People of the Philippines vs. Ronillo Lopez jr.

y Mantalaba
Gr no. 232247 April 23, 2018

FACTS: Ronillo was charged with the crime of parricide for stabbing his own father which caused
the latter’s death. Ronillo admitted that he stabbed his father but maintained that he merely acted
in self-defense. He alleged that after a drinking session with his father, cousins and uncles in his
uncle’s house, he went home ahead in a drunken state and slept. He then woke up to the beatings
inflicted upon him by his father who was saying “bakit ka nagsusumbong!”. He answered back
saying that he knows nothing of the accusations by his father. His father then took a hard object
and struck it to his son’s head. The accused, overcome with his passion and his judgement
obfuscated by the blows done by his father, struck back with a knife, stabbing his father.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ronillo is guilty of the crime of parricide?

HELD: Yes. Ronillo’s plea of self-defense was belied by the physical evidence in the case at bench
tending to show that his father did not commit unlawful aggression against accused. Had his father
mauled and attacked ronillo, the latter would have sustained some injuries. It remains however that
no injury of any kind was found on Ronillo when he was brought to the city health center. In
contrast, the father suffered multiple such as hematoma and that the cause of the death was a single
stab wound on the victim’s chest because it pierced the left lung and heart. With appellant’s failure
to prove self-defense, the conclusion is that he is guilty of parricide. Parricide is committed when:
(1) A person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused and (3) the deceased is the father,
mother or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate or a legitimate other ascendants or descendants,
or the legitimate spouse of the accused. All these elements were duly proven by the prosecution.
The relationship between appellant and the victim was proven by the former’s birth certificate and
marriage certificate of his parents.

Manuel M. Venezuela vs. People of the Philippines GR no. 205693 Feb 14, 2018

FACTS: Venezuala was accused of the crime of Malversation or public funds after team of auditors
composed of ruiz, llarenas and austria conducted an investigation on the cash and accounts of
Pacita Costes (Costes), then Municipal treasurer of pozorrubio, pangasaninan. the audit team
discovered a shortage of Php 2, 872, 808.00 on the joint accounts of Costes and Venezuela.
Likewise, it noticed 17 illegal cash advances made by Venezuela. Moreover, the audit team found
out that Venezuela was neither bonded nor authorized to receive cash advances. In response,
Venezuela acknowledged his accountability for the cash advances amounting to Php 943, 200.00
while denying the remainder of the cash advances. The sandiganbayan convicted Venezuela of the
crime of malversation of public funds and issued a warrant of arrest for apprehension of Venezuela.
Venezuela voluntarily surrendered and posted bail. He also moved for reconsideration of the case.
He asserted that he already remitted the amount of 2, 872, 808. 00 in installments to costs as
evidenced by receipts bearing serial numbers and dates.

ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution failed to establish venezuela’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt?
HELD: yes. Venezuela is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for malversation of public funds. The
elements of malversation under art 217 of RPC are (i) the offender is a public officer; (ii) the he
has custody or control of public funds by reason of his office; (iii) those funds are public funds for
which he is accountable and ; (iv) he misappropriated or consented or through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take them. In the case at bar, all the elements are present.
Venezuela is a public officer being a municipal mayor and that during his tenure as a mayor, he
incurred unliquidated cash advances amounting to Php 2, 872, 808. 00. These unliquidated cash
advances are funds belonging to the municipality of Pozorrubio and earmarked for the use of the
municipality. Payment or reimbursement of the funds malversed after commission of the crime
does not extinguish accused’s criminal liability. The act of reimbursement may only affect the civil
liability and may be credited in his favor as mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary
surrender.

Shirley T. Lim et. Al vs. People of the Philippines Gr no. 226590 April 23, 2018

FACTS: the petitioners are siblings, all whom are officers of Pentel merchandising Co, (pentel)
which was established by their deceased father Quintin. One of pentel’s stockholders, Lucy lim
(lucy) alleged that the petitioners falsified the secretary’s certificate dated feb 29, 2000 which in
turn contained pentel board resolution dated feb 25, 2000. through this secretary certificate, Jimmy
was authorized and was able to enter into a deed of absolute sale conveying the subject property
to spouses lee. According to lucy, the secretary’s certificate dated feb 29, 2000 bearing the board
resolution was falsified because it was made to appear that Quintin signed it, despite having already
died on September 16, 1996 or more than 3 years from its execution. On may 15, 2012, the criminal
information dated august 31, 2011 was filed charging petitioners with the crime of falsification of
public document. The lower court and CA convicted the petitioners. The petitioners filed the
present rule 45 petition before the SC. In addition to their previous arguments, the petitioners raised
for the first time the prescription of the offense.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners were correctly charged with the crime of falsification of
public document?

HELD: Yes. Pentel’s corporate secretary, in conspiracy with the other petitioners, falsified a
public document by certifying under oath that Quintin was present during the board meeting and
making it appear that he signed the resolution contained in the secretary’s certificate, when in truth
and in fact, he could not, as he was already dead at the time of the execution. this is the main act
of falsification committed by the petitioners, especially Shirley, who was the corporate secretary
at the time. The fact that Quintin’s signature appeared on the secretary’s certificate corroborates
this charge. Unfortunately, the records of this case do not show the date when lucy’s affidavit of
complaint was filed. The court notes that the affidavit of complaint was executed on September
21, 2010 or more than 10 years from the time that prescription commenced to run on march 29,
2000 ( the date of registration of the transfer of title of the subject property). Prescription has
already set in by march 29, 2010 or 5 months before the execution of the complaint on September
21, 2010. The case was therefore dismissed on the ground of prescription.

People of the Philippines vs Oscar mat-an y escad gr no 215720 feb 21, 2018

FACTS: Oscar was charged with the crimes of attempted homicide and murder for stabbing his
mother-in- law, Minda, and for injuring the latter’s 18 month old granddaughter, Anthonette,
whom she was cradling when the stabbing incident happened. Minda died as a result of the stab
wounds she incurred while Anthonette sustained a superficial stab wound in the nape area. For his
part, Oscar denied the charges against him saying that he could not remember what happened for
he was drunk during that time. The RTC found Oscar guilty of both the crimes charged against
him. On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification and held that Oscar is guilty of murder for
killing Minda and changed the charge of attempted homicide to slight physical injuries for the
injuries sustained by Anthonette.

