 100 meters away. Felisa Bastismo, Rafael's mother, Ursula Cabizares and Segundino
Cabizares were there at the time.
After the group reached the house, Rafael's wounds were washed with hot water and then he was
brought inside the third room of the house. Subsequently, appellant Sulpicio and the other accused
arrived at the premises, armed with firearms, bolos and canes. They stoned the house and thrust their
bolos thru the bamboo walls and flooring. Finding that there were women inside the house, the accused
ordered them to get out or else they would be killed also. As Felisa Bastismo and Ursula Cabizares
alighted from the besieged house, Marcelo Cabizares followed them, and although held by accused
Conrado Pardillo and boxed by Serapio Maquiling, he was able to escape to the nearby forest.
Serapio Maquiling then climbed up the window of the kitchen, and with the carbine which he got from
appellant Sulpicio de la Cerna, shot at Rafael Cabizares who was sitting in the third room. At this
moment, Casiano Cabizares jumped down from the house thru the kitchen door and ran away. Serapio
Maquiling followed him and shot the latter at the back, killing him a few meters away from Demetrio's
house. Appellant Sulpicio de la Cerna then got back the carbine, climbed up the house and fired once
more at Rafael, who was now lying down on the floor, killing him finally. Thereafter, the cadaver of
Casiano Cabizares was tied to a bamboo pole, carried by accused Ramon Alquizar and one Wilfredo
Malias (at large) and placed near the burned house of Sulpicio de la Cerna, as some of the accused
followed while the rest proceeded to Rafael's house.
ISSUE: Whether the five appellants are all guilty as principals?
Held: The five appellants guilty as co-principals in the murder of Rafael Cabizares.
The positive identification of the several prosecution witnesses must prevail over the alibis proffered by
these appellants. Their presence and active participation in the meeting in Abapo's house make them
actual conspirators in the killing of Rafael. They were also present and zealously participating in the
execution of their criminal design, giving a carbine magazine and instructionns to appellant Rotor,
threatening Rafael and giving encouragement to Sulpicio to shoot at the latter. They were among those
who laid siege to Demetrio's house and left together with the others after finally accomplishing their
criminal deeds as agreed upon. Appellants Bautista and Matchoca, are therefore also liable as co-
principals in Rafael's murder. Regarding motive, it was proved that both were among those involved in
the land conflict with Rafael Cabizares and were among the respondents in the case before the Agrarian
Court . The aggravating circumstance of treachery, applicable against appellant Sulpicio de la Cerna only,
is offset by his voluntary surrender after the incident. This mitigating circumstance however cannot
benefit the remaining appellant who did not voluntary surrender. For all the appellants, therefore, the
penalty for Rafael Cabizares' murder must be imposed in the medium period. For the killing of Casiano
Cabizares appellant Sulpicio de la Cerna must be acquitted.

AMBAGAN vs. PEOPLE

FACTS:
On April 6, 2005, two (2) Informations were filed charging petitioner Ambagan, together with Domingo
H. Villasis, Michael T. Malabanan, Celestino "Ely" B. Garcia, Alberto C. Angcanan, Juanito S. Loyola,
Melanio S. Bayot, Rosendo V. Causaren, Flor R. Amparo, Reo A. Rojales, and Roger V. Causaren, for two
(2) counts of homicide.

Patam went near Mayor Ambagan and greeted him. The Mayor greeted him back, and asked who was at
the other side. Patam told him that it was Reynaldo Santos, a policeman. Mayor Ambagan then told
Santos, "Rey, baka pwede namang pag-usapan nalin yan kung amiman yang problema." Santos replied,
"Mayor, wala na hong desisyon akong magagawa dito. Intayin niyo si GD. Siya na lang ang kakausapin
ninyo." Repeatedly, the Mayor made the same request to Santos, but Santos gave him the same answer.
Patam felt that the situation was heating up, so he asked Mayor Ambagan to go to the house of Patam's
cousin, Miling Javier.

While Patam was pushing Mayor Ambagan, who was angry and cursing Santos, to Javier's house, Patam
heard the first gunshot emanating from where he and the Mayor were, but did not see anything when
he looked back. The Mayor wanted to go back to see what happened to his men. Patam also wanted to
go back to his companions, so he left the Mayor with Alberto Angcanan and Rosendo Causaren.
However, Patam's gun fell, thus, he instead proceeded to the house of his brother near the place of the
incident. While he was already near his brother's house. Patam saw three men with long firearms - two
at the back of his car and the other one in front of the MB 100 van. all firing towards the south direction
where he left Rey. Upon reaching the house of his brother, he asked his niece Susan Patam to call the
police. Patam was not able to get out of his brother's house anymore, because he was prevented by his
mother and brother, as he might be suspected of being responsible for the killing. Patam called the chief
of Police of General Trias. Cavite, Chief Inspector Portento, to fetch him because his life was in danger.
On July 5, 2004, he executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay and Karagdagang Salaysay.

