PEOPLE VS.

DANDANON
G.R. No. 196258, September 28, 2015
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Facts:
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of murder committed against Paceño. The
accused and Paceño were riding the same multicab and while traversing the highway in
Barangay Dumalagan, Butuan City, accused-appellant suddenly pulled out a gun and shot
Paceño twice. Paceño sustained multiple gunshot wounds on his head, thereby causing his death.
Accused-appellant alighted from the vehicle and the driver immediately drove the multicab to
the Buenavista Police Station to report the incident.
In his defense, the accused recounted that he was in a tribal meeting in Agusan during the
date and time of the alleged crime.
The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged which was later affirmed by the
CA.
Hence, the appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime charged.

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the essential elements of murder are the following: (a)
that a person was killed; (b) that the accused killed him; (c) that the killing was attended by any
of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (d) that the killing is not parricide
or infanticide. All elements are extant herein.
In the instant case, accused-appellant's treachery is evident in the following
circumstances: (a) he armed himself with a gun; (b) he consciously boarded the same multicab
with Paceño and sat across the latter; (c) Paceño was unarmed and unaware of any impending
attack against him; (d) without any provocation, accused-appellant suddenly pulled out his gun,
and aimed and shot Paceño twice in the head, leaving the latter with no means to defend himself,
much less retaliate. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly alleged in the
Information.
Wherefore, the assailed decision of the CA was affirmed sentencing the accused to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
 PEOPLE VS. BUCA
G.R. No. 209587, September 23, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Facts:
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape committed against AAA, his 7
year old neighbor. On December 24, 2002 at around 1:00pm, he entered the house and ordered
AAA's siblings to go to another room to sleep. When the accused and AAA were all alone, he
placed AAA on his lap, pulled down her panties and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina.
He began to have sex with AAA. AAA and his younger brother reported the incident to their
mother, AAA then disclosed that accused did the same thing to her many times already. This
statement was supported by a medical examination which provided that there are lacerations in
AAA’s vagina
For his defense, the accused insinuated that AAA during the time of the alleged crime
requested him to watch over her siblings and nothing unusual happened.
The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged which was affirmed by the CA.
Hence, he appealed assailing the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of rape.

Held: Yes. The court ruled that the testimony of AAA is sufficient to establish the element of
carnal knowledge. The information also properly alleged that AAA was 7 years old. The
Supreme Court noted further that the RTC described the testimony of AAA as positive, credible,
natural and convincing. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. It is highly
improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would
impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.
Further, it is doctrinally settled that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the
credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal.

Wherefore, the assailed CA decision was affirmed and that the accused-appellant is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
 PEOPLE VS. CALADCADAN
G.R. No. 205379, September 23, 2015
PEREZ, J.:

Facts:
Accused-appellant was charged with two counts of qualified rape committed against AAA
his 16 year old daughter. On the night of 21 June 1999, the victim was sleeping in when accused-
appellant entered her room and forcibly removed her pants and her underwear and managed to
insert his penis into AAA's vagina while covering her mouth to prevent her from shouting. Two
days later the same incident happened. AAA did not tell her mother what had happened because
accused-appellant had threatened to burn the house. Few months later, she was found pregnant
and was suffering from mild mental retardation.
For his defense, the accused denied the accusations and interposed alibis. That he was just
sleeping on the date of the first rape and was not in their house on the second.
The RTC found the accused guilty as charged which was affirmed by the CA.
Accused-appellant filed the instant appeal assailing the credibility of AAA’s testimony.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime charged.

Held: Yes.. The fact that AAA's testimony was able to withstand scrutiny during cross-
examination bolsters her credibility and makes her statements more credible. Invariably, the
court a quo did not falter in according weight to AAA's narration as she remained steadfast and
unyielding amidst grilling examination.
The two Informations jointly alleged minority and relationship. As a matter of fact,
accused-appellant admitted during pre-trial that AAA is his daughter. Her birth certificate
showing that AAA was only 16 years old at the time of the rape incident was likewise offered in
evidence by the prosecution. Thus, there are valid qualifying circumstances.
The death penalty cannot, however, be imposed in view of the enactment of Republic Act
No. 9346. Accordingly, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without possibility of parole is hereby
meted on accused-appellant.
 PEOPLE VS. BAÑEZ
G.R. No. 198057, September 21, 2015
PERALTA, J.:

Facts:
Bañez brothers, Randy and Ramil, and certain Felix Rufino were indicted for the crime of
murder committed against Baylon. Marcelino saw Rufino striking Baylon with an iron bar while
brothers Randy and Ramil Bañez were holding each of the latter's arms behind his back. The
accused-appellants thereafter dragged Baylon to Ramil's house, which was merely thirty (30)
meters away. Dr. Quidilla, the medico-legal expert found that the cause Baylon’s death was
massive blood loss secondary to multiple stab wounds.
Randy and Ramil Bañez both testified that they were somewhere else at the time of the
commission of the crime.
The RTC found Ramil and Randy guilty of the crime charged while Rufino remained at
large. The decision was affirmed by CA.
The accused appealed assailing the credibility of prosecution’s witnesses.

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged.

