SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
CASE DIGESTS ON RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children
against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination), as
amended by RA 9231)
I. DOCTRINES
a. People of the Philippines v. Leonardo Degay | G.R. No.
182526 | August 25, 2010 | J. Perez
Absence of hymenal lacerations on the private organs of the
victims does not negate rape. It stressed that the RTC correctly
convicted the accused of three counts of statutory rape since the
accused had sexual intercourse with the victims who are both
under 12 years of age.
b. People of the Philippines v. Ernesto Fragrante | G.R. No.
182521 | February 09, 2011 | J. Carpio
(1) When the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph
3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case
may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion
temporal in its medium period.
(2) In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness,
relationship is considered aggravating." In that case, the Court
considered relationship as an aggravating circumstance since
the information mentioned, and the accused admitted, that the
complainant is his daughter. In the instant case, the information
expressly state that AAA is appellant's daughter, and appellant
openly admitted this fact
c. People of the Philippines v. Bernabe Pangilinan | G.R.
No.183090 | November 14, 2011 | J. Perez
Under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353,
if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the
offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for
statutory rape under Article 266-A (1)(d) of the Revised Penal
Code and penalized withreclusion perpetua. On the other hand,
if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged
with either sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 or rape
under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised
Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both
crimes for the same act because his right against double
jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice
to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape
cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5 (b) of RA
7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex
crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape)
cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
d. SPO1 Acuzar v. Jorolan and Hon. Apresa, People’s Law
Enforcement Board (PLEB) | G.R. No. 177878 | April 7, 2010 | J.
Villarama Jr. Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper
or unlawful conduct, motivated by premeditated, obstinate or
intentional purpose.It usually refers to transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left
except what necessity may demand; it does not necessarily
imply corruption or criminal intention but implies wrongful
intention and not to mere error of judgment.
e. Jojit Garingarao v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No.
192760 | July 20, 2011 | J. Carpio
In case of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the
offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of
the accused. A child is deemed subject to other sexual abuse
when the child is the victim of lascivious conduct under the
coercion or influence of any adult. It is inconsequential that
sexual abuse under RA 7610 occurred only once. Section 3 (b)
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
of RA 7610 provides that the abuse may be habitual or not.
Hence, the fact that the offense occurred only once is enough to
hold the accused liable for acts of lasciviousness under RA 7610.
f. People of the Philippines v. Ireno Bonaagua y Berce |
G.R. No. 188897 | June 06, 2011 | J. Peralta
It must be emphasized, that like in the crime of rape whereby
the slightest penetration of the male organ or even its slightest
contact with the outer lip or the labia majora of the vagina
already consummates the crime, in like manner, if the tongue, in
an act of cunnilingus, touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act
should also be considered as already consummating the crime
of rape through sexual assault, not the crime of acts of
lasciviousness. However, when the victim testifies that the
accused only touched her private part and licked it, but did not
insert his finger in her vagina, this testimony of the victim,
however, is open to various interpretation, since it cannot be
identified what specific part of the vagina was defiled by the
accused. Thus, in conformity with the principle that the guilt of
an accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the
statement cannot be the basis for convicting the accused with
the crime of rape through sexual assault. If such act is committed
against a victim who was 8 years old at the time of the
commission of the crime, the accused shall be charged of the
crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No.
7610.
g. People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Dahilig y Agaran |
G.R. No. 187083 | June 13, 2011 | J. Mendoza
Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610in relation to RA 8353,
if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the
offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for
statutory rape under Article 266-A (1)(d) of the Revised Penal
Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand,
if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged
with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape
under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised
Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both
crimes for the same act because his right against double
jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice
to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape
cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex
crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape)
cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
h. People of the Philippines v. Jonie Dominguez | G.R. No.
191065 | June 13, 2011 | J. Sereno
Any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can
perceive, and perceiving, can make known his perception to
others and of relating truthfully facts respecting which he is
examined.
i. Salvador Flordeliz y Abenojar v. People of the
Philippines | G.R. No. 186441 | March 3, 2010 | J. Nachura
The Court is aware that the Information specifically charged
petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC, without
stating therein that it was in relation to R.A. No. 7610. However,
the failure to designate the offense by statute or to mention the
specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous
specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the information
if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts constituting the
crime charged. The character of the crime is not determined by
the caption or preamble of the information or by the
specification of the provision of law alleged to have been
violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and
circumstances in the complaint or information.
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
II. CASE DIGESTS
a. People of the Philippines v. Leonardo Degay | G.R. No.
182526 | August 25, 2010 | J. Perez
FACTS: At the time the crime of rape was complained by private
respondent (AAA) she was nine (9) years old and a grade III
pupil. The accused is their neighbor with only five houses
separating them. During the second week of March, 2004, AAA
was on her way to school when she met the accused. The
accused kissed AAA on the forehead several times, and he
brought her inside his house. He laid her on the sofa, mounted
her, and inserted his hard penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain in
her vagina. After satisfying himself, the accused gave AAA P5.00
and warned her not to tell her mother about what happened.
The said act was again repeated on March 25, 2004.
CCC, AAA’s mother learned about what happened to her
daughter. CCC confronted AAA and she confirmed to CCC that
she was raped by the accused. AAA and BBB, a four-year old girl
who is another complainant were examined at the Bontoc
General Hospital. BBB confessed that she is also raped by the
accused when one day the accused brought her to the bedroom
on the second floor of the house. He laid her down on the bed
and the accused went on top of her. She felt pain in her vagina.
The defense presented seven witnesses including the accused
himself. The accused denied that he knew the victims and that
he came to know them when he was detained at Bauko
Municipal Jail. The RTC found the accused guilty of three counts
of statutory rape and it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of lascivious conduct and
not statutory rape.
RULING: The accused argues that his acts of showing his penis
to BBB and the touching of AAA’s vagina, mashing of her breasts
and letting his penis touch her vagina constitute lascivious
conduct and not statutory rape, citing Section 2(h) of the Rules
and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child
Abuse Cases, Republic Act No. 7610, which defines lascivious
conduct as “the intentional touching, either directly or through
clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or
buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia,
anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite
sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade or arouse
or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals on pubic area
of a person.” He cites that the lascivious conduct is supported
by the medico-legal findings on AAA and BBB, when it was found
that there was no hymenal laceration on their organs. The
accused further faults the RTC for not giving credence to his
plausible alibi that he was in another place on 8 May 2004 and
it was impossible for him to have brought BBB to his house and
raped her.
On the other hand, the prosecution, through the Office of the
Solicitor General, in its brief argues that it had proven beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused committed statutory rape
and not just acts of lasciviousness. It cited the categorical and
straightforward testimonies of AAA and BBB as corroborated by
the medical findings showing both victims suffered erythema or
redness in the areas of their labias minora and majora. It
pointed out that this Court had held in People v. De la Cuesta,
that absence of hymenal lacerations on the private organs of the
victims does not negate rape. It stressed that the RTC correctly
convicted the accused of three counts of statutory rape since the
accused had sexual intercourse with the victims who are both
under 12 years of age. It finally argued that the accused cannot
exculpate himself from liability by alleging that from the last
week of February, 2004 to the first week of April, 2004, he was
in Caboan, Capangdanan because Caboan is only three
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
kilometers away from Sabangan and could be traversed in an
hour or less. It was therefore not physically impossible for the
accused to be at the crime scenes.
After review, we uphold the rulings of the appellate court and
the RTC.
b. People of the Philippines v. Ernesto Fragrante | G.R. No.
182521 | February 09, 2011 | J. Carpio
FACTS: Ernesto Fragrante was married to CCC; they had three
children and the victim (AAA) is their third child. Three or four
months before her eleventh (11) birthday, she woke up early
because her father promised them that they will have driving
lessons that day. Her father enterd her room, lie beside her on
her bed, he was talking about a lot of things to her and then he
started to fondle her breast and suck her nipples.
The said incident was repeated between June and August 1993
and on some other occasions. In September 1995 when AAA is
at the age of thirteen (13), she was raped by her father Ernesto.
She was told to get inside his room. He scolded her and told her
to lie down on his bed. And then he raped her. She bbegged and
struggled for him to remove his penis inside her but despite all
her pleas he stayed on top of him.
In the evening of October 25, 1997 AAA was left home with his
father because her mother and siblings went to a wake. Her
father started massaging her breast. Her father strangled her
and asked her whether she preferred to be strangled first and
she answered no. He started touching her private parts and then
she told him that her mother has arrived, that was the only time
that she was allowed to leave but she was warned to not tell her
mother what happened. After that, they report the incident to
the NBI. The appellant was charged with nine (9) counts of acts
of lasciviousness and (1) count of rape.
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming
appellant's conviction for nine (9) counts of acts of
lasciviousness and one (1) count of rape
RULING: The court sustained the appellant’s conviction for (7)
counts of acts of lasciviousness and (1) count of rape. He was
acquitted for (2) counts of acts of lasciviousness on the ground
of reasonable doubt.
The prosecution sufficiently established appellant's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed
by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of 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 twelve years of age or is
demented.
As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, all the essential
elements of rape are present in this case. The evidence on record
clearly proves that appellant had carnal knowledge of his own
minor daughter AAA.
It must be stressed that the gravamen of rape is sexual congress
with a woman by force and without consent. In People v.
Orillosa, we held that actual force or intimidation need not be
employed in incestuous rape of a minor because the moral and
physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim
into submission to his beastly desires. When a father commits
the odious crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral
ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
and intimidation. The absence of violence or offer of resistance
would not affect the outcome of the case because the
overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father
over his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of
resistance required in rape cases committed by an accused who
did not have blood relationship with the victim.
In this case, AAA's testimony clearly showed how appellant took
advantage of his relationship with and his moral ascendancy
over his minor daughter when he had carnal knowledge of her.
As found by the Court of Appeals, appellant instilled fear on
AAA's mind every time he sexually molested her, thus: [AAA]
also admitted that after accused-appellant has started sexually
molesting her until she was raped, she was so frightened of him.
In fact she could not tell her mother of her ordeal, mindful of the
serious threats on her life and of the chaos it would cause their
family.
We likewise find appellant's claim that the medical findings do
not support the charge of rape untenable. Aside from AAA's
positive, straightforward, and credible testimony, the
prosecution presented the medical certificate issued by Dr.
Bernadette Madrid and the latter's testimony which corroborate
AAA's claim that appellant raped her.
The Court is not impressed with appellant's claim that AAA's
failure to immediately report the incidents to the proper
authorities affected her credibility. Delay could be attributed to
the victim's tender age and the appellant's threats. A rape
victim's actions are oftentimes influenced by fear, rather than
reason. In incestuous rape, this fear is magnified because the
victim usually lives under the same roof as the perpetrator or is
at any rate subject to his dominance because of their blood
relationship.
Appellant was charged with violation of Article 336 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to Section 5(b),
Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. These provisions state:
Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. -- Any person who shall commit
any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under
any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article,
shall be punished by prision correccional.
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children,
whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other
consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other
sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve
(12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under
Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No.