ISSUE: whether or not the trial and appellate courts erred in adjudging aacused-appellant Oscar
mat-an guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the death of minda and injuries sustained by
Anthonette?

HELD: the appeal lacks merit. Oscar is guilty of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength
and also of slight physical injuries. In this case, the prosectution was able to establish that Oscar
abused his superior strength when he killed Minda. It was sufficiently shown that Oscar was armed
with knife while Minda was then burdened by a child and had no means to defend and repel the
attacks of her assailant. Furthermore, Oscar was heavy build and stood 5’10 in contrast to Minda’s
4’11” and a weapon when he attacked Minda with a child. Thus he is guilty of murder. The court
also concurs that Oscar can be held guilty only of slight physical injuries with respect to anthonette.
There was no proof of intent to kill anthonette and her wound was only superficial. Thus, the
appellate court correctly convicted Oscar of slight physical injuries.

REDANTE SARTO Y MISALUCHA vs. People GR No. 206284 Feb 28, 2018

FACTS: Redante was charged with the crime of bigamy for allegedly contracting 2 marriages: the
first, with Maria Socorro and the second, without having the first one legally terminated, with
private complainant Fe Aguila. Redante in his defense admitted that he was previously married to
Maria Socorro in 1984. He also alleged that maria socorro went to Canada thereafter and worked
as a nurse. She later became a Canadian citizen in April of 1988 and obtained a divorce decree to
the Supreme court of British Colombia which was granted on November 1, 1988. The RTC found
Redante guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA ratiocinated
that the divorce decree was not presented. It could not ascertain whether said divorce capacitated
Maria Socorro and Redante to remarry. It continued that Redante failed to present evidence that
he had filed and had secured a judicial declaration that his first marriage had been dissolved prior
to his subsequent marriage to Fe.

ISSUE: whether or not Petitioner Redante is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
bigamy?

HELD: Yes. Redante failed to prove the divorce decree as a fact before his subsequent marriage
to FE. A divorce decree obtained abroad by an alien spouse is a foreign judgment relating to the
status of a marriage. As in any other foreign judgment, a divorce decree does not have an automatic
effect in the Philippines. Before the divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party
pleading it must prove it as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.
Proving the foreign law under which the divorce was secured is mandatory considering that
Philippine courts cannot and could not be expected to take judicial notice of foreign laws. 32 For
the purpose of establishing divorce as a fact, a copy of the divorce decree itself must be presented
and admitted in evidence. This is in consonance with the rule that a foreign judgment may be given
presumptive evidentiary value only after it is presented and admitted in evidence.

DIGNA RAMOS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR No. 226454 November 20, 2017

FACTS: Digna Ramos was charged before the MCTC of the crime of grave oral defamation for
uttering defamatory remarks against her neighbor, Patrocinia Damaua. Private complainant
Dumaua was watering her plants in her yard, when she noticed five schoolchildren pick up dried
leaves and throw them into her yard. When Dumaua called the attention of the schoolchildren,
the latter ran towards the direction of Sto. Nino Elementary School where Ramos works as a public
school teacher. A little later, Ramos arrived, picked up dried banana leaves, and allegedly threw
them into Dumaua's yard, while saying "ta sinnu ti pabasulem nga agilappak ti bulung, siguro
dakayo ta nagpabirthday kayo" which means "Whom do you blame throwing leaves? Maybe you
did because you hosted a birthday party." This prompted a quarrel between Ramos and Dumaua,
during the course of which Ramos uttered to the latter, "Ukininam, puta, awan ad-adalmo,
nagbalay kayo ti nagdakkelan, magaburan daytoy balay kon" which translates to "Vulva of your
mother, prostitute, illiterate, you built a very big house, it overshadows my house.".

ISSUE: whether or not petitioner Ramos is guilty of grave oral defamation?

HELD: No. she is only liable for slight oral defamation. Whether the offense committed is serious
or slight oral defamation depends upon: (1) the expressions used; (2) the personal relations of the
accused and the offended party; and (3) the special circumstances of the case, the antecedents or
relationship between the offended party and the offender, which may tend to prove the intention
of the offender at the time. In particular, it is a rule that uttering defamatory words in the heat of
anger, with some provocation on the part of the off ended party constitutes only a light felony."
While Ramos indeed said defamatory words against Dumaua, the utterances were made in the heat
of anger and were with some sort of provocation on the part of the latter. As such, the Court is
constrained to hold that Ramos is only guilty of the crime of Slight Oral Defamation.

People of the Philippines vs. Michelle Parba-Rural and May Almohan-Daza GR No. 231884 June
27, 2018

FACTS: Nenita Marquez (Nenita) was forcibly abducted by appellants and boarded in a Ford Fiera
van. The said persons repeatedly demanded from Nenita that she give them jewelry and money in
exchange for her freedom. They asked her to alight from the vehicle with 3 of the women
appellants. They hailed a taxi and when they reached Nenita's house, they proceeded to her room
and took her pieces of jewelry amounting to 3,000,000.00 pesos. Afterwards, the appellants went
to Philippine National Bank (PNB) in Quezon City with Nenita where the latter has a time deposit
in the amount of Php 400,000.00. The appellants ordered Nenita to withdraw the entire amount.
While waiting for the approval of the pre-termination of her time deposit, Nenita saw her driver,
her daughter and two (2) police officers enter the bank which prompted her to seek for help. The
appellants were then arrested. RTC found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
kidnapping for ransom. CA affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appellants are guilty of kidnapping for ransom?