Held: Yes. Marcelino's reaction, however, was not at all uncommon or unnatural so as to make
his testimony incredible. Placed in the same or a similar situation, some may choose to intervene,
but others, like Marcelino, would just opt to stay away and remain hidden. It is settled that there
could be no hard and fast gauge for measuring a person's reaction or behavior when confronted
with a startling, not to mention horrifying, occurrence, as in this case.
Wherefore, the assailed decision was affirmed finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery sentencing them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
 PEOPLE VS. LARA
G.R. No. 198796, September 16, 2015
PERALTA, J.:

Facts:
A buy-bust operation was conducted by police officers Paterno and Panlilio together with
an informant. Upon reaching the target area, they saw the accused-appellants. The informant then
introduced them to PO2 Panlilio and told them that the latter was going to buy shabu worth
P500.00. Mammad then gave one (1) plastic sachet of shabu to Tampoy who, in turn, handed it
to PO2 Panlilio. Sariol received the marked money as payment. The back-up police officers
rushed to the scene and secured the area. They arrested accused-appellants and were able to
recover plastic sachets of shabu from Mammad, Lara, and Alcayde.
As for their defense, accused-appellants testified that they were at their respective homes
when they were suddenly arrested, brought to the police station, and detained.
The RTC found Mammad, Tampoy, and Sariol guilty of Illegal sale of dangerous drugs
which was later affirmed by CA.
Hence, this appeal assailing the failure of the police officers to follow the chain of custody.

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellants are guilty as charged.

Held: Yes. Here, while it is true that the police officers failed to make an inventory and take
photographs, the prosecution was able to prove, however, that the sachet of shabu confiscated
during the buy-bust operation was the same item presented and identified before the court. They
were able to maintain the integrity of the seized drug and establish that the links in the chain of
custody were not compromised. After seizure of the subject specimen, the authorities went to the
police station where PO2 Panlilio immediately marked it. After examination, the submitted
substance tested positive for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Verily, the prosecution was able to establish the unbroken chain of custody over the
recovered drug. The Supreme Court held that the requirements under R.A. No. 9165 had been
sufficiently complied with.
Wherefore, the assailed CA decision was affirmed.
 DELA RIVA VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 212940, September 16, 2015
MENDOZA, J.:

Facts:
PDEA agents and their confidential informant conducted an entrapment operation in Subic,
Zambales. Upon arrival to the target area, Agent Lucero then asked appellant for the agreed item,
appellant then invited them to go to a certain Abu to get the rest of the items and then proceeded
to Abu's house. The trio walked to the house of "Abu" where they saw two (2) persons having a
pot session.
Appellant handed to Agent Lucero a small transparent plastic sachet. Agent Lucero then
put the small sachet in the right pocket of his pants. Agent Lucero then handed to appellant the
boodle money which was placed in an envelope.
The PDEA agents arrested appellant, however they failed to catch the two persons having
pot session as they run away.
In his defense, the appellant claimed that he was already detained on the time of the
alleged crime.
The RTC found the accused guilty Illegal sale of dangerous drugs which was later
affirmed by CA.
Thus, this petition alleging that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and the
integrity of the drugs seized.

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty as charged.

Held: No. A reading of the record indicates that the buy-bust team did not observe the
procedures laid down by Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR. The marking of the seized drugs or
other related items immediately upon seizure from the accused is crucial in proving the chain of
custody because it is the starting point in the custodial link.
It could be that the accused was engaged in the sale of dangerous drugs. A doubt,
however, lingers because the flaws in this particular link coupled with the defects in the first link
are so glaring that the Court cannot ignore them as they definitely compromised the identity,
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
Wherefore, the assailed CA decision was reversed and acquitted the accused-appellant.
 PEOPLE VS. ARNAIZ
G.R. No. 205153, September 09, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Facts:

Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment and estafa.
Prosecution witness Cayetano testified that she gave a total of P175,000 to the accused for the
processing of her papers to work in Australia. When she was not able to leave for Australia, she
confronted the appellant who tried to refund the money issuing a check. Unfortunately, Cayetano
was not able to recover her money since the account was already closed.
Bunuan and Cantor gave the accused the total of P90,000 and P110,000 respectively to
the appellant in exchange of their deployment as factory worker in South Korea. After learning
about other applicants who were sent back to the Philippines, the complainants went to
appellant's office only to find out that it was already padlocked.
On the other hand, appellant testified that her office was only a travel agency and they
only processed the issuance of visas in the different embassies in the Philippines.
The RTC found the accused guilty as charged which was affirmed by the CA.
Hence, the appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty as charged.

Held: Yes. The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were proven in this case. One,
appellant has no valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement of workers.
Two, appellant clearly engaged in recruitment activities and promised employment abroad to the
complainants as proven by their testimonies. Three, appellant committed illegal recruitment
against three persons.
Accused was guilty of estafa because by means of deceit, she made complainants believe
that she had the proper authority to send them to work in Australia and Korea, for which reason
they gave her substantial amounts of money.
Wherefore, the assiled decision of the CA was affirmed
 PEOPLE VS. REGASPI
G.R. No. 198309, September 07, 2015
PERALTA, J.:

Facts:
Accused appellant was charged with the crime of rape committed against 19 year old
AAA. On January 11, 2000, AAA and her friends attended a dance party in their barangay.
While her friends proceeded to