3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious
conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for
lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years
of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; x x x
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of
Republic Act No. 7610 are as follows:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of
age.
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, all the elements of
sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 are present
here.
First, appellant's repeated touching, fondling, and sucking of
AAA's breasts and inserting his finger into AAA's vagina with
lewd designs undoubtedly constitute lascivious conduct under
Section 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Republic Act No. 7610, to wit:
(h) "Lascivious conduct" means the intentional touching, either
directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast,
inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into
the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same
or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person,
bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
public area of a person.
Second, appellant, as a father having moral ascendancy over his
daughter, coerced AAA to engage in lascivious conduct, which is
within the purview of sexual abuse. In People v. Larin, we held:
A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse, when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other
consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any
adult, syndicate or group.
Third, AAA is below 18 years old at the time of the commission
of the offense, based on her testimony which was corroborated
by her Birth Certificate presented during the trial. Section 3(a),
Article I of Republic Act No. 7610 provides:
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. -
(a) "Children" refers [to] persons below eighteen (18) years of
age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves
or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation
or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition; Since all three elements of the crime were present,
the conviction of appellant for acts of lasciviousness was proper.
In Criminal Case Nos. 98-652 and 98-658, we agree with the
Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People, that the
prosecution failed to prove appellant's guilt for acts of
lasciviousness beyond reasonable doubt. While AAA testified
that appellant habitually molested her, there was no specific
evidence supporting the charge that appellant committed acts of
lasciviousness in May 1993 and September 1997, or on or about
those dates. Hence, we find appellant not guilty for two counts
of acts of lasciviousness (Criminal Case Nos. 98-652 and 98-
658) on the ground of reasonable doubt.
As regards the other criminal cases for acts of lasciviousness,
where appellant's guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt,
we affirm appellant's conviction. In these cases, the alternative
circumstance of relationship under Article 15 of the Revised
Penal Code should be considered against appellant. In People v.
Fetalino, the Court held that, "in crimes against chastity, like acts
of lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating." In
that case, the Court considered relationship as an aggravating
circumstance since the informations mentioned, and the
accused admitted, that the complainant is his daughter.
In the instant case, the information expressly state that AAA is
appellant's daughter, and appellant openly admitted this fact.
Accordingly, we modify the penalty imposed in Criminal Case
Nos. 98-657 and 98-659. Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No.
7610 prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
period to reclusion perpetua. Since there is an aggravating
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall
be applied in its maximum period - reclusion perpetua. Besides,
Section 31 of Republic Act No. 7610 expressly provides that "The
penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period
when the perpetrator is [a] x x x parent, x x x. In People v.
Montinola and People v. Sumingwa, where the accused is the
biological father of the minor victim, the Court appreciated the
presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship and
accordingly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Thus,
appellant herein is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua in Criminal Case Nos. 98-657 and 98-659.
In Criminal Case Nos. 98-651, 98-653, 98-654, 98-655, and 98-
656, where AAA was still below 12 years old at the time of the
commission of the acts of lasciviousness, the imposable penalty
is reclusion temporal in its medium period in accordance with
Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. This provision
specifically states "[t]hat the penalty for lascivious conduct
when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be
reclusion temporal in its medium period. "Considering the
presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship, as
explained, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
In People v. Velasquez, which involved a two year old child
sexually abused by her grandfather, the Court imposed the
indeterminate sentence of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion
temporal as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as
maximum. Accordingly, appellant herein is sentenced to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion
temporal as minimum to 17 years of reclusion temporal as
maximum.
Also, we modify the amount of moral damages and fine awarded
by the Court of Appeals. We reduce the amount of moral
damages from P50,000 to P15,000 and the amount of fine from
P30,000 to P15,000 for each of the seven (7) counts of acts of
lasciviousness. In addition, we award civil indemnity in the
amount of P20,000, and exemplary damages in the sum of
P15,000, in view of the presence of the aggravating
circumstance of relationship, for each of the seven (7) counts of
acts of lasciviousness.
c. People of the Philippines v. Bernabe Pangilinan | G.R.
No.183090 | November 14, 2011 | J. Perez
FACTS: AAA, a thirteen year old girl lived with her aunt BBB and
her husband since she was two years old until July 27, 2001. At
around 10 p.m. of July 27, 2001, while her aunt was working in
Angeles, Pampanga, and she was watching television in their
house, appellant arrived and ordered her to cook chicken adobo
which she did. Appellant approached her and pointed a samurai
at her. Appellant then kissed her neck and mashed her breast. It
was not the first time that appellant did that to her. AAA testified
that prior to the said incident; she was already abused by the
appellant several times. She said that the reason why she did not
tell her aunt about the molestation is because the appellant
threatened to kill her and her aunt. She also said that her aunt
and appellant treated her like their own child.
BBB denied all the allegations against him and on his defense he
said that it was CCC, AAA’s cousin who molested her and that
AAA is only forced by her wife’s relatives to file charges against
him because they were against him and their relationship. His
testimony was corroborated by two other witnesses. The Trial
Court found the accused guilty for rape and sexual abuse. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the said decision but with
modifications as to the award for damages.
ISSUE: Whether the accused should be penalized for rape under
RA 7610 or under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING: In this case, appellant was charged under two separate
information for rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
Code and sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610,
respectively. However, we find the Information in Criminal Case
No. 11769 for sexual abuse to be void for being violative of
appellant’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him.
The allegations in the above-quoted Information would show
the insufficiency of the averments of the acts alleged to have
been committed by appellant. It does not contain the essential
facts constituting the offense, but a statement of a conclusion of
law. Thus, appellant cannot be convicted of sexual abuse under
such Information. The right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against an accused cannot be waived for
reasons of public policy. Hence, it is imperative that the
complaint or information filed against the accused be complete
to meet its objectives. As such, an indictment must fully state the
elements of the specific offense alleged to have been committed.
Art. 266-A Rape; When and How Committed – Rape is
Committed –
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or
is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned
above be present.
We find that AAA remained steadfast in her assertion that
appellant raped her through force and intimidation with the use
of a samurai. And even after the incident, appellant threatened
AAA that he would kill her and her aunt, i.e., appellant's wife,
should AAA report the incident.
A finding that the accused is guilty of rape may be based solely
on the victim's testimony if such testimony meets the test of
credibility. We held that no woman, much less a child of such
tender age, would willingly submit herself to the rigors, the
humiliation and the stigma attendant upon the prosecution of
rape, if she were not motivated by an earnest desire to put the
culprit behind bars.
Appellant argues that he could not be convicted of rape since
based on the medical examination report, AAA's genitalia had no
hymenal laceration which corroborated AAA's testimony that
appellant merely kissed her and touched her breast on July 27,
2001.
Proof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.[53] An
intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was
raped. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the
vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to
constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape.
While it appears from AAA's testimony that she was not raped
precisely on July 27, 2001 as what appellant did was kiss her lips
and mash her breast on that day, however, her entire testimony
in the witness stand positively shows that appellant with the use
of force and intimidation had carnal knowledge of her at some
other time. She testified that appellant violated her since she
was seven years old. The first time was when they were still
staying in Angeles City where appellant touched her private
parts; the second time was when they were already in Gerona,
Tarlac, where appellant pointed a samurai at her and raped her;
and the third time happened on July 27, 2001 when appellant
kissed her lips and mashed her breast. Indeed, appellant may be
convicted for rape in the light of AAA's testimony. For in rape
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
cases, the date of the commission is not an essential element of
the offense; what is material is its occurrence.
Notably, the information alleges that the crime of rape was
committed “on or about July 27, 2001,” thus the prosecution
may prove that rape was committed on or about July 27, 2001,
i.e., few months or years before, and not exactly on July 27,
2001.
In his Supplemental Brief, appellant claims that he should have
been prosecuted for rape under RA No. 7610 since AAA was
already more than 12 years old when the alleged rape was
committed which carries the penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua.
We do not agree. In People v. Dahilig, wherein the question
posed was whether the crime committed was rape (Violation of
Article 266-A, par. 1, in relation to Article 266-B, 1st paragraph
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA No. 8353), or is it
Child Abuse, defined and penalized by Section 5, (b), RA No.
7610, we said:
As elucidated by the RTC and the CA in their respective
decisions, all the elements of both crimes are present in this
case. The case of People v. Abay, however, is enlightening and
instructional on this issue. It was stated in that case that if the
victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with
either sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 or rape
under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1 [d] of the Revised
Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both
crimes for the same act because his right against double
jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice
to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Specifically, Abay
reads:
Under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA
8353,if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the
offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for
statutory rape under Article 266-A (1)(d) of the Revised Penal
Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand,
if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged
with either sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 or rape
under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised
Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both
crimes for the same act because his right against double
jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice
to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape
cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5 (b) of RA
7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex
crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape)
cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
In this case, the victim was more than 12 years old when the
crime was committed against her. The Information against
appellant stated that AAA was 13 years old at the time of the
incident. Therefore, appellant may be prosecuted either for
violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-
A (except paragraph 1 [d]) of the Revised Penal Code. While the
Information may have alleged the elements of both crimes, the
prosecution's evidence only established that appellant sexually
violated the person of AAA through force and intimidation by
threatening her with a bladed instrument and forcing her to
submit to his bestial designs. Thus, rape was established.
Accordingly, the accused can indeed be charged with either
Rape or Child Abuse and be convicted therefor. Considering,
however, that the information correctly charged the accused
with rape in violation of Article 266-A par. 1 in relation to Article
266-B, 1st par. of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A.
No. 8353, and that he was convicted therefor, the CA should have
merely affirmed the conviction.
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
As in the present case, appellant can indeed be charged with
either Rape or Child Abuse and be convicted therefor. The
prosecution's evidence established that appellant had carnal
knowledge of AAA through force and intimidation by
threatening her with a samurai. Thus, rape was established.
Considering that in the resolution of the Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor, he resolved the filing of rape under Article 266-A of
the Revised Penal Code for which appellant was convicted by
both the RTC and the CA, therefore, we merely affirm the
conviction.
d. SPO1 Acuzar v. Jorolan and Hon. Apresa, People’s Law
Enforcement Board (PLEB) | G.R. No. 177878 | April 7, 2010 | J.
Villarama Jr.
FACTS: Aproniano Jorolan filed an Administrative Case against
petitioner before the PLEB charging the latter of Grave
Misconduct for allegedly having an illicit relationship with
respondent’s minor daughter. Jorolan also instituted a criminal
case against the petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court of
New Corella for Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic
Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Child Abuse Act.
Petitioner filed a Counter – Affidavit before the PLEB and he
denied all the accusations against him. He also attached the
complainant’s daughter’s affidavit wherein she denied having
relationship with the petitioner. Upon receipt of the decision of
PLEB whish found him guilty of grave misconduct (Child Abuse),
he filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order with the RTC of
Tagum City which annulled the decision of PLEB. The
respondent elevated the case to the CA which reversed and set
aside the ruling of the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that petitioner’s
resort to certiorari was not warranted as the remedy of appeal
from the decision of the PLEB was available to him.