HELD: Yes. To prosecute the crime of kidnapping for ransom, the following elements must be
established: (i) the accused was a private person (ii) he kidnapped or detained, or in any manner
deprived another of his or her liberty; (iii) the kidnapping or detention was illegal; and (iv) the
victim was kidnapped or detained for ransom. Ransom means money, price or consideration paid
or demanded for the redemption of a captured person that will release him from captivity. No
specific form of ransom is required to consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom as long as
the ransom is intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the victim's freedom. The amount of,
and purpose for, the ransom is immaterial.
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the above-
mentioned elements. In her testimony, Nenita, a private person, narrated how she was deprived of
her liberty from the time she was forcibly taken by the appellants and their companions for the
purpose of extorting money and jewelry from her until she relented to their demands

People of the Philippines vs. John Carlo Salga and Ruel Namalata GR No. 233334 July 23, 2018

FACTS: John and Ruel, along with two others identified as John Does, were charged with robbery
with homicide for entering the house of Josefina Zulita. Once inside, they entered the room of
Josefina’s daughter, Joan Camille Zulita and took away cash amounting to Php 34,000.00 from
the vault and one (1) Samsung Cellphone E590 Model belonging to Josefina and that on the
occasion of the said robbery, accused, with the use of a gun, strike the head and shoot the caretaker
of the house named Catalina Arcega, which caused her death. The RTC convicted Ruel and John
of robbery with homicide on the basis of the testimonies of Joan Zulita (Joan) and Constancio
Hinlo, Jr. (Constancio). Joan had testified that John was one of the three persons who robbed the
victims, and pointed his gun to her head, while Constancio attested that Ruel drove off on a green
motorcycle with John and another person on board. CA affirmed. Both accused appealed to the
SC.

ISSUE: Whether or not John and Ruel are liable for the crime of Robbery with homicide?

HELD: The appeal of Ruel is meritorious, but that of John is lacking in merit. We concur with the
CA that robbery with homicide was committed. The evidence adduced by the Prosecution in that
regard was ample, competent and beyond reasonable doubt. Joan positively identified John as one
of the three persons who had entered their home and taken possession of her phone and money,
and househelper Catalina Arcega was killed in the course or on the occasion of the robbery.
Without question, the intent to rob the Zulitas preceded the taking of human life. However, the
court cannot concur with the CA's conclusion against Ruel. Here, the circumstances listed by the
CA were insufficient to produce the conviction of Ruel. The lower courts and the Prosecution gave
too much weight and emphasis to the fact that Constancio had seen Ruel speeding away on the
motorcycle with John and another person on board. The scene, to a detached observer, was
certainly far from unequivocal, for it was openly susceptible to various interpretations, including
some that would not implicate Ruel in the commission of the robbery with homicide. For one,
there is the possibility that Ruel only happened to pass by, and that John and the other person -
both of whom Ruel most probably knew -only asked to ride tandem with him. Such possibility,
even if highly probable, was still innocent without a clear showing of his deeper involvement in
the criminal enterprise.

People of the Philippines vs. Hermin Romobio y Pauler GR no. 227705 October 11, 2017

FACTS: AAA is a 44-year-old woman, separated in fact from her husband, and a mother of a
child. she was sleeping alone in her house because her daughter slept in the house of her (AAA's)
sister. just few steps away. Around past 1 :00 a.m., she was awakened when she felt the presence
of somebody inside the house. When she opened her eyes, she saw a man armed with a knife, and
whose face was covered by a white "Good Morning" towel from the middle of the nose to the chin.
He warned her not to make noise. She attempted to get up from the bed, but he hit her forehead
several times with the knife handle. Accused then ransacked the house of AAA and was able to
carry away three cell phones, several jewelries, cash money of 4,000.00, bags, wallet, perfumes,
lotions and ATM cards, or a total of 120,000.00. After the said robbery, accused tied and boxed
AAA on the different parts of her body and by poking a knife succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her against her will.

ISSUE: whether or not accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with
rape?

HELD: yes. In robbery with rape, the State must satisfactorily establish the concurrence of the
following essential elements: a) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or
intimidation against persons; b) the property taken belongs to another; c) the taking is done with
intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and d) the robbery is accompanied by rape. For a conviction of
the crime of robbery with rape to stand, it must be shown that the rape was committed by reason
or on the occasion of a robbery and not the other way around. The rape must be contemporaneous
with the commission of the robbery. Article 294 of the RPC does not distinguish whether the rape
was committed before, during or after the robbery; it suffices that the robbery was accompanied
by rape. In this case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of robbery
with rape.

People of the Philippines vs. Golem Sota and Amidal Gadjadli GR no. 203121 nov 29, 2017

FACTS: At around 9:30 p.m. Sota, Gadjadli and 3 other persons went to Artemio’s place. The
demanded food from Artemio who was willing to comply on condition that he would hand the
food through an opening in the wall, being afraid to open the door because he might be harmed.
The group demanded that Artemio open the door; otherwise, they would bum the house. Artemio
refused to comply insisting that he would hand them the food through the opening in the wall. the
group then fired at the house, with Gadjadli firing the first shot at Artemio. At that instance,
Jocelyn, Artemio’s daughter saw what happened and jumped out of the window to escape and then
ran away.. Jocelyn proceeded to the house of her brother Eusebio, which was 15 meters away from
theirs, and told him what happened to their father. The house and everything inside it, which had
a total value of P30,000.00, were totally burned. Artemio died from stab and gunshot wounds.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 2 separate crimes of
Arson and Murder?

HELD: Yes. In cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine what crime/crimes
was/were perpetrated -whether arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to
ascertain the main objective of the malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the burning of the
building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is simply
arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the other hand, the main objective is to kill
a particular person who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to
accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only; lastly, (c) if the objective is, likewise,
to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is resorted to as a
means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed -
homicide/murder and arson.

Jocelyn testified that when Artemio refused to heed the demand of the group to give them food by
opening the door, the group started to bum the house using a lighted torch of coconut leaves,
which flames Artemio was able to put out. When Artemio still refused to open the door, the group
threatened that they would bum the house. They made good their threat before they went after
Artemio who ran below his house. Undoubtedly, the group's intent was also to bum down the house
of Artemio, not only to kill him. With these established facts, the prosecution was correct in
charging Sota, Gadjadli, and the three unnamed persons with murder and arson.