When Mayor Ambagan arrived at the place of the incident, he approached Santos and requested the
latter that they just settle whatever the problem was. But Santos replied that the Mayor should just wait
for GD. While Santos and Mayor Ambagan were talking, Rene Amparo went near Santos. Mayor
Ambagan repeatedly made the same request, but Santos stood pat and rejected the Mayor's requests.
Mayor Ambagan then got angry and said: "Sige, yan pala ang gusto mo. Mga kasama banatan na ninyo
iyan." Thereupon, the first gunshot was fired, followed by successive gunshots from the men of Mayor
Ambagan, namely, Michael Malabanan, Ely Garcia, and Roger Causaren. The shooting incident which
lasted for about five minutes left five men dead - Leandro, Rene, Jamon, Santos, and Domingo. The first,
three were from the group of Mayor Ambagan.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED ALBERT G. AMBAGAN, JR. CAN BE HELD AS PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
FOR THE CRIME CHARGED.

HELD:
Yes. There is reasonable doubt to hold petitioner Ambagan criminally liable as principal by inducement.
It may be recalled, in the case at bar, that petitioner was charged for two (2) counts of homicide for the
deaths of Santos and Domingo Bawalan. Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code defines the offense
charged as follows:
ART. 249. Homicide. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another
without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be
guilty ol homicide and shall be punished by reclusion temporal.
In relation thereto, the Court, in Villanueva v. Caparas, held that the following elements must be proven
to sustain a conviction for homicide: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him without any
justifying circumstance; (3) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) the killing
was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or
infanticide.[50]

The Sandiganbayan is correct in its observation that the Court need not belabor on the elements of the
offense since it is not disputed that Santos and Domingo Bawalan were killed during the July 5, 2004
shooting incident, and that the killing was not attended by any of the circumstances that would qualify
the offense to murder, parricide, or infanticide.[51] Verily, what is left to be determined is the extent of
petitioner's participation in the adverted shooting incident, if any. Here, the Sandiganbayan adjudged
petitioner guilty for two counts of homicide as principal by inducement for allegedly uttering "Sige, yan
pala ang gusto mo. Mga kasama banatan na ninyo yan" which impelled petitioner's bodyguards to open
fire at the victims.

The conviction of a person as a principal by inducement requires (1) that the inducement be made with
the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and (2) that such inducement be the
determining cause of the commission by the material executor.[52] As applied, the Sandiganbayan
would have been correct in holding petitioner criminally liable if he indeed made the utterance
immediately before the shooting incident. However, this Court is not inclined to believe that petitioner
indeed made the declaration that started the fray. The court a quo failed to take note of substantial
inconsistencies in the testimonies of star prosecution witnesses Patam and Ronnel Bawalan. These
contradictions refer not only to minor details but even to the facts constituting important aspects of the
case, seriously eroding the weight of the evidence of the prosecution, and casting reasonable doubt on
the culpability of petitioner Ambagan.

a. Only Ronnel Bawalan allegedly heard petitioner made the utterance

It is a cardinal principle in criminal law that the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.[53] It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side
with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion, with
moral certainty.[54] If the prosecution fails to discharge its heavy burden, then it is not only the right of
the accused to be freed, it becomes the Court's constitutional duty to acquit him.[55]

Noteworthy in the present controversy is that out of the eighteen (18) prosecution witnesses presented
to satisfy the quantum of evidence required, only Ronnel Bawalan testified that petitioner uttered "Sige,
yan pala ang gusto mo. Mga kasama banatan na ninyo yan" just before the shooting. As per the
testimony of Ronnel Bawalan.

LEONILA G. SANTIAGO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015

FACTS:
The prosecution adduced evidence that Santos, who had been married to Estela Galang, asked
petitioner to marry him. Petitioner, who was a 43-year-old widow then, married Santos. Four months
after the solemnization of their marriage, Leonila G. Santiago and Nicanor F. Santos faced an
Information for bigamy. Petitioner pleaded "not guilty," while her putative husband escaped the
criminal suit.

Petitioner asserted that she could not be included as an accused in the crime of bigamy, because she
had been under the belief that Santos was still single when they got married. She also averred that for
there to be a conviction for bigamy, his second marriage to her should be proven valid by the
prosecution; but in this case, she argued that their marriage was void due to the lack of a marriage
license.

Eleven years after the inception of this criminal case, the first wife, Estela Galang, testified for the
prosecution. She alleged that she had met petitioner on which occasions the former introduced herself
as the legal wife of Santos. Petitioner denied this allegation and averred that she met Galang only or
after she had already married Santos.