RULING: petitioner opted to file a petition for certiorari before
the trial court on the pretext that the PLEB had no jurisdiction
to hear the administrative case until petitioner is convicted
before the regular court. According to petitioner, although the
case filed before the PLEB was captioned as “Grave Misconduct,”
the offense charged was actually for “Violation of Law,” which
requires prior conviction before a hearing on the administrative
case can proceed. Thus, petitioner insists that the PLEB should
have awaited the resolution of the criminal case before
conducting a hearing on the administrative charge against him.
The contention however is untenable. A careful perusal of
respondent’s affidavit-complaint against petitioner would show
that petitioner was charged with grave misconduct for engaging
in an illicit affair with respondent’s minor daughter, he being a
married man, and not for violation of law, as petitioner would
like to convince this Court. Misconduct generally means
wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct, motivated by
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. It usually refers
to transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand;
it does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intention
but implies wrongful intention and not to mere error of
judgment. On the other hand, “violation of law” presupposes
final conviction in court of any crime or offense penalized under
the Revised Penal Code or any special law or ordinance. The
settled rule is that criminal and administrative cases are
separate and distinct from each other. In criminal cases, proof
beyond reasonable doubt is needed whereas in administrative
proceedings, only substantial evidence is required. Verily,
administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal
proceedings. The PLEB, being the administrative disciplinary
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
body tasked to hear complaints against erring members of the
PNP, has jurisdiction over the case.
In the instant case, petitioner was notified of the complaint
against him and in fact, he had submitted his counter-affidavit
and the affidavits of his witnesses. He attended the hearings
together with his counsel and even asked for several
postponements. Petitioner therefore cannot claim that he had
been denied of due process. Due process in an administrative
context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those
in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either
through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there
is no denial of due process. The requirements are satisfied
where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity
to explain their side of the controversy. In other words, it is not
legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an
administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position
papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the
parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of direct
testimony. Here, we note that petitioner had more than enough
opportunity to present his side and adduce evidence in support
of his defense; thus, he cannot claim that his right to due process
has been violated. Wherefore, the petition is denied.
e. Jojit Garingarao v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No.
192760 | July 20, 2011 | J. Carpio
FACTS: AAA, 16 years of age, was brought to the Virgen
Milagrosa Medical Center by her father BBB and mother CCC due
to fever and abdominal pain. AAA was admitted at the hospital
for further observation. The next day, her father and mother left
the hospital to process AAA’s Medicare papers and to attend to
their store, respectively, leaving AAA alone in her room. When
her father returned to the hospital, AAA told him that she
wanted to go home. The doctor allowed them due to AAA’s
insistence but instructed her that she should continue her
medications. At home, AAA told her parents that Garingarao
sexually abused her. They went back to the hospital and
reported the incident to Dr. Morante. They inquired from the
nurses’ station and learned that Garingarao was the nurse on
duty on that day.
An Information was filed against Garingarao for acts of
lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610. During the trial, AAA
testified that, Garingarao, entered her room to check her
medications and if she was still experiencing pains. Garingarao
lifted AAA’s bra and touched her left breast and insisted that he
was only examining her. Garingarao also slid his finger inside
AAA’s private part and only stopped when he saw that AAA
really had her monthly period.
In his defense, the accused testified that he went inside AAA’s
room to administer her medicines and check her vital signs.
Garingarao alleged that the filing of the case was motivated by
the argument he had with AAA’s father about the administering
of medicines. He was supported by the testimony of the nursing
aide, Tamayo. Garingarao further alleged that, assuming the
charges were correct, there was only one incident when he
allegedly touched AAA and as such, he should have been
convicted only of acts of lasciviousness and not of violation of
RA 7610. The RTC found Garingarao guilty as charged and gave
credence to the testimony of AAA over Garingarao’s denial,
which was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not the single incident of act of
lasciviousness would suffice to hold the accused liable under RA
7610
RULING: Yes. The Court has ruled that in case of acts of
lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if
credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. It is a
settled rule that denial is a weak defense as against the positive
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
identification by the victim. Both denial and alibi are inherently
weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence
which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the
positive declaration by a credible witness.
Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 provides:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children,
whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other
consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse.
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA
7610 are the following:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct;
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
Under Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA 7610, lascivious conduct is defined as follows:
The intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of
the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the
introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of
any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with the intent
to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious
exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.
In this case, the prosecution established that Garingarao
touched AAA’s breasts and inserted his finger into her private
part for his sexual gratification. Garingarao used his influence as
a nurse by pretending that his actions were part of the physical
examination he was doing. Garingarao persisted on what he was
doing despite AAA’s objections. AAA twice asked Garingarao
what he was doing and he answered that he was just examining
her.
The Court has ruled that a child is deemed subject to other
sexual abuse when the child is the victim of lascivious conduct
under the coercion or influence of any adult. In lascivious
conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult, there must
be some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which
subdues the free exercise of the offended party’s free will. In this
case, Garingarao coerced AAA into submitting to his lascivious
acts by pretending that he was examining her.
Garingarao insists that, assuming that the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses were true, he should not be convicted of
violation of RA 7610 because the incident happened only once.
Garingarao alleges that the single incident would not suffice to
hold him liable under RA 7610. This argument has no legal basis.
The Court has already ruled that it is inconsequential that sexual
abuse under RA 7610 occurred only once. Section 3(b) of RA
7610 provides that the abuse may be habitual or not. Hence, the
fact that the offense occurred only once is enough to hold
Garingarao liable for acts of lasciviousness under RA 7610. The
Court finds Jojit Garingarao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.
f. People of the Philippines v. Ireno Bonaagua y Berce |
G.R. No. 188897 | June 06, 2011 | J. Peralta
FACTS: AAA and her mother left their house in Candelaria to
spend the Christmas with accused-appellant who is also AAA’s
father, and stayed in the house of a certain Lola Jean in Las Piñas.
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
One afternoon, AAA was inside a room lying in bed while her
younger brothers were playing outside the house and her
mother was not home. Accused-appellant entered the room,
undressed her and thereafter, touched and caressed her breasts.
He licked her vagina then inserted his finger into it. In the
evening of the same day, the accused-appellant raped AAA again
in the same manner and under the same circumstances.
Afterwhich, AAA was raped by accused-appellant for several
times. AAA again did not report these incidents for fear that her
mother would be killed by the accused.
AAA complained of severe abdominal pain which prompted her
mother to take her to the hospital. In Quezon Memorial Hospital
Lucena, she was physically examined by Dr. De Leon. The results
revealed that there was a healed superficial laceration at the 9
o'clock position on the hymen of AAA. She told her mother about
all the incidents of rape committed by accused-appellant. AAA's
mother took her to the Police Headquarters to file a complaint
for rape against accused-appellant. She was also taken at the NBI
where she executed a sworn statement. Accused-appellant
denied committing the charges of rape charged against him. He
claimed to be working in Las Piñas while AAA, her mother and
siblings where in Sariaya, Quezon at the time the alleged rapes
occurred. And every time they would visit him in Las Piñas, they
would leave on the same day they arrived after he gives them
money. The RTC after finding the evidence for the prosecution
overwhelming against the accused's defense of denial and alibi,
convicted Ireno with four (4) counts of rape, affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether the accused’s act of touching the victim’s private
part and licking it constitutes the crime of Rape through Sexual
Assault or Acts of Lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610.
RULING: It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that when the
offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case,
courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what
transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but
also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be
exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true.
A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration;
publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted;
allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the
trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and
scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been
truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated
by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed
against her. Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the
lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough
to sustain a conviction. Contrary to Ireno's contention, the
medical findings of Dr. Melissa De Leon did not refute AAA's
testimony of defilement, but instead bolstered her claim. As to
the three of four incidents (Criminal Case Nos. 03-0254, 03-
0256, and 03-0257) of rape, Ireno was convicted with Qualified
Rape through Sexual Assault. Ireno, is the father of the minor
victim. Hence, the offenses were committed with the
aggravating/qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship, which in turn, warrants the imposition of the
higher penalty of reclusion temporal prescribed by Article 266-
B of the RPC.
However, in one incident (Criminal Case No. 03-0255), accused-
appellant cannot be held guilty as charged for the crime of rape.
It must be emphasized, that like in the crime of rape whereby
the slightest penetration of the male organ or even its slightest
contact with the outer lip or the labia majora of the vagina
already consummates the crime, in like manner, if the tongue, in
an act of cunnilingus, touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act
should also be considered as already consummating the crime
of rape through sexual assault, not the crime of acts of
lasciviousness. For this part, the victim testified that Ireno only
touched her private part and licked it, but did not insert his
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
finger in her vagina. This testimony of the victim, however, is
open to various interpretation, since it cannot be identified what
specific part of the vagina was defiled by Ireno. Thus, in
conformity with the principle that the guilt of an accused must
be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the statement cannot be
the basis for convicting Ireno with the crime of rape through
sexual assault.
Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, defines and penalizes
acts of lasciviousness committed against a child as follows:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. -- Children,
whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other
consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse.
Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but also with a
child subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers not only a
situation where a child is abused for profit, but also where one
through coercion, intimidation or influence engages in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child. However,
pursuant to the foregoing provision, before an accused can be
convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct committed
against a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of
lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in
addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of
R.A. No. 7610.
Corollarilly, Section 2 (h) of the rules and regulations of R.A. No.
7610 defines "Lascivious conduct" as:
The intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of
the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the
introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of
any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent
to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious
exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.
Undeniably, all the afore-stated elements are present in
Criminal Case No. 03-0255. Ireno committed lascivious acts
against AAA by touching her breasts and licking her vagina and
the lascivious or lewd acts were committed against AAA, who
was 8 years old at the time as established by her birth certificate.
Thus, Ireno is guilty of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under
Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610.
g. People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Dahilig y Agaran |
G.R. No. 187083 | June 13, 2011 | J. Mendoza
FACTS: AAA, a helper, was sleeping when the accused made
sexual advances on her. She shouted for help from her co-helper
but to no avail because the latter was sound asleep. Eventually,
the accused succeeded to undress her. Then, he forced his penis
into her vagina which caused her pain and returned to his
quarters when he was done. The accused left their employer's
house; AAA then informed her employer about the incident.
Their employer immediately assisted her in filing a case against
accused which caused the arrest of the accused. The accused
offered to marry AAA but the latter refused. In the medical
examination, it was disclosed that there was a healing laceration
in her hymen although no spermatozoa was found.
The accused denied the allegations and contended that the
sexual congress that transpired between them was consensual
as she was then his girlfriend. The RTC found the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape as what he laid
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
before the court for its consideration was a mere self-serving
claim of their relationship. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision
but clarified that the crime charged should have been "Child
Abuse" as defined and penalized in Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610,
based on the fact that the complainant was a minor, being 16
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.