People of the Phils vs Nestor “tony” Caliao GR no. 226392 July 23, 2018

FACTS: Accused- appellant Caliao was charged of the crime of murder for killing fellow vendor,
William Fuentes by stabbing him with a knife. Virginia, wife of the victim testified that on April
24, 2004, the night before the killing incident, victim and accused-appellant already had an
altercation because accused-appellant had placed garbage beside their store. The victim confronted
accused-appellant who became angry and tried to strike the victim with a pipe. The victim secured
a piece of wood to get back at accused-appellant, but Virginia stopped her husband from doing so.
Junnel, the son of the victim testified that the next day ( April 25), during afternoon, he was outside
preparing puso with his father. Later on, the victim told his son that he was going to use the comfort
room. As the victim approached their stall, Junnel saw accused-appellant suddenly appear and stab
his father. He later died. RTC found accused- appellant guilty of Murder because of the presence
of treachery and evident premeditation in this case. CA affirmed but only considered the
aggravating circumstance of treachery.

ISSUE: whether or not the lower courts are correct in finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime
of murder?

HELD: Accused-appellant may only be convicted of homicide. Treachery is not present in this
case. Treachery exists when the prosecution has sufficiently established the concurrence of the
following elements: (1) the accused employed means of execution that gave the person attacked
no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberate or
consciously adopted. The Court has also ruled that when aid was easily available to the victim,
such as when the attendant circumstances show that there were several eyewitnesses to the
incident, including the victim's family, no treachery could be appreciated because if the accused
indeed consciously adopted means to insure the facilitation of the crime, he could have chosen
another place or time. Here, there is no showing that accused-appellant consciously adopted the
sudden attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing. In fact, it was done in a public market, in
the afternoon, with the victim's family and other vendors nearby who could have foiled accused-
appellant's actions

Carlos Jay Adlawan vs People of the Philippines GR no. 197645 April 18, 2018

FACTS: Adlawan was charged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide for hacking his stepmother,
Georgia, using a Katana. she sustained several injuries in her neck, stomach and other part of her
body. the trial court convicted him for frustrated homicide for having repeatedly hacked and
mortally wounded Georgia and based on the findings and testimony of Dr. Kangleon, petitioner
performed all the acts of execution necessary for the commission of homicide. Fortunately, due to
timely medical intervention, Georgia's life was saved and, thus, the crime committed by petitioner
was only in its frustrated stage. CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE: whether or not the appellate court erred when it concurred with the trial court's factual
findings resulting in his conviction for frustrated homicide.

HELD: No. criminal cases for frustrated homicide, the intent to kill is often inferred from, among
other things, the means the offender used and the nature, location, and number of wounds he
inflicted on his victim. 53 In this case, intent to kill was sufficientl y shown not only by the
testimonies of Georgia, ·the victim herself, and Fred, the eyewitness, but also by the established
fact that Georgia sustained multiple deep hack wounds on her head, neck, and abdomen, among
other parts of her body. The gravity of these ·wounds was clearly shown by the photographs
presented by the prosecution, and the medical certificate. Dr. Kangleon even testified that Georgia
could have died if no medical attention was given to her. The medical opinion of Dr. Kangleon
who is presumably an expert in this field is clearly more convincing than the petitioner's mere say-
so. That petitioner intended to kill Georgia, and that the injuries she sustained were fatal and would
have caused her death if not for the timely medical intervention, were therefore established by
proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Marilou Punongbayan- Visitacion vs. pp and Carmelita p punongbayan GR no. 194214 Jan 10, 18

FACTS: Petitioner is the corporate secretary and assistant treasurer of St. Peter's College of Iligan
City. On 26 July 1999, acting on the advice of her counsel, she wrote a letter to private respondent
camelita Punongbayan telling her that she (Carmelita) knowingly committed acts of falsification
in disbursing school funds. Insulted, punongbayan filed a complaint for libel against visitacion.
the RTC convicted Visitacion of libel. The trial court disregarded Visitacion's defense of good
faith finding that her act of writing the disputed letter was motivated by hostility or malice. It
opined that if it was true that Visitacion merely wanted to safeguard the corporation funds, her
resort to an uncivil and confrontational manner was unwarranted. Accused is sentenced to 1 year
imprisonment and adjudged to pay moral damages to the tune of Three Million Pesos
(P3,000,000.00). CA affirmed.

ISSUE: whether or not the CA acted contrary to law when it brushed aside petitioner’s plea of
preference of fine over imprisonment as penalty for libel and imposing moral damages in the
excessive amount o 3M?

HELD: NO. Administrative Circular (A. C.) No. 08-0818 which provides for guidelines in the
imposition of penalties in libel cases, reveals that fine alone is generally acceptable as a penalty
for libel. Nevertheless, the courts may impose imprisonment as a penalty if, under the
circumstances, a fine is insufficient to meet the demands of substantial justice or would depreciate
the seriousness of the offense. With regards to the awards of moral damages, the evidence on
record justify the award of moral damages to Punongbayan. She was a high-ranking officer of an
educational institution whom Visitacion accused of criminal or improper conduct. Such
accusations were not made known only to the victim but also to other persons such as her staff and
employees of a bank the school had transactions with. However, the Court finds the award of
P3,000,000.00 as moral damages to be unwarranted. Such exorbitant amount is contrary to the
essence of moral damages, which is simply a reasonable recompense to the injury suffered by the
one claiming it. Thus, to conform with the present circumstances, the moral damages awarded
should be equitably reduced to P500,000.00.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDY DOMINGO

G.R. No. 225743, June 7, 2017
Facts: An Information was filed charging appellant with the crime of Forcible Abduction with
Rape in this wise: That accused, motivated by lust and with lewd designs, and by means of force,
feloniously, abduct and take away one AAA, against her will, and thereafter, by means of force,
violence and intimidation, with the use of a bladed weapon and actuated by lust and lewd designs,
have carnal knowledge of said victim.
Appellant claimed that he and AAA eloped and went to the house of his brother-in-law. They spent
the night there and agreed that they will go to her Aunt's house and get her things and will proceed
to Bicol. When they reached her aunt's house, AAA went inside while he waited. After a few
minutes, a man came out and chased him with a bolo which prompted him to run. At around 7:00
o'clock in the morning, he was at his sister's house when the policemen arrived and informed him
that there was a complaint filed against him.
The RTC and CA convicted appellant for forcible abduction with rape.
Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
Ruling: The appellant should be convicted only of rape. Under Article 342 of the RPC, the
elements of forcible abduction are: (1) the taking of a woman against her will; and (2) with lewd
designs. The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs when the
abductor has carnal knowledge of the abducted woman under the following circumstances: (1) by
using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
and (3) when the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented.
Although the elements of forcible abduction obtained, his forcible abduction of AAA was absorbed
by the rape considering that his real objective in abducting her was to commit the rape.
SPECIAL PENAL LAW DIGESTS