The RTC appreciated the undisputed fact that petitioner married Santos during the subsistence of his
marriage to Galang. Petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied. On appeal, the CA gave
more weight to the prosecution witnesses' narration.

ISSUE:
Is the second marriage of Santiago valid, for there to be a conviction for bigamy?

HELD:
YES. It is clear that the marriage between petitioner and Santos took place without a marriage license.
The absence of this requirement is purportedly explained in their Certificate of Marriage, which reveals
that their union was celebrated under Article 34 of the Family Code, which provides an exemption from
the requirement of a marriage license if the parties have actually lived together as husband and wife for
at least five years prior to the celebration of their marriage.

Santiago and Santos, however, reflected the exact opposite of this fact. Although the records do not
show that they submitted an affidavit of cohabitation as required by Article 34 of the Family Code, it
appears that the two of them lied before the solemnizing officer and misrepresented that they had
actually cohabited for at least five years before they married each other.

The Certificate of Marriage, signed by Santos and Santiago, contained the misrepresentation
perpetrated by them that they were eligible to contract marriage without a license. Petitioner now
seeks to be acquitted of bigamy based on her illegal actions of (1) marrying Santos without a marriage
license despite knowing that they had not satisfied the cohabitation requirement under the law; and (2)
falsely making claims in no less than her marriage contract.

In violation of our law against illegal marriages, petitioner married Santos while knowing full well that
they had not yet complied with the five-year cohabitation requirement under Article 34 of the Family
Code. It will be the height of absurdity for this Court to allow petitioner to use her illegal act to escape
criminal conviction.

No less than the present Constitution provides that "marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State." It must be safeguarded from the whims
and caprices of the contracting parties. In keeping therefore with this fundamental policy, this Court
affirms the conviction of petitioner for bigamy.

RA 9372 (Human Security Act)

The Human Security Act of 2007 (RA 9372) is a Philippine law that took effect on February 8, 2007.[1]
This law is one of the most primary anti-terrorism law that brings the Philippines in line with its
Southeast Asian neighbors battling Islamist militants. It is aimed at tackling militants in the southern
Philippines.[2]

The law defines terrorism a crime by describing, "causes widespread and extraordinary fear and panic
among the populace" and allows authorities to arrest terror suspects without warrants and temporarily
detain them without charges.[3] Under the law, detained terrorists are entitled to see a lawyer, a priest,
a doctor, or family members.

The Anti-Terror Bill was first filed in congress by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile in 1996.[4]

The final version was crafted with amendments by Senators Manny Villar and Aquilino Pimentel, Jr..[4]
These revisions introduced several amendments and safeguards that have caused the law to be called
"toothless" and "watered down".[2] It was ratified by the Senate on February 8, then approved by the
House of Representatives during a special session two weeks later on February 19, 2007.[2][5] It was
later signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on March 6.[5] It took effect on July 15,
2007.
The Philippines had long been urged by the United States and other Western countries to bring in
stricter anti-terror legislation, citing the presence of al Qaeda-linked extremists who have been blamed
for bombings, beheadings, and kidnappings.

Summarized Analysis

1. The State recognizes that the fight against terrorism requires a comprehensive approach, comprising
political, economic, diplomatic, military, and legal means duly taking into account the root causes of
terrorism without acknowledging these as justification for terrorist and/or criminal activities. Such
measures shall include conflict management and post-conflict peace-building, addressing the roots of
conflict by building state capacity and promoting equitable economic development.[6] This statement
elucidates that the Philippines government has realized that a strict military approach cannot be
adequate solution when dealing with terrorist groups. In this sense, the Philippines government has
decided to adopt a broader and more comprehensive approach rather than only applicating a military
approach.

2. Terrorism is the premeditated or threatened use of violence or force or any other means that
deliberately cause harm to persons, or of force and other destructive means against property or the
environment, with the intention of creating or sowing a state of danger, panic, fear, or chaos to the
general public or segment thereof, or of coercing or intimidating the government to do or refrain from
doing an act. [7] The law provides for a clearer definition of terrorism allowing police and security
services a better understanding of the crimes at stake.[8] This statement can act as a potential deterrent
to future terrorists as they will know that it is no longer possible to commit an attack and escape
without being charged.

3. Arrest and Detention. Any peace office or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person:
(a)when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or attempting
to commit any of the offense under this Act; or (b)when any of said offense has in fact been committed
and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the same. Any
person arrested under this Section may be detained for a period of not more than three(3)days
following his arrest for custodial investigation. [9] In previous laws related to anti-terrorism, there were
many loopholes that prevented terrorists suspects from being detained.[10] However, this bill clarifies
to Philippines Law Enforcement Agencies to arrest suspected terrorists without warrant and bestows the
authority to detain suspects for 3 days.

**get crimes on PPT