ISSUE: Whether the crime committed was Rape (Violation of
Article 266-A par. 1 in relation to Article 266-B, 1st par. of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353), or is it Child
Abuse, defined and penalized by Sec. 5, (b), R.A. No. 7610
RULING: As elucidated by the RTC and the CA in their respective
decisions, all the elements of both crimes are present in this
case. Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610in relation to RA
8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the
offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for
statutory rape under Article 266-A (1)(d) of the Revised Penal
Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand,
if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged
with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape
under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised
Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both
crimes for the same act because his right against double
jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice
to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape
cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex
crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape)
cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
In this case, the victim was more than 12 years old when the
crime was committed against her. The Information against
appellant stated that AAA was 13 years old at the time of the
incident. Therefore, appellant may be prosecuted either for
violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610orrapeunderArticle 266-A
(except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. While the
Information may have alleged the elements of both crimes, the
prosecution's evidence only established that appellant sexually
violated the person of AAA through force and intimidation by
threatening her with a bladed instrument and forcing her to
submit to his bestial designs. Thus, rape was established.
Accordingly, the accused can indeed be charged with either
Rape or Child Abuse and be convicted therefor. Considering,
however, that the information correctly charged the accused
with rape in violation of Article 266-A par. 1 in relation to Article
266-B, 1st par. of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A.
No. 8353, and that he was convicted therefor, the CA should have
merely affirmed the conviction.
h. People of the Philippines v. Jonie Dominguez | G.R. No.
191065 | June 13, 2011 | J. Sereno
FACTS: Jonie Dominguez, being the brother of the mother of the
victim’s father, raped AAA twice when she was only nine years
old and BBB seven times when she was only twelve years old.
Both of the victims kept silence about the instances of rape, until
it their mother accidentally overheard Dominguez boasting in a
drinking session that his grandchildren’s vaginas were already
wide. The mother confronted her children and found what had
happened. The children were brought to a doctor for
examination. The doctor found AAA’s hymen intact but did not
discount the fact that the child could have been molested. BBB
was found to have old hymenal lacerations.
During trial, AAA and BBB testified against Dominguez by
narrating the lascivious acts he had done to them. According to
their testimonies, the accused had employed trickery so that
either AAA or BBB would be left alone with him and thereafter
raped, with threats of harm to her person or her family. The only
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
alibi of the accused is that he was in the mountains on the dates
that he was alleged to have committed the crimes
ISSUE: Whether or not the testimonies of AAA and BBB are
credible
RULING: It is thus clear that any child, regardless of age, can be
a competent witness if he can perceive, and perceiving, can
make known his perception to others and of relating truthfully
facts respecting which he is examined. In the 1913 decision in
United States vs. Buncad, this Court stated:
Professor Wigmore, after referring to the common-law
precedents upon this point, says: "But this much may be taken
as settled, that no rule defines any particular age as conclusive
of incapacity; in each instance the capacity of the particular child
is to be investigated."
While on the same subject, Underhill declares:
257. Children on the witness stand. - Under the common
law, competency of a child under the age of fourteen years to
testify must be shown to the satisfaction of the court. He is
presumptively incompetent, but if he is shown to be competent
it is immaterial how young he may be when he testifies. He is
competent if he possesses mental capacity and memory
sufficient to enable him to give a reasonable and intelligible
account of the transaction he has seen, if he understands and has
a just appreciation of the difference between right and wrong,
and comprehends the character, meaning and obligation of an
oath. If the witness fulfills these requirements, it is immaterial
as bearing upon his competency that he is unable to define the
oath or to define testimony. In the wise discretion of the court, a
child four, five, six and for such ages as seven, eight, nine, ten,
eleven, twelve, thirteen or fifteen years of age may be shown
competent to testify. It may not be said that there is any
particular age at which as a matter of law all children are
competent or incompetent.
The requirements then of a child’s competency as a
witness are the: (a) capacity of observation, (b) capacity of
recollection, and (c) capacity of communication. And in
ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient intelligence
according to the foregoing requirements, it is settled that the
trial court is called upon to make such determination.
The legal doctrine that the assessment of the credibility of
witnesses is left to the judgment of the trial court is well-
established.Its findings of facts, when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, are deemed conclusive on this Court. In this case, both
the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the prosecution
witnesses credible.
Both the trial court and the CA found these defenses of denial
and alibi incredible. The testimony of the accused was riddled
with obvious inconsistencies. He denied knowing the victims,
but eventually identified AAA as his grandniece. His own
testimony contradicted his alibi, since he testified that from
2000 to 2002, he was residing in his brother’s house. This was
where one of the rape incidents happened, and was even near
the house of the victims. On this point, we have stated
previously:
To establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was
present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the
crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at
the scene of the crime.Physical impossibility "refers to the
distance between the place where the accused was when the
crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well
as the facility of access between the two places."
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
On its part, the prosecution was able to show the existence of the
elements of rape under the amended Revised Penal Code,
effectuated by R.A. No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997,
which states:
Art. 266-A. Rape: When and how committed
Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under
any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or
is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned
above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances
mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual
assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or
anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal
orifice of another person.
Before and after the violations, the intimidation took the form of
threats that the victims’ family would be killed by the accused.
The accused also employed trickery and took advantage of his
authority over his grandnieces. Under these circumstances, the
accused was able to have carnal knowledge of BBB and commit
a series of sexual assaults against both her and AAA. The two
incidents of rape against AAA happened before she reached 12
years of age, she being 9 and 10 then. For those incidents, proof
of threats, force or intimidation, is not necessary.
i. Salvador Flordeliz y Abenojar v. People of the
Philippines | G.R. No. 186441 | March 3, 2010 | J. Nachura
FACTS: Sometime in March 1995, ABC, the wife of petitioner and
the mother of private complainants AAA and BBB, left for
Malaysia as an overseas worker. AAA and BBB were left under
the care and custody of petitioner.In April 1995, while sleeping
with BBB and AAA, who was then eleven (11) years old,
petitioner touched AAA’s vagina, then played with it. AAA cried
and told petitioner that it was painful. The latter stopped, but
warned AAA not to tell anyone about it. Petitioner allegedly
committed the same acts against AAA repeatedly. Not long after,
petitioner was convicted of homicide and imprisoned in
Muntinlupa City. In 2001, petitioner was released on parole.
Petitioner allegedly started molesting BBB in May 2002. The
petitioner inserts his 2 fingers into BBB’s vagina whenever BBB
visits petitioner, New Year’s Day, day before AAA’s birthday, and
All Saints Day. Notwithstanding the repeated incidents of sexual
abuse committed against her, BBB did not reveal her
experiences to anybody because of fear for her life and that of
her mother.
AAA and BBB had the chance to reveal the abuse when their
mother ABC arrived for a vacation. AAA immediately told ABC
what petitioner did to her. When confronted by ABC, BBB
likewise admitted the repeated abuses committed by petitioner.
ABC reported the incidents to the NBI. After conducting medical
examinations on AAA and BBB, the attending physician
remarked that there was a "disclosure of sexual abuse and she
noted the presence of hymenal notch in posterior portion of
hymenal rim that may be due to previous blunt force or
penetrating trauma suggestive of abuse."With these findings,
petitioner was charged with the crimes of Acts of
Lasciviousness, committed against AAA, and nine (9) counts of
Qualified Rape through Sexual Assault, committed against BBB,
before the RTC.
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
ISSUE: Whether petitioner be charged of Acts of Lasciviousness
in relation to R.A. 7610 without stating in the information
RULING: Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 7610 defines lascivious conduct as
follows:
The intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of
the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the
introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of
any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent
to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious
exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.
Based on the foregoing definition, petitioners act of touching
AAA’s vagina and playing with it obviously amounted to
lascivious conduct. Considering that the act was committed on a
child less than twelve years old and through intimidation, it is
beyond cavil that petitioner is guilty under the aforesaid laws.
The Court is aware that the Information specifically charged
petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC, without
stating therein that it was in relation to R.A. No. 7610. However,
the failure to designate the offense by statute or to mention the
specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous
specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the information
if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts constituting the
crime charged. The character of the crime is not determined by
the caption or preamble of the information or by the
specification of the provision of law alleged to have been
violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and
circumstances in the complaint or information.
In the instant case, the body of the Information contains an
averment of the acts alleged to have been committed by
petitioner and unmistakably describes acts punishable under
Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
It is also undisputed that petitioner is the father of AAA. The RTC
did not appreciate the alternative circumstance of relationship,
because it was not alleged in the Information. We do not agree.
The resolution of the investigating prosecutor, which formed
the basis of the Information, a copy of which is attached thereto,
stated that petitioner is the victim’s biological father. There was,
therefore, substantial compliance with the mandate that an
accused be informed of the nature of the charge against him.
CASES on RA 9775 ANTI CHILD PORNOGRAPHY *(No Supreme
decided cases up to the present. These were gathered from news
reports)
1. Judge Angelica Paras Quiambao of Angeles City
Regional Trial Court Branch 59 has imposed a 32-year
imprisonment on a couple for the online sexual abuse of AAA, a
9-year-old girl who had been under their custody for several
years and of their 3-year-old daughter, BBB. The Court’s
decision found 31-year-old Herlen Torrefiel and 29-year-old
Janno Cabido guilty in two cases of violating Republic Act No.
9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009.
AAA, a Grade 4 student, had been living with her
supposed guardians in an apartment in nearby Mabalacat City
while her parents and sibling were in Bohol. Operatives of the
Philippine National Police Women and Children Protection
Center (WCPC) and Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) led the
entrapment operation against the couple on November 16,
2017, after receiving information and referral from the Swedish
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
police through the Bangkok-based Nordic Police and Customs
Cooperation Liaison Office, a cooperation office of the 5 Nordic
countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. A
WCPC information technologist posed as a customer and in
several instances was able to chat online with the accused,
including one time when the two young girls were presented to
him via Skype video chat. He was promised a surprise
performance from the girls. The undercover police officer, who
pretended to be an American, was also able to ascertain the
identities and residence of the couple by sending money as gifts
through money transfer services and a package to the
apartment. On the day of the sting operation, policemen carrying
a search warrant issued by the RTC Branch 60 here proceeded
to the target apartment in Barangay Dau, Mabalacat City, while
the undercover police officer was chatting with the accused who
were asking P5,000 for each online sexual show. The couple
were arrested and brought to the WCPC office in Camp Crame
while the girls were turned over to the Department of Social
Welfare and Development.
In a sworn affidavit, the 9-year-old victim said her
guardians made her undress in front of the computer and show
her genitals to foreigners on the screen who were also naked
and playing with their sex organs. “Wala po akong magawa.
Sumusunod na lang po ako sa utos nila. Yung mga kapitbahay
namin doon sa bandang dulo ang bahay may apat na bata na
ganoon din ang ipinapagawa,” she said, adding that she needed
to comply with her guardians wishes so they would have money
to buy milk, and because they were the ones sending her to
school. (I couldn t do anything. I was just following their orders.
Our neighbors in another house also made 4 children do the
same thing.) When she testified in a hearing, the victim also
disclosed that the couple scolded or spanked her whenever she
refused to do what she was asked to perform.
RTC Ruling
For coercing a child to perform pornographic act in
violation of section 4, paragraph (a) of the law, the court ordered
each of the convicted persons to serve 20 years imprisonment
and pay P2 million. The court also imposed a sentence of 12
years imprisonment and a fine of P500,000 to each of the
accused for violating section 4, paragraph (g) which prohibits a
parent, legal guardian, or person having custody or control of a
child to knowingly permit the child to engage, participate, or
assist in any form of child pornography. Aside from the fines, the
two were ordered to jointly pay P150,000 in moral and
exemplary damages to the minor girl who had been under their
custody since she was 2 years old.