[ GR No. 223477, Feb 14, 2018 ]

CELSO M.F.L. MELGAR v. PEOPLE

FACTS: AAA had a romantic relationship with Melgar which resulted to the birth of their
illegitimate child BBB. Melgar freely acknowledged the paternity of BBB as evidenced by the
latter's Certificate of Live Birth, as well as numerous photographs showing Melgar with BBB.
AAA's relationship with Melgar later turned sour. When BBB was just about one (1) year old,
Melgar stopped giving support which prompted AAA to file a case for support, which was
eventually granted. Despite such, Melgar still refused to give support for her and BBB. AAA was
then constrained to file a criminal case for violation of Section 5 of RA 9262. RTC found Melgar
guilty of the crime. CA affirmed. It held that Melgar is legally obliged to support BBB.[20] As such,
when he deliberately and with evident bad faith deprived BBB of support, he committed economic
abuse under Section 5 (e) of RA 9262.

ISSUE: whether or not the CA correctly upheld Melgar's conviction for violation of
Section 5 (e) of RA 9262.

HELD: Petition is bereft of merit. Under this provision, the deprivation or denial of financial
support to the child is considered an act of violence against women and children. Notably, case
law instructs that the act of denying support to a child is a continuing offense. In this case, the
courts a quo correctly found that all the elements of violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262 are
present, as it was established that: (a) Melgar and AAA had a romantic relationship, resulting in
BBB's birth; (b) Melgar freely acknowledged his paternity over BBB; (c) Melgar had failed to
provide BBB support ever since the latter was just a year old; and (d) his intent of not supporting
BBB was made more apparent when he sold to a third party his property which was supposed to
answer for, among others, his support-in-arrears to BBB. Thus, the Court finds no reason to deviate
from the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, as there is no indication that it
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.

[ GR No. 195248, Nov 22, 2017 ]

JOHN DENNIS G. CHUA v. PEOPLE

FACTS: respondent Cristina Yao (Yao) alleged that sometime in year 2000, petitioner’s mother
mentioned that her son would be reviving their sugar mill business in Bacolod City and asked
whether Yao could lend them money. Yao acceded and loaned petitioner cash 4 times amounting
to 6million. As payment, petitioner issued four (4) checks in these amounts but which were
dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account. Yao personally delivered her demand
letter to the office of the petitioner which was received by his secretary
Petitioner was thus charged with four (4) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The lower court found
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue: whether or not petitioner is guilty of BP 22

Held: No. one of the elements to be liable for BP 22 is (2) the 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;
The Court finds that the second element was not sufficiently established. Yao testified that the
personal secretary of petitioner received the demand letter,[31] yet, said personal secretary was
never presented to testify whether she in fact handed the demand letter to petitioner who, from the
onset, denies having received such letter. It must be borne in mind that it is not enough for the
prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the accused. The prosecution must also
prove actual receipt of said notice, because the fact of service provided for in the law is reckoned
from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the accused.

G.R. No. 172193, September 13, 2017

CELERINO CHUA ALIAS SUNTAY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS: Accused- appellant Chua together with Lato and reyes were charged with the crimes of
robbery and carnapping for taking away several belongings of Sps. Reynaldo Ravago and Theresa
Ravago, to the damage and prejudice of the said spouses in the total amount of P122,000.00. Lato
and reyes however remained at large. The said stolen items were loaded in a stainless owner type
jeep registered in the name of Teresa's mother. A couple from the place where the appellant resided
gave information that the jeep was brought by the appellant Chua to Bani, Pangasinan. The jeep
was recovered at Jessie Tugas' motor shop in Pangasinan. Appellant Chua told Tugas that he is the
owner of the jeep. Chua approached John Alden Laguidao, a friend of Tugas, who agreed to
purchase the vehicle for Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00). Laguidao made a partial payment of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) on the condition that the balance shall be paid upon the
presentation of the certificate of registration.

ISSUE: Was Chua's guilt for carnapping established beyond reasonable doubt

HELD: yes. Carnapping is defined as "the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging
to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons,
or by using force upon things." years.The taking of the motor vehicle (owner-type jeep) belonging
to the Ravagos by Lato and Reyes constituted carnapping. But it was clear error for the lower
courts to punish Chua with the penalty for carnapping committed without violence or intimidation
of persons, or force upon things. Even ifthe robbers took the motor vehicle after consummating
the robbery in the course of the execution of which one of them stabbed Ravago four times, the
taking of the motor vehicle in order to carry the stolen articles out was still attended by the same
violence and intimidation of the owner and his wife, as well as of the rest of their household.

G.R. No. 221991, August 30, 2017

JOSELITO PERALTA Y ZARENO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS; Around 11pm in the evening of Nov 18, 2008, several police officers responded to a
telephone call received by their desk officer-on-duty that there was a man firing a gun at the back
of the PLDT Building in Pantal District, Dagupan City. Upon arrival in the area, the police officers
saw two (2) men walking, later identified as Peralta and his companion, Larry Calimlim
(Calimlim), holding a gun and a knife respectively. Upon apprehension, they recovered a caliber
.45 pistol with Serial Number 4517488 containing a magazine with five (5) live ammunitions from
Peralta and a knife from Calimlim. In defense, Peralta averred that, he was forced to admit
possession of the gun allegedly recovered from him, and that that he and Calimlim were merely
framed up. RTC found them guilty of the crime. CA affirmed.

ISSUE: whether or not the CA correctly upheld Peralta's conviction for Illegal Possession of
Firearm and Ammunition

HELD: yes. The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of firearms is the accused's lack
of license or permit to possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited by law.
To establish the corpus delicti, it must be proven that: (a) the firearm exists; and (b) the accused
who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess or carry
the same. In this case, the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the
aforesaid elements, considering that: (a) the police officers positively identified Peralta as the one
holding a .45 caliber pistol with Serial Number 4517488 with magazine and live ammunitions,
which was seized from him and later on, marked, identified, offered, and properly admitted as
evidence at the trial; and (b) the Certification30 dated August 10, 2011 issued by the Firearms and
Explosives Office of the Philippine National Police which declared that Peralta "is not a
licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and calibre, specifically Caliber .45 Pistol, make
(unknown) with Serial Number 4517488 per verification from the records of this office as of this
date
[ GR No. 217764, Aug 07, 2017 ]
ANTONIETA LUCIDO v. PEOPLE

FACTS: AAA was placed by her parents in the custody of their neighbor Lucido. The arrangement
was made upon the request of Lucido that AAA stay with her since she was living alone. AAA
was eight (8) years old at that time. During AAA's stay with Lucido, the child suffered repeated
physical abuse in the latter's hands, which included strangulation, beating, pinching, and touching
of her sex organ by Lucido. The Regional Trial Court Decision found Antonieta Lucido (Lucido)
guilty of child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. The Court of Appeals affirmed
Lucido's conviction. Lucido's Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied in the Court of
Appeals. Hence, this Petition.
ISSUE: whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining her conviction

HELD: As defined in the law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the child, whether it is
habitual or not. It includes
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;

Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and
(2)
dignity of a child as a human being;
Petitioner's acts fall squarely within this definition.

AAA testified on the physical abuse she suffered in the hands of petitioner. The Regional Trial
Court described her narration of the facts to be in "a straightforward, credible and spontaneous
manner which could not be defeated by the denial of the accused."[46] From the appearance of the
victim, the trial court likewise observed physical evidence of the abuses and ill-treatment inflicted
by the petitioner on AAA aside from the victim's psychological displacement.[47] AAA's testimony
was further corroborated by Dr. Abierra, who noted several "multiple abrasions on different parts
of [AAA's] body.

[ GR No. 218806, Jun 13, 2018 ]

PEOPLE v. GLORIA NANGCAS

FACTS: Accused- appellant Nangcas was charged with violation of Violation of Republic Act No.
9208 or the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 for recruiting (4) women, Judith (19 years
old) and 3 others who are still minors. They were told that they will be working as a house
helper at Camella Homes in Cagayan de Oro City, with a salary of P1,500.00 per month
and with a rest day every Sunday. Nangcas even helped the victims in convincing their
parents. However, instead of working at Camella Holmes in CDO, they were brought at
Marawi city instead and worked as house helpers therein without receiving any salary
from their employers. RTC found Nangcas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Qualified Trafficking in Persons. CA affirmed.

ISSUE: whether or not Nangcas is guilty beyond reasonable douby of the crime charged?
HELD: yes. The information filed against Nangcas sufficiently alleged the recruitment and
transportation of Judith and three (3) other minor victims for forced labor or services, with Nangcas
taking advantage of the vulnerability of the young girls through her assurance and promises of
good salary, accessibility of place of work to their respective residences, and weekly dayoff.
Pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 9208, the crime committed by Nangcas was qualified trafficking,
as it was committed in a large scale and three (3) of her victims were under 18 years of age.

The presence of the crime's elements was established by the prosecution witnesses who testified
during the trial. The testimonies of Judith and three (3) other minor victims established that
Nangcas employed deception and fraud in gaining both the victims and their parents' trust and
confidence.

[ GR No. 219581, Jan 31, 2018 ]

PEOPLE v. MAXIMO DELA PEÑA

FACTS: On September 24, 2005, at around 1:00 a.m., Julita Nacoboan (Julita), her husband, Jose
Nacoboan (Jose), and their son, Marvin Nacoboan (Marwin) were about to board their pump boat
loaded with 13 sacks of copra to be brought to catbalogan samar when Three armed men
boarded the pump boat. One of the armed men pointed a firearm at Jose and ordered him to
proceed to the aft or the rear side of the boat. They were then brought to another island where
appellant unloaded the 13 sacks of copra.The appellant and his armed companions then brought
the pump boat to another island where its engine, propeller tube, and tools were taken and
loaded on appellant's boat. Consequently, Nacoboan's boat was left without an engine and they
had to paddle to safety. The following day, Julita went to the police authorities in Villareal, Samar
to report the incident

ISSUE: whether or not appellant is guilty of piracy under PD 532?

RULING: Yes. Section 2(d) of PD 532 defines piracy as follows:

Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its
cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers, irrespective of the
value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things,
committed by any person, including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel, in
Philippine waters. shall be considered as piracy. Also, under the said law, a river is part of the
Philippine waters. The Information also clearly alleged that the vessel's cargo, equipment,
and personal belongings of the passengers were taken by the appellant and his armed
companions including the vessel's equipment which consisted of the engine, propeller
tube, and tools were taken and carried away by the appellant.

G.R. No. 225695, March 21, 2018

IRENEO CAHULOGAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACT: Petitioner Ireneo Cahulogan was charged for the crime of fencing
under Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1612, otherwise known as the "Anti-
Fencing Law of 1979 for buying and selling Two Hundred Ten (210) cases of
Coca Cola products worth Php52,476.00 owned by and belonging to the
offended party Johnson Tan. Such coca cola products were brought by the
petitioner from the driver(lopez) and helper (lariosa)of complainant Tan. the
said driver and helper were instructed to deliver the case coca cola cases to
Demins store but they instead sold it to the petitioner for 50,000.
Complainant tan wanted to recover the products telling petitioner that his his
driver and helper had no authority to sell them but the latter was adamant in
retaining such items. RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
CA affirmed petitioner's conviction and held that Lariosa's act of selling the
subject items to petitioner without the authority and consent from Tan
clearly constituted theft.

ISSUE: whether or not the CA correctly upheld petitioner's conviction for the
crime of Fencing.

HELD: YES. Fencing is a malum prohibitum, and PD 1612 creates a prima

facie presumption of Fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of
any good, article, item, object or anything of value, which has been the subject
of robbery or theft; and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the
property.26

In this case, the courts a quo correctly found that the prosecution was able to
establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of Fencing,
as it was shown that: (a) Lariosa sold to petitioner the subject items without
authority and consent from his employer, Tan,(b) petitioner bought the
subject items from Lariosa and was in possession of the same; (c) under the
circumstances, petitioner should have been forewarned that the subject items
came from an illegal source, as his transaction with Lariosa did not have any
accompanying delivery and official receipts, and that the latter did not demand
that such items be replaced with empty bottles, contrary to common practice
among dealers of soft drinks;28 and (d) petitioner's intent to gain was made
evident by the fact that he bought the subject items for just P50,000.00, lower
than their value in the amount of P52,476.00.