2. A school teacher in Bayambang, Pangasinan, who has been
allegedly selling child sexual abuse materials on his social media
account, is facing charges for violation of the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009.
Armed with a search warrant, the Department of
Justice-Office of Cybercrime (DOJ-OOC) and National Bureau of
Investigation-Dagupan District Office (NBI-DDO) searched the
house of 22-year-old Mark Carlo Aquino on Thursday.
Authorities were reportedly prompted to act on the
matter after receiving reports of his alleged activities on Twitter.
They seized from Aquino’s home laptop computers, storage
devices, a smart phone, and other electronic devices.
Aquino will be charged for violation of Republic Act. No
9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 in relation to
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012.
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________
3.In Cebu City, agents of the National Bureau of Investigation in
Central Visayas on Thursday arrested three women for allegedly
taking lewd pictures of their own children and other minors in
Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, to sell these to a child pornography
operator. The women were arrested during simultaneous raids
in Barangays Soong and Babag. At least 20 minors, including
two children of one of the suspects, and the daughter of another
suspect, were rescued.
The suspects dealt with Patrick Clohessy, an Irish who
was arrested in London four years ago for cyber porn. Several
lewd pictures that were found in Clohessy’s possession allegedly
included those of minors from Lapu-Lapu City. The National
Crime Agency of London sought the help of the Inter-Agency
Council Against Trafficking and the International Justice Mission
which referred the matter to the regional NBI office. After
conducting surveillance operations for nearly three months, the
NBI confirmed that the three suspects were engaged in child
porn.
Armed with a search warrant issued by Executive
Judge Toribio Quiwag, of the Regional Trial Court in Lapu-Lapu
City, the agents raided the houses of the suspects. Rescued from
the house of one of the suspects in Barangay Babag were her two
children, ages 4 and 6, and her 10 nephews. Computers, laptops
and mobile phones that were seized in the raids would be used
as evidence.
In Barangay Soong, the NBI rescued the 22-year-old
daughter of a woman who was Clohessy’s alleged cohort in Cebu.
The victims were brought to the Department of Social Welfare
and Development.
Augusto Isidoro, NBI assistant director, said the NBI
would file charges against the women and Clohessy at the Lapu-
Lapu City prosecutor’s office. They would be charged with
violating the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (Republic
Act No. 9208) and the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (RA
9775). Since the victims are minors, the cases would be
nonbailable. Conviction carries a penalty of life in prison and
fines ranging from P2 million to P5 million.
COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATORY
ACT (RA10591)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO,
GR No. 210710, 2016-07-27
FACTS:
On 2 February 2007 at around 10:30 in the evening, Rey
Perfecto De Luna (De Luna) and Sixto Elizan[7] (Elizan) entered
a videoke bar at Barangay Mugdo, Hinabangan, Samar. Noli
Abayan (Abayan), appellant and Joselito Bardelas (Bardelas)
followed five minutes thereafter.While Elizan and De Luna were
drinking, singing and merely having fun, four successive
gunshots were fired through the window. Because of this, Elizan
and De Luna were hit from behind. Later on, De Luna and
Marialinisa Pasana (Pasana) saw appellant, who was then
wearing a black t-shirt and a black cap, holding a gun aimed at
their location. Pasana also saw accused-appellant and Bardelas
escape after the incident.Elizan and De Luna were brought to St.
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
Paul's Hospital at Tacloban City. Unfortunately, Elizan was
pronounced dead upon arrival. De Luna, on the other hand,
survived. Appellant steadfastly denied the accusations.
According to him, he and his companions ordered for bottles of
beer. However, when they tried to order for more bottles, the
waitress refused to give them their order unless they pay for
their previous orders first. While Abayan was explaining to the
father of the owner of the videoke bar, appellant and Bardelas
went out to urinate, however, the waitress locked the front door.
While standing outside, he heard the waitress utter the words,
"If you will not pay, I [will] have you killed, all of you, right this
moment. He also consistently contend that it was a man wearing
black shirt and camouflage pants who fired shots to the videoke
bar, not him.The following day, appellant and Bardelas were
arrested and underwent paraffin test.
ISSUES:
We find that the degree of proof required in criminal cases has
been met in the case at bar. W/N Appellant's defenses of denial
and alibi are bereft of merit.
RULING:
Elements of Murder and Frustrated Murder were established.
This Court finds that the circumstance of treachery should be
appreciated, qualifying the crime to Murder. According to the
Revised Penal Code: ARTICLE 248. Murder. - Any person who,
not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another,
shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any
of the following attendant circumstances: With treachery, taking
advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons
to insure or afford impunity. In consideration of a price, reward
or promise. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a
street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor
vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great
waste and ruin. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated
in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public
calamity. With evident premeditation. With cruelty, by
deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the
victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. Thus, the
elements of murder are: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that
the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended
by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248
of the RPC; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Furthermore, there is treachery when the offender commits any
of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or
forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially
to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.The requisites of
treachery are:(1) The employment of means method, or manner
of execution which will ensure the safety of the malefactor from
defensive or retaliating acts on the part of the victim, no
opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to
retaliate; and (2) Deliberate or conscious adoption of such
means, method, or manner of execution. In this case, the hapless
victims were merely drinking and singing in-front of the videoke
machine when shot by the appellant. The firing was so sudden
and swift that they had no opportunity to defend themselves or
to retaliate. Furthermore, appellant's acts of using a gun and
even going out of the videoke bar evidently show that he
consciously adopted means to ensure the execution of the crime.
In addition, the lower courts appropriately found appellant
liable for the crime of Frustrated Murder. A felony is frustrated
when the offender performs all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
of the will of the perpetrator. Dr. Angel Cordero M.D.
categorically said that De Luna could have died because of the
wounds if the surgery was not conducted timely. Hence,
appellant performed all the acts of execution which could have
produced the crime of murder as a consequence, but
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of a cause
independent of his will, which is, in this case, the timely and able
medical attendance rendered to De Luna.
Illegal Possession of Firearm as an aggravating circumstance in
the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder. The CA
appropriately appreciated the use of an unlicensed firearm as an
aggravating circumstance in the crimes of Murder and
Frustrated Murder. Under R.A. No. 1059, use of loose firearm in
the commission of a crime, like murder, shall be considered as
an aggravating circumstance. In view of the amendments
introduced by R.A. No. 8294 and R.A. No. 10591, to Presidential
Decree No. 1866, separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal
possession are no longer in order. Instead, illegal possession of
firearm is merely to be taken as an aggravating circumstance in
the crime of murder. It is clear from the foregoing that where
murder results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime
is not qualified illegal possession but, murder. In such a case, the
use of the unlicensed firearm is not considered as a separate
crime but shall be appreciated as a mere aggravating
circumstance. Thus, where murder was committed, the penalty
for illegal possession of firearms is no longer imposable since it
becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance. The intent
of Congress is to treat the offense of illegal possession of firearm
and the commission of homicide or murder with the use of
unlicensed firearm as a single offense. In the case at hand, since
it was proven that accused-appellant was not a licensed firearm
holder, and that he was positively identified by the witnesses as
the one who fired shots against the victims, the use of an
unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of Murder
and Frustrated Murder should be considered as an aggravating
circumstance thereof.The presence of such aggravating
circumstance would have meritedthe imposition of the death
penalty for the crime of Murder. However, in view of R.A. No.
9346, we are mandated to impose on appellant the penalty of
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
JOSELITO PERALTA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No.
221991, August 30, 2017
FACTS
A team of 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 thereat, the police officers saw two (2) men
walking, later identified as Peralta and his companion, Calimlim,
holding a gun and a knife respectively. Upon seeing the police
officers, the men became uneasy, which prompted the police
officers to swoop in. 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. The men were then brought to the Region I
Medical Center, and later, to the community precinct for paraffin
and gun powder residue test. Meanwhile, the pistol and the
magazine with live ammunitions were endorsed to the duty
investigator.
While admitting that the police recovered a knife from Calimlim,
Peralta vigorously denied having a firearm with him, much less
illegally discharging the same.
ISSUE
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
Whether or not appellant is guilty of Illegal Possession of
Firearm and Ammunition.
RULING
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, the prosecution has the burden
of proving 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 Certification 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.
Ratio Decidendi: In order that one may be found guilty of a
violation of the decree, it is sufficient that the accused had no
authority or license to possess a firearm.
Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which
affirmed the Decision of the RTC finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866,5
as amended by Republic Act No. 8294.
ARNULFO A.K.A. ARNOLD JACABAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Evidence for the prosecution established that on July 15, 1999,
Police Senior Inspector Ipil H. Dueñas (P/SInsp. Dueñas) of the
now defunct Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force
(PAOCTF) filed an Application for Search Warrant before
Branch 22 of the RTC, Cebu City, to search the premises of
[appellant's] residence at J. Labra St., Guadalupe, Cebu City and
seize the following items.
One (1) 7.62 cal M-14 Rifle;
Two (2) 5.56 mm M16 Armalite Rifle;
One (1) 12 gauge Shotgun;
One (1) .45 cal. Pistol;
One (1) .9 mm cal. Pistol
A Search Warrant was then immediately issued to the applicant
by Judge Pampio A. Abarintos.
At about 12:45 in the morning of July 16, 1999, the search
warrant was implemented by P/S Insp. Dueñas as the team
leader, SPO2 Eric Mendoza, SPO2 Eric Abellana. PO1 Allan
Jalagpas, PO3 Epifania Manila Sarte and other members of the
PAOCTF. Before reaching appellant's house, the policemen
invited three (3) barangay tanods from Guadalupe's Barangay
outpost to accompany them to the house of the appellant.
Upon arrival to appellant's house, SPO2 Abellana served the
search warrant to appellant who was just inside the house
together with his wife and other ladies. Upon informing
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
appellant of the search warrant, he became angry and denied
having committed any illegal activity. P/SInsp. Dueñas assured
appellant that he had nothing to worry about if the PAOCTF
would not find anything.
The team proceeded to search the living room in the presence of
three tanods and the appellant himself. The team continued to
search the room where SPO2 Abellana found a calibre .45 placed
in the ceiling. Appellant, who was at the living room that time,
rushed to the room and grappled with SPO2 Abellana but failed
to get hold of the gun.
After an exhaustive search was done, other firearms and
ammunitions were recovered from the searched premises. An
inventory was made at the living room of appellant in the
presence of appellant himself, the barangay tanods and other
persons present during the search. After appellant and the
witnesses signed the inventory receipt, the team proceeded
back to their office with appellant and the confiscated items.
Police Officer IV Dionisio V. Sultan, Chief Clerk of the Firearms
and Explosives Division of the Philippine National Police-
Visayas (FED PNP-Visayas), testified that he prepared a
certification dated April 29, 2002. Based on their office's master,
appellant is not licensed to possess any kind of firearm or
ammunition.