G.R. No. 215305: Marcelo G. Saluday vs. People of the

Philippines (April 3, 2018)
FACTS:
Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task Force Davao of the
Philippine Army at a checkpoint to check the presence of contraband, illegal firearms or
explosives and suspicious individuals. A bag, small but too heavy for its
size, belonging to the Petitioner, Marcelo G. Saluday, was found by SCAA Junbert M.
Buco (Buco). Petitioner was arrested for failure to produce authority to carry firearms
and explosives.In an inquest conducted, the Prosecutor of Davao City found probable
cause for violation of PD 1866 for carrying firearms, explosives and ammunition.

The trial court declared the Petitioner in actual or constructive possession of

firearm and explosive without authority or license and was adjudged guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearm, ammunition, and
explosives under PD 1866The Petitioner questioned the decision of the trial
court on the ground on misappreciation of evidence and illegality of the search
. The Court of Appeals sustained the conviction and affirmed the ruling of the
trial court.

ISSUE: whether or not petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of
illegal possession of high-powered firearm and ammunition under PD 1866, and illegal
possession of explosive under the same law?

HELD: yes. The elements of both offenses are as follows: (1) existence of the firearm,
ammunition or explosive; (2) ownership or possession of the firearm, ammunition or
explosive; and (3) lack of license to own or possess. As regards the second and third
elements, the Court of Appeals concurred with the trial court that petitioner was in actual
or constructive possession of a high-powered firearm, ammunition, and explosive
without the requisite authority. In the present case, the prosecution proved the negative
fact that appellant has no license or permit to own or possess the firearm, ammunition
and explosive by presenting NUP Daniel Tab[u]ra (Tab[u]ra), a representative of the
Firearms and Explosives Division (FED) of the PNP. He identified the Certification
issued by the Chief, Records Section, FED of the PNP, stating that appellant "is not a
licensed/ registered holder of any kind and caliber per verification from records of this
office”

PEOPLE vs MAricel PAtacsil Y Moreno GR 234052 August 6, 2018

FACTS: Patacsil was arrested through a buy bust operation conducted by the
police officers of the Dagupan Police Station with P03 Meniano, Jr. acting as
the poseur-buyer. In the target area, the asset introduced P03 Meniano to
Patacsil as someone who wanted to buy shabu. When P03 Meniano handed
over the marked money to Patacsil, the latter took out one ( 1) plastic sachet
containing suspected shabu from her cellphone pouch and gave the same to
P03 Meniano. As soon as P03 Meniano ascertained the plastic sachet's
contents, he performed the pre-arranged signal, prompting the buy-bust team
to rush in and arrest Patacsil. He was then charged with the crimes of Illegal
Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs for violating and 11, Article II
of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

ISSUE: Whether or not Patacsil is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
charged?

HELD: no. After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds that the arresting
officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody
rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the
dangerous drugs allegedly seized from Patacsil. It shows that while P03
Meniano claims that representatives from the media witnessed the conduct of
inventory, no such representatives signed the document. Further, it also
appears that no public elected official was present when such inventory was
made. In this case, P03 Meniano himself admitted that no public elected official,
e.g., barangay officials, was present during the inventory because "they were
not around" and that he simply forgot to let the media representatives sign the
inventory receipt because he "forgot" to do so. Verily, these flimsy excuses do
not justify a deviation from the required witnesses rule, hence, the Court is
impelled to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items
purportedly seized from Patacsil -which constitute the corpus delicti of the
crimes charged -have been compromised.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner

vs.JEHLSON AGUIRRE y ARIDIDON et.al
FACTS: Accused-appellants and accused Jeffrey Roxas y Aragoncillo (Roxas) were
charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Sections 3(a), 4(a) and 6 of Republic
Act No. (RA) 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, in relation to violation
of RA 7610, known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act. Four of the 10 girls testified in Court that at different times on
November 16, 2010, they were convinced by accused-appellants to go swimming and
drinking, and to have sex, with foreigners in exchange for money and/or shabu. They were
brought to an apartment in Quezon City, where they would rest after which they would proceed
to a hotel to meet the foreigners. Arabit and Aguirre then offered to the girls what appeared to
be shabu, which was payment for sex with the foreigners in addition to money. However, there
was a sudden commotion. Several people, who came running down from the second floor of the
apartment, identified themselves as the police and told the girls to sit together. The police
officers arrested accused-appellants and Roxas. RTC found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether or not CA is correct in the affirming the conviction of the accused-appellants?

HELD: YES. Based on Section 3(a) of RA 9208,24 the elements of trafficking in persons are:

(1) The act of "recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or receipt of persons with or
without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders;"

(2) The means i1sed which include "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;" and

(3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes at a minimum "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."25

The prosecution has satisfactorily established these elements.Private complainants' testimonies

show that accused-appellants lured them into prostitution with the promise of financial benefit,
the chance to use shabu and to travel abroad.

Accused-appellants' actions clearly indicate their intention to exploit private complainants. They
establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants recruited and transported private
complainants for purposes of prostitution and sexual exploitation.

[ GR No. 212448, Jan 11, 2018 ] AAA v. BBB

FACTS: BBB was charged for violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 otherwise known as the
Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, for causing psychological violence
against AAA for committing marital infidelity occurring outside the country. Petitioner AAA and
BBB were married on August 1, 2006 in Quezon City. Their union produced two children: CCC and
DDD. In 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a chef, where he acquired permanent resident
status in 2008. AAA claimed that BBB sent little to no financial support,. This allegedly compelled
her to fly extra hours and take on additional jobs to augment her income as a flight attendant.
There were also allegations of virtual abandonment, mistreatment of her and their son CCC, and
physical and sexual violence. To make matters worse, BBB supposedly started having an affair
with a Singaporean woman which caused AAA mental and emotional anguish wherever she goes.