For the defense, they presented witness Felipenerie Jacaban,
older sister of the appellant, who testified as to her presence
during the conduct of the search. According to Felipenerie, at
about 12:45 in the morning of July 16, 1999, policemen
conducted a raid in the house of Gabriel Arda (uncle of
appellant). The policemen who implemented the warrant were
looking for his brother, herein appellant, so she went to
appellant's house and informed him that a raid was conducted
at their uncle's house and policemen were looking for him.
When appellant arrived at his uncle's house, policemen
searched around the house and a pistol was subsequently
recovered. Felipenerie claims that the recovered pistol was
allegedly pledged by a policeman to her father. She also testified
that appellant never made any protest and merely observed the
proceeding.
On July 12, 2005, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting
petitioner of the crime charged.
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the CA. After the respective
briefs had been filed, the case was submitted for decision.
On July 30, 2008, the CA issued its assailed Decision which
affirmed in toto the RTC decision.
ISSUE:
W/N, CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC.
RULING:
Section 1 of PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, provides:
Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition
or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used
or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or
Ammunition. -
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine
of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) shall be imposed if the
firearm is classified as high powered firearm which includes
those with bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9
millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser
calibered firearms but considered powerful such as caliber .357
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and other firearms with
firing capability of full automatic and by burst of two or
three: Provided, however,
That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.
The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions are: (1) the existence
of subject firearm; and, (2) the fact that the accused who
possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding
license for it. The unvarying rule is that ownership is not an
essential element of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition.What the law requires is merely possession, which
includes not only actual physical possession, but also
constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to one’s
control and management.
Once the prosecution evidence indubitably points to possession
without the requisite authority or license, coupled with animus
possidendior intent to possess on the part of the accused,
conviction for violation of the said law must follow. Animus
possidendi is a state of mind, the presence or determination of
which is largely dependent on attendant events in each case. It
may be inferred from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the
accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances.
Here, the prosecution had proved the essential elements of the
crime charged under PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294. The
existence of the seized firearm and the ammunitions was
established through the testimony of PO3 Sarte. There was an
inventory of the items seized which was made in the presence of
the petitioner and the three barangay tanods who all voluntarily
signed the inventory receipt. PO3 Sarte identified all the seized
items in open court.
It was convincingly proved that petitioner had constructive
possession of the gun and the ammunitions, coupled with the
intent to possess the same. Petitioner's act of immediately
rushing from the living room to the room where SPO2 Abellana
found a calibre .45 and grappled with the latter for the
possession of the gun proved that the gun was under his control
and management. He also had the animus possidendi or intent
to possess the gun when he tried to wrest it from SPO2 Abellana.
The RTC sentenced petitioner to an imprisonment of six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to six (6)
years and eight (8) months, as maximum, plus fine in the
amount of P30,000.00. The CA upheld the RTC. Under PD 1866,
as amended by RA 8294, the penalty for illegal possession of
firearms classified as high powered, like cal. 45, is prision
mayor minimum and a fine of P30,000.00. Applying Article 64 of
the Revised Penal Code, the maximum period of the imposable
penalty cannot exceed prision mayor minimum in its medium
period, there being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, i.e., six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1)
day to seven (7) years and four (4) months. The minimum
period, as provided in the Indeterminate Sentence Law, shall be
within the range of prision correccional in its maximum
period, i.e., four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six
(6) years, the penalty next lower in degree to prision
mayor minimum. Thus, the minimum penalty imposable must
be modified. Albeit, PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, is
a malum prohibitum and that the Revised Penal Code is
generally not applicable, it has been held that when a special
law, which is a malum prohibitum, adopts the nomenclature of
the penalties in the Revised Penal Code, the latter law shall
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
apply.
While in 2013, RA 10951 entitled “An Act Providing for a
Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunitions and
Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof” took effect, the same
finds no application in this case as the law provides for stiffer
penalties which is not at all favorable to the accused.
Case Digest on RA 9165 (COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT)
People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 172116 October 30, 2006
Elements of sale of dangerous drugs (In relation to Section 5)
Facts: In an entrapment/buy-bust operation in 2002, accused
Villanueva sold to poseur-buyer PO1 Ariosto Rana one plastic
sachet of shabu and was frisked thereafter. A case for the
violation of Section 5 of R. A. 9165 was filed against him. Accused
claimed that he was at home watching television when
policemen came to his house to arrest him for selling shabu. The
trial court found the accused guilty for the violation of Section 5,
Article II of R. A. 9165.
Issue: WON accused Villanueva was guilty for the violation of
Section 5, Article II of R. A. 9165.
Held: Yes, accused Villanueva was guilty for the violation of
Section 5, Article II of R. A. 9165.
To sustain a conviction for the violation of Section 5, Article II of
R. A. 9165, the following must be established: 1) the identity of
the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and 2) the delivery
of the thing sold and the payment thereof.
In this case, the identities of the seller and the buyer together
with the corpus delict[i] of selling shabu have also been duly
established. Poseur-buyer PO1 Ariosto Rana positively
identified accused-appellant Roger Villanueva as the person
who sold to him one plastic sachet containing the white
crystalline substance. There is also no doubt that Villanueva was
caught in the very act of selling "shabu". The regulated drug of
shabu contained in a plastic sachet which the appellant handed
over to the buyer, was also duly proven before the trial court.
US VS. SY BUN KUE, G.R. No. L-11321, March 8, 1916
A person who visited another who was smoking opium is not
liable, if the place is not a drug den, dive or resort (In relation to
Section 7)
Facts: At the Ground Opera House, a secret service agent found
the accused Sy Bun Kue in possession of some of the implements
used for smoking opium and was engaged in cooking over a
lamp a small amount of opium while in the company of one Ong
Ting who was found smoking opium. The secret-service agent
observed that the atmosphere of the room was impregnated
with fumes of burning opium. This is the only evidence against
the accused. He did not live in the room in which he was found,
nor is it claimed that the building was a place where opium was
generally and habitually smoked.
Issue: WON the accused was guilty of visiting a place where
opium was generally or habitually smoked.
Held: No. The accused was not guilty of visiting a place where
opium was generally or habitually smoked.
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
The accused was charged with having permitted one Ong Ting
to use opium personally and with having knowingly visited the
place where said Chinaman was smoking opium. It is not
unlawful to be in a room in which another was smoking opium,
unless the place is an opium den.
People vs. Padua, G. R. No. 174097 July 21, 2010
Elements of Illegal Possession (In relation to Section 11)
Facts: Cases were filed against herein respondent for the
violation of Sec. 5 and 11 of R. A. 9165. The cases were based on
what happened in August 2002 when Padua unlawfully and
knowingly sold, delivered and gave away to a police poseur-
buyer in a buy-bust operation one (1) heat sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing 0.20 gram of white crystalline
substance, which substance was found positive to the test for
"shabu. The buy-bust operation transpired when PO2 Aguilar
posed as a buyer who needs shabu for personal consumption.
Padua produced a sachet an was subsequently frisked.
Issue: WON Padua is guilty of the violation of Section 11 of R.A.
9165.
Held: Yes, Padua is guilty of the violation of Section 11 of R.A.
9165 or possession of dangerous drugs.
For an accused to be convicted of illegal possession of prohibited
or regulated drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified
to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by
law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the
said drug.
In this case, the elements were adequately proven when (1)
accused-appellant was found to be in possession of .70 gram of
shabu, a dangerous drug; (2) the identity of accused-appellant
as the person found in possession of the dangerous drug was
established; and (3) accused-appellant, the person found to be
in possession, was not authorized to possess the dangerous
drug.
De la Cruz vs. People G.R. No. 200748 July 23, 2014
The drug test for Section 15 must be in connection with a
violation of R. A. 9165 (In relation to Section 15)
Facts: Jaime De la Cruz, PO2 of PNP Security Service Group, after
having been arrested by the agents of NBI after an entrapment
operation was found positive for the use of Shabu upon
confirmatory test conducted on the said accused. The case
brought about when a complaint was filed by Corazon and
Charito on the taking of former’s live-in partner and the latters’
son by police officers for allegedly selling drugs. De la Cruz
demanded money in return for the release of the two. The NBI
set an entrapment operation using a pre-marked 500 peso bill
with the amount demanded by De la Cruz. The NBI was able to
nab de la Cruz and they brought him to the NBI Forensic
Laboratory for examination where petitioner was made to
submit urine sample and de la Cruz yielded a positive result of
Shabu. The RTC of Cebu City found the petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article II of R.A. 9165.
Petitioner questioned the validity of the urine test contending
that the drug test was not legal.
Issue: WON the drug test is legal.
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
Held: No, the drug test was not legal.
Section 15 of R. A. 9165 states that “A person apprehended or
arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous
drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty”. The
drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or
arrested for any unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed
under Article II of R.A. 9165. To make the provision applicable
to all persons arrested or apprehended for any crime not listed
under Article II is tantamount to unduly expanding its meaning.
In this case, the accused appellant here was arrested in the
alleged act of extortion which is not covered by R. A. 9165.
Hence, the drug test was not legal.
People vs. Habana (G.R. No. 188900) March 5, 2010
Procedure for the chain of custody (In relation to Section 21)
Facts: Fernando Habana was accused of th e violation of Sections
5 and 11 of R.A. 9165. According to the police, Habana was
selling shabu on Salmon Street to PO1 Paras as poseur-buyer
and was apprehended for it. Two more sachets of shabu was
taken from him. After the arrest, the items seized from Habana
was handed to PO3 Fernando Moran, the investigator on duty
who placed his marking on the items and submitted the same to
the PNP Crime Lab for forensic examination. The Forensic
Examiner found the items seized positive of shabu.
Issue: WON the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of
the seized substance taken from Habana along the chain of
custody.
Held: Yes, the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the
seized substance taken from Habana along the chain of custody.
The prosecution failed to show how the seized items changed
hands, from when the police officers seized them from Habana
to the time they were presented in court as evidence. PO1 Paras
said that he turned over the sachets of shabu to the investigator
on duty. But the prosecution did not adduce evidence on what
the investigator on duty did with the seized articles, how these
got to the laboratory technician, and how they were kept before
being adduced in evidence at the trial
Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance
turns it over to a supervising officer, who would then send it by
courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. Since it is
unavoidable that possession of the substance changes hand a
number of times, it is imperative for the officer who seized the
substance from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic
container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that
cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic
container. At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized
substance and the procedure he observed to preserve its
integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory.
If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should
put it in one and seal the same. In this way the substance would
assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was
seized from the accused. Further, after the laboratory technician
tests and verifies the nature of the substance in the container, he
should put his own mark on the plastic container and seal it
again with a new seal since the police officer’s seal has been
broken. At the trial, the technician can then describe the sealed
condition of the plastic container when it was handed to him and
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
testify on the procedure he took afterwards to preserve its
integrity.
If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the
prosecution would have to present every police officer,
messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the
entire chain of custody, no matter how briefly one’s possession
has been. Each of them has to testify that the substance, although
unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted while in his
care.
Since the failure in this case to comply with the procedure in the
custody of seized drugs compromised the identity and integrity
of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the
crimes charged against Habana, his acquittal is in order.
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001 (RA 9160) CASE
DIGESTS
REPUBLIC V CABRINI G.R. No. 154522 May 5, 2006
FACTS:
AMLC issued freeze orders against various bank accounts of
respondents. The frozen accounts were previously found prima
facie to be related to the unlawful activities of the respondents.
The AMLC filed with the CA various petitions. It invoked the
jurisdiction of the CA in the belief that the power given to the CA
to issue a TRO or writ of injunction against any freeze order
issued by the AMLC carried with it the power to extend the
effectivity of a freeze order. The CA disagreed and dismissed the
petitions.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA has the jurisdiction to extend the
effectivity of a freeze order.
RULING: The amendment by RA 9194 of RA 9160 erased any
doubt on the jurisdiction of the CA over the extension of freeze
orders. As the law now stands, it is solely the CA which has the
authority to issue a freeze order as well as to extend its
effectivity. It also has the exclusive jurisdiction to extend
existing freeze orders previously issued by the AMLC vis-à-vis
accounts and deposits related to money-laundering activities.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs GLASGOW CREDIT AND
COLLECTION SERVICES, INC.
G.R. No. 170281 January 18, 2008
FACTS: On July 18, 2003, petitioner filed a complaint for civil
forfeiture of assets with the RTC of Manila against the bank
deposits in account number CS – 005-10-000121-5 maintained
by GLASGOW in CSBI. The case was filed pursuant to RA 9160 or
the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001.On July 21, 2003, the
RTC of Manila issued a 72-hour TRO. And on August8, 2003 a
writ of preliminary injunction was issued. Meanwhile, summons
to GLASGOW was returned “unserved” as it could no longer be
found at its last known address.
On May 31, 2004, the trial court ordered the reinstatement of
the case directing the Republic to serve the alias Summons to
Glasgow and CSBI within 15days.On July 12, 2004, petitioner
received a copy of the sheriff’s return stating that the alias
summons was returned “unserved” as GLASGOW was no longer
holding office at the given address since July 2002.On August 11,
2005, petitioner filed a manifestation and ex parte motion to
resolve its motion for leave of court to serve summons by
publication. On August 12, 2005, the OSG received a copy of
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
GLASGOW’s motion to dismiss by way of special appearance
alleging that 1) the court had no jurisdiction over its person as
summons had not yet been served on it 2) the complaint was
premature and stated no cause of action and 3) there was failure
to prosecute on the part of the Republic. On October 17, 2005,
the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds of 1) improper
venue 2) insufficiency of the complaint in form and substance
and 3) failure to prosecute and lifted the writ of preliminary
injunction. Petitioner filed a petition for review.
ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint for civil forfeiture was
properly instituted.
RULING: Sec. 12 (a) of RA 9160 provides two conditions when
applying for civilforfeiture:1.when there is suspicious
transaction report or a covered transaction report deemed
suspicious after investigation by the AMLC;2.the court has, in a
petition filed for the purpose; ordered the seizure of any
monetary instrument or property, in whole or in part, directly
or indirectly, related to said report.
It is the preliminary seizure of the property in question which
brings it within the reach of the judicial process. It is actually
within the courts possession when it is submitted to the process
of the court. The injunctive writ issued on August 8, 2003
removed account no. CA-005-10-000121-5 from the effective
control of either Glasgow or CSBI or their representatives or
agents and subjected it to the process of the court.
Whether or not there is truth in the allegation that account no.
CA-005-10-000121-5 contains the proceeds of unlawful
activities is an evidentiary matter that may be proven during
trial. The complaint, however, did not even have to show or
allege that Glasgow had been implicated in a conviction for, or
the commission of, the unlawful activities of estafa and violation
of the Securities Regulation Code.
A criminal conviction for an unlawful activity is not a
prerequisite for the institution of a civil forfeiture proceeding.
Stated otherwise, a finding of guilt for an unlawful activity is not
an essential element of civil forfeiture.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HON. ANTONIO EUGENIO,
JR. G.R. NO 174629
FACTS: A series of investigations concerning the award of the
NAIA 3 contracts to PIATCO were undertaken by the
Ombudsman and the Compliance and Investigation Staff (CIS) of
petitioner Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). The CIS
conducted an intelligence database search on the financial
transactions of certain individuals involved in the award,
including respondent Pantaleon Alvarez (Alvarez) who had
been the Chairman of the PBAC Technical Committee, NAIA-
IPT3 Project; Wilfredo Trinidad; Alfredo Liongson; and Cheng
Yong. The AMLC issued Resolution No. 75, Series of 2005,
whereby the Council resolved to authorize the Executive
Director of the AMLC "to sign and verify an application to inquire
into and/or examine the [deposits] or investments of the
mentioned individuals, and their related web of accounts.
Under the authority granted by the Resolution, the AMLC filed
an application to inquire into or examine the deposits or
investments of Alvarez, Trinidad, Liongson and Cheng Yong
before the RTC of Makati, Branch 138. The Court issued an order
granting inquiry, and the CIS proceeded to inquire and examine
the deposits, investments and related web accounts of the four.
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
Meanwhile, the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the
Ombudsman, Dennis Villa-Ignacio, wrote a letter, requesting the
AMLC to investigate the accounts of Alvarez, PIATCO, and
several other entities involved in the nullified contract.
Attaching a memorandum "on why the investigation of the
[accounts] is necessary in the prosecution of the above criminal
cases before the Sandiganbayan."
The letter adverted to probable cause to believe that the bank
accounts were used in the commission of unlawful activities that
were committed in relation to the criminal cases then pending
before the Sandiganbayan. Attached to the letter was a
memorandum on why the investigation of the [accounts] is
necessary in the prosecution of the above criminal cases before
the Sandiganbayan. The AMLC promulgated on 9 December
2005 Resolution No. 121 Series of 2005 which authorized the
executive director of the AMLC to inquire into and examine the
accounts named in the letter, including one maintained by
Alvarez with DBS Bank and two other accounts in the name of
Cheng Yong with
Metrobank. Cheng Yong refused to have the account examined
on ground of the Bank Secrecy Act.
ISSUE: Whether or not the bank accounts of respondents can be
examined.
RULING: Any exception to the rule of absolute confidentiality
must be specifically legislated. Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy Act
itself prescribes exceptions whereby these bank accounts may
be examined by any person, government official, bureau or
offial; namely when: (1) upon written permission of the
depositor; (2) in cases of impeachment; (3) the examination of
bank accounts is upon order of a competent court in cases of
bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials; and (4) the
money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the
litigation. Section 8 of R.A. Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, has been recognized by this Court as
constituting an additional exception to the rule of absolute
confidentiality, and there have been other similar recognitions
as well.
The AMLA also provides exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Act.
Under Section 11, the AMLC may inquire into a bank account
upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of the
AMLA, it having been established that there is probable cause
that the deposits or investments are related to unlawful
activities as defined in Section 3(i) of the law, or a money
laundering offense under Section 4 thereof. It cannot be
successfully argued the proceedings relating to the bank inquiry
order under Section 11 of the AMLA is a litigation encompassed
in one of the exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Act which is when
money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the
litigation. Nevertheless, just because the AMLA establishes
additional exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Act it does not mean
that the later law has dispensed with the general principle
established in the older law that all deposits of whatever nature
with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines x x x are
hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature.
Indeed, by force of statute, all bank deposits are absolutely
confidential, and that nature is unaltered even by the legislated
exceptions referred to above.
CASE DIGEST ON RA 9208 AS AMENDED BY 10364(ANTI
HUMAN TRFFICKING IN PERSON
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHIRLEY A.
CASIO, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS:
The case is about the Republic Act No. 9208 known as the Anti-
Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003. The accused charged under
this law is Shirley A. Casio. On May 5, 2008 at 1:00am in Cebu,
Philippines with deliberate intent, with intent to gain, did then
and there hire and/or recruit AAA, a minor, 17 years old and
BBB for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation, by
acting as their procurer for different customers, for money,
profit or any other consideration, in Violation of Sec. 4, Par. (a),
Qualified by Sec. 6, Par. ( a), of R.A. 9208 (Qualified Trafficking
in Persons).
On the same month of the year the International Justice Mission
(IJM), a non-governmental organization, coordinated with the
police in order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking
in Cebu. They also provided the marked money for team that will
be used for entrapment.
The team went to Queensland Motel and rented Rooms 24 and
25. These rooms were adjacent to each other. Room 24 was
designated for the transaction while Room 25 was for the rest of
the police team.
They were able to entrap Casio who offered the police the two
girls, AAA and BBB. Casio received the marked money from
there Casio was arrested and the two girls were rescude. They
were placed under the custody of the representatives from IJM
and DSWD.
During trial, AAA testified that she was born on January 27, 1991
as supported by her birth certificate. She worked before as a
house helper in Mandaue City. However, when she stopped
working as a house helper, she transferred to Cebu City. In Cebu
she met Gee Ann who offered her to worked in a disco club. She
agreed since she needed money for his father. Eventually, Gee
Ann brought her to Barangay Kamagayan, telling her that there
were more customers in that area. There she was able to meet
Casio who gave her customers and was paid Php 400 for every
customers who choose her.
Contrary, Casio testified that she worked as a laundrywoman.
On May 2008, went to buy supper. While walking, she was
stopped by two men on board a blue car. The two men asked her
if she knew someone named Bingbing. She replied that she only
knew Gingging but not Bingbing. The men informed her that
they were actually looking for Gingging, gave her a piece of
paper with a number written on it, and told her to tell Gingging
to bring companions. When accused arrived home, she
contacted Gingging. Gingging convinced her to come because
allegedly, she would be given money by the two males.
ISSUE:
(1) WON the accused was properly convicted of trafficking in
persons, considering that AAA admitted that she works as a
prostitute.
RULING:
Accused claims that AAA admitted engaging in prostitution even
before May 2, 2008. She concludes that AAA was predisposed to
having sex with “customers” for money.69 For liability under
our law, this argument is irrelevant. As defined under Section
3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, trafficking in persons can still be
committed even if the victim gives consent.
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
Based on the definition of trafficking in persons and the
enumeration of acts of trafficking in persons, accused performed
all the elements in the commission of the offense when she
peddled AAA and BBB and offered their services to decoys PO1
Veloso and PO1 Luardo in exchange for money. The offense was
also qualified because the trafficked persons were minors.
Here, AAA testified as to how accused solicited her services for
the customers waiting at Queensland Motel. AAA also testified
that she was only 17 years old when accused peddled her. Her
certificate of live birth was presented as evidence to show that
she was born on January 27, 1991.
The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that accused committed the offense of trafficking in persons,
qualified by the fact that one of the victims was a child. As held
by the trial court:
The act of “sexual intercourse” need not have been
consummated for the mere “transaction” i.e. that ‘solicitation’
for sex and the handing over of the “bust money” of Php.1,000.00
already consummated the said act.