ISSUE: whether or not Philippine courts exercise jurisdiction over an offense constituting
psychological violence under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, committed through marital infidelity,
when the alleged illicit relationship occurred or is occurring outside the country?

HELD: yes. what R.A. No. 9262 criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per se but the psychological
violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. Otherwise stated, it is the violence
inflicted under the said circumstances that the law seeks to outlaw. Marital infidelity as cited in
the law is only one of the various acts by which psychological violence may be committed.
Moreover, depending on the circumstances of the spouses and for a myriad of reasons, the illicit
relationship may or may not even be causing mental or emotional anguish on the wife. Thus, the
mental or emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct element in the commission
of the offense.

It is necessary, for Philippine courts to have jurisdiction when the abusive conduct or act of
violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 in relation to Section 3(a), Paragraph (C) was
committed outside Philippine territory, that the victim be a resident of the place where the
complaint is filed in view of the anguish suffered being a material element of the offense. In the
present scenario, the offended wife and children of respondent husband are residents of Pasig
City since March of 2010. Hence, the RTC of Pasig City may exercise jurisdiction over the case.

People of the phils vs alexis dindo san jose y suico

GR no. 179148 August 9, 2018

FACTS: Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 16 of

Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), and for illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition as defined under Presidential Decree
No. 1866, as amended. He was arrested after a buy-bust operation was
conducted with SPOl Anaviso as poseur buyer. Two (2) small plastic bags,
suspected to contain shabu, were sold by accused-appellant to SPO 1 Anaviso,
immediately after which accused-appellant was arrested. 8 caliber with scope,
with serial number SN-UJ 2252, one (1) magazine with nine (9) live bullets, and
a .45 caliber pistol with serial number 1811711 were also seized therein.
Accused could not produce pertinent documents as to the lawful possession of
the firearms. RTC found accused appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. CA
affirmed in toto.

ISSUE:whether or not accused-appelllant is guilty of the crimes charged against

him?

HELD: NO. accused should be acquitted of all the charges for violation of
sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425 and charge for illegal possession of firears and
ammunition for failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. of the
existence of the substances and articles is vital to sustain a judgment of
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 12 The concept of corpus delicti -the body,
foundation, or substance of a crime -consists of two .. I elements, namely: (a)
that a certain result has been established, for example, that a man has died in
prosecution for homicide; and (b) that some person is criminally responsible for
the result. The Prosecution has to prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable
doubt either by direct evidence or by circumstantial or presumptive evidence.
13 Else, the accused must be set free. We have affirmed in People v.
Ladjaalam22 that there could be no offense of illegal possession of firearms
and ammunition under R.A. No. 8294 if another was committed.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ALEJANDRO E. GAMOS et

al
G.R. Nos. 232197-98, April 16, 2018

TIJAM, J.:
Facts: On February 18, 2008, a complaint was filed against former Sta. Magdalena,
Sorsogon Mayor Alejandro E. Gamos (Gamos), Municipal Accountant Rosalyn E. Gile
(Gile), and Municipal Treasurer Virginia E. Laco (Laco) for violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 3019. On March 30, 2015, two Informations for malversation of public
funds were filed against Gamos, Gile, and Laco before the Sandiganbayan.

On February 1, 2017, the Sandiganbayan issued its assailed Resolution, dismissing the
cases, on the ground of delay, depriving the respondents-accused Gamos, Gile and Laco
of their right to a speedy disposition of their cases. Sandiganbayan found that seven years
had passed since the filing of the First Complaint in 2008 until the filing of the Informations
before it.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion when it
dismissed the cases before it on the ground of delay.

Ruling: Yes. The conduct of both the prosecution and defendant are weighed apropos
the four-fold factors, to wit: (1) length of the delay; (2) reason for the delay; (3) defendant's
assertion or non-assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to defendant resulting from the
delay.

It is not unreasonable for the investigating officer to embark into the detailed investigation
of the cases. As alleged, there were 63 cash advance transactions in the two complaints
to investigated upon, covering the period of 2004 to 2007.

There is nothing on record that would show that respondents asserted this right to speedy
disposition during the OMB proceedings when they alleged that the delay occurred. In
fact, it took respondents one year and eight months after the Informations were filed
before the court a quo on March 30, 2015 before they finally asserted such right in their
Motion to Dismiss. Neither was there a considerable prejudice caused by a delay upon
the respondents. Respondents were practically not made to undergo any investigative
proceeding prior to the COA's response to respondents' request for the review of the audit
reports upon which the complaints were anchored.

ARNEL CALAHI ET. AL. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 195043, November 20, 2017

MARTIRES, J.:

Facts: While serving the search warrant on Elsie Valenzuela, the CIDG members noticed
an XLT jeep parked near Elsie's house. Suspicious, they approached said jeep and saw
four (4) persons holding a pot session inside. They noticed the following items inside the
vehicle: an aluminum foil, an improvised tooter, a lighter, and remnants of shabu. SPO3
Padilla and his team immediately arrested the four who were later identified as Enrique,
Arnel, Nicasio, and Nicolas and confiscated the white substance found with them. Then
they were brought to the police station in Cabanatuan City. Thereafter, SPO3 Padilla
requested a laboratory examination on the confiscated substance by the PNP Crime
Laboratory, Cabanatuan City. An Information charged petitioners for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Law.

Petitioner posits that the integrity and identity of the seized items were tarnished because
the arresting officers failed to inventory and photograph the seized items in petitioners'
presence.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners' guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: No. The prosecution failed to establish that the shabu was marked upon seizure.

The chain of custody rule requires proof of every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was seized to the time it is presented in court and offered into evidence, such that
witnesses constituting the chain are able to testify on how it was given and received,
including the precautions taken to ensure that the seized item was not altered or tampered
with.

In this case, the facts only establishes that after seizure of the items and arrest of the
petitioners, the apprehending team took the latter to the police station, then requested a
laboratory examination of the confiscated items, and eventually requested inquest
proceedings in connection with the petitioners' arrest. It was not in any way established
that the items were marked after seizure. While it appears that the specimen presented
in court were marked with the initials, it was not shown who marked the same and when
it was done, and whether it was done by the apprehending team upon seizure and before
submission to the crime laboratory for examination or not.