Human trafficking indicts the society that tolerates the kind of
poverty and its accompanying desperation that compels our
women to endure indignities. It reflects the weaknesses of that
society even as it convicts those who deviantly thrive in such
hopelessness. We should continue to strive for the best of our
world, where our choices of human intimacies are real choices,
and not the last resort taken just to survive. Human intimacies
enhance our best and closest relationships. It serves as a
foundation for two human beings to face life’s joys and
challenges while continually growing together with many
shared experiences. The quality of our human relationships
defines the world that we create also for others.
Regardless of the willingness of AAA and BBB, therefore, to be
trafficked, we affirm the text and spirit of our laws. Minors
should spend their adolescence moulding their character in
environments free of the vilest motives and the worse of other
human beings. The evidence and the law compel us to affirm the
conviction of accused in this case.
There are more AAA’s and BBBs out there. They, too, deserve to
be rescued. They, too, need to be shown that in spite of what
their lives have been, there is still much good in our world.
PEOPLE v. JEFFREY HIRANG Y RODRIGUEZ, GR No. 223528,
2017-01-11
FACTS:
Hirang, also known as Jojit and Jojie, was charged before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City with the crime of
qualified trafficking in persons, as defined and penalized under
Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6(a) and (c), and Section 3(a),
(b) and (c) .of R.A. No. 9208, via an Amended Information.
The private complainants are minor victims of Hirang in his
prostitution activities. When their group arrived at Chowking,
Hirang talked to a Korean and then introduced the girls to him.
The Korean handed money to Hirang and as the latter was
counting it, NBI agents arrived at the scene and announced a
raid. NBI agents arrested Hirang, while a social worker
approached the girls and brought them to the NBI for their
statements
Thereafter, IJM submitted a report to the NBI-Field Office
Division, and asked for the agency's investigative assistance and
operation against Hirang. On June 26, 2007, IJM and NBI
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
operatives agreed during a conference that they would conduct
an entrapment operation on June 27, 2007. Sarmiento reset his
meeting with Hirang to June 27, 2007. Hirang initially got mad,
but was appeased after Sarmiento promised to give a bonus of
P20,0000.00. Cariaga prepared the marked money to be used
during the entrapment, and was tasked to be the driver of
poseur-customer Sarmiento. Several other NBI and IJM agents
served as back-up during the operation, in case any untoward
incident should happen
On June 27, 2007, the entrapment was conducted with proper
coordination with local authorities. A social worker from the
Department of Social Welfare and Development and members of
the media for the segment XXX of ABS-CBN Channel 2 joined the
operation.
Hirang entered a plea of not guilty
The RTC found Hirang GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Violation of Section 6 of [R.A.] No. 9208 and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
of Two Million Pesos (Php2,000,000.00).
Hirang appealed to the CA
CA denied the appeal
ISSUES:
WON the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the guilt of Hirang for the crime charged;
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirms Hirang's conviction.
The information filed against Hirang sufficiently alleged the
recruitment and transportation of the minor victims for sexual
activities and exploitation, with the offender taking advantage of
the vulnerability of the young girls through the guarantee of a
good time and financial gain
Principles:
Hirang was charged and convicted for qualified trafficking in
persons under Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6(a) and (c),
and Section 3(a), (b) and (c) of R.A. No. 9208,... Section 4. Acts of
Trafficking in Persons. –
It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to
commit any of the following acts:(a) To recruit, transport,
transfer; harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means,
including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The following are
considered as qualified trafficking:(a) When the trafficked
person is a child;x x x x(c) 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.
CASE DIGESTS ON RA 9372 HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007
1. Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v.
Anti-Terrorism Council
632 SCRA 146
October 5, 2010
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ
Facts: This case consists of 6 petitions challenging the
constitutionality of RA 9372, “An Act to Secure the State and
Protect our People from Terrorism,” aka Human Security Act of
2007.
Petitioner-organizations assert locus standi on the basis of being
suspected “communist fronts” by the government, whereas
individual petitioners invoke the “transcendental importance
“doctrine and their status as citizens and taxpayers.
KARAPATAN, Hustisya, Desaparecidos, SELDA, EMJP, and PCR
allege they have been subjected to“close security surveillance by
state security forces,” their members followed by “suspicious
persons” and “vehicles with dark windshields,” and their offices
monitored by “men with military build.” They likewise claim
they have been branded as “enemies of the State.”
BAYAN, GABRIELA, KMP, MCCCL, COURAGE, KADAMAY, SCW,
LFS, Anakbayan, PAMALAKAYA, ACT, Migrante, HEAD, and
Agham would like the Court to take judicial notice of
respondents’ alleged action of tagging them as militant
organizations fronting for the CPP and NPA. They claim such
tagging is tantamount to the effects of proscription without
following the procedure under the law.
Meanwhile, IBP and CODAL base their claim of locus standi on
their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.
Petitioners claim that RA 9372 is vague and broad, in that terms
like “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace” and “coerce the government to give in to an unlawful
demand” are nebulous, leaving law enforcement agencies with
no standard to measure the prohibited acts.
Issues:
1. WON RA 9372 is vague and broad in defining the
crime of terrorism.
2. WON a penal statute may be assailed for being
vague as applied to petitioners.
3. WON there is merit in the claim that RA 9372
regulates speech so as to permit a facial analysis
of its validity.
Ruling:
1. The doctrines of void-for-vagueness and
overbreadth find no application in the present case
since these doctrines apply only to free speech
cases and that RA 9372 regulates conduct, not
speech.
a. Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan: The
overbreadth and the vagueness doctrines
have special application only to free speech
cases, and are not appropriate for testing the
validity of penal statutes.
b. Romualdez v. COMELEC: A facial invalidation
of criminal statutes is not appropriate, but
the Court nonetheless proceeded to conduct
a vagueness analysis, and concluded that the
therein subject election offense under the
Voter’s Registration Act of 1996, with which
the therein petitioners were charged, is
couched in precise language.
LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020
c. The aforementioned cases rely heavily on
Justice Mendoza’s Separate Opinion in the
Estrada case: Allegations that a penal statute
is vague and overbroad do not justify a facial
review of its validity. A facial challenge is
allowed to be made to a vague statute and to
one, which is overbroad because of possible
chilling effect upon protected speech.
This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes
have general in terrorem effect. If facial challenge is allowed, the
State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially
harmful conduct. Overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then
have special application only to free speech cases. They are inapt
for testing the validity of penal statutes.
2. Since a penal statute may only be assailed for being
vague as applied to petitioners, a limited
vagueness analysis of the definition of “terrorism”
in RA 9372 is legally impossible absent an actual or
imminent charge against them.
a. The doctrine of vagueness and the doctrine of
overbreadth do not operate on the same
plane.
i. A statute or acts suffers from the
defect of vagueness when:
1. It lacks comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at
its meaning and differ as to its application. It is
repugnant to the Constitution in 2 ways: a.
Violates due process for failure to accord fair
notice of conduct to avoid b. Leaves law
enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out
its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing
of the Government muscle.
ii. The over breadth doctrine decrees that a governmental
purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject
to state regulations may not be achieved by means, which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected
freedoms.
b. A “facial” challenge is likewise different from
an “as applied” challenge.
i.“As applied” challenge considers only extant facts affecting
real litigants.
ii. “Facial” challenge is an examination of the entire law,
pinpointing its flaws and defects, not only on the basis of its
actual operation to the parties, but also on the assumption or
prediction that its very existence may cause others not before
the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or
activities.
Under no case may ordinary penal statutes be
subjected to a facial challenge. If facial challenge to a penal
statute is permitted, the prosecution of crimes may be
hampered. No prosecution would be possible.
3. There is no merit in the claim that RA 9372 regulates speech so
as to permit a facial analysis of its validity.
a. Section 3 of RA 9372 provides the following elements of the
crime of terrorism:
 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS – JUDGE CIELO MARTINEZ

i. Offender commits an act punishable under RPC and
the enumerated special penal laws;
ii. Commission of the predicate crime sows and creates
a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic
among the populace;
iii. The offender is actuated by the desire to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand.
b. Petitioners contend that the element of
“unlawful demand” in the definition of
terrorism must necessarily be transmitted
through some form of expression protected by
the free speech clause. The argument does not
persuade. What RA 9372 seeks to penalize is
conduct, not speech.
c. Petitioners’ notion on the transmission of
message is entirely inaccurate, as it unduly
focuses on just one particle of an element of the
crime. Almost every commission of a crime
entails some mincing of words on the part of
offender. Utterances not elemental but
inevitably incidental to the doing of the
criminal conduct alter neither the intent of the
law to punish socially harmful conduct nor the
essence of the whole act as conduct and not
speech.
2. REPUBLIC v. ROQUE G.R. No. 204603 September 24, 2013
FACTS: On July 17, 2007, private respondents filed a Petition for
declaratory relief before the RTC, assailing the constitutionality
of the following sections of RA 9372: (a) Section 3, or being void
for vagueness; (b) Section 7, for violating the right to privacy of
communication and due process and the privileged nature of
priest-penitent relationships; (c) Section 18, for violating due
process, the prohibition against ex post facto laws or bills of
attainder, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as
for contradicting Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended; (d) Section 26, for violating the right to travel; and (e)
Section 27, for violating the prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
RULING: An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as
with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction; Case law states that not every error in the
proceedings, or every erroneous conclusion of law or fact,
constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Court observes that
while no grave abuse of discretion could be ascribed on the part
of the RTC when it found that the Court did not pass upon the
constitutionality of RA 9372 in the Southern Hemisphere cases,
it, however, exceeded its jurisdiction when it ruled that private
respondents’ petition had met all the requisites for an action for
declaratory relief. Consequently, its denial of the subject motion
to dismiss was altogether improper.
Case law states that the following are the requisites for an action
for declaratory relief: first, the subject matter of the controversy
must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument,
statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance; second, the
terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful
and require judicial construction; third, there must have been no
breach of the documents in question; fourth, there must be an
actual justiciable controversy or the “ripening seeds” of one
between persons whose interests are adverse; fifth, the issue
must be ripe for judicial determination; and sixth , adequate
relief is not available through other means or other forms of
action or proceeding.
All told, in view of the absence of the fourth and fifth requisites
for an action for declaratory relief, as well as the irrelevance of
the sixth requisite, private respondents’ petition for declaratory
relief should have been dismissed. Thus, by giving due course to
the same, it cannot be gainsaid that the RTC gravely abused its
discretion.

Petitioners moved to suspend the proceedings, averring that

certain petitions (SC petitions) raising the issue of RA 9372’s
constitutionality have been lodged before the Court. The said
motion was granted. Petitioners filed the subject motion to
dismiss, contending that private respondents failed to satisfy
the requisites for declaratory relief. Likewise, they averred that
the Court in the Southern Hemisphere cases had already upheld
the constitutionality of RA 9372.

In their Comment/Opposition, private respondents countered

that: (a) the Court did not resolve the issue of RA 9372’s
constitutionality in Southern Hemisphere as the SC petitions
were dismissed based purely on technical grounds; and (b) the
requisites for declaratory relief were met.

RTC denied the subject motion to dismiss, finding that the Court
did not pass upon the constitutionality of RA 9372 and that
private respondents’ petition for declaratory relief was properly
filed. Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion

when it denied the subject motion to dismiss.

LAW 3-AWESOME
SY 2019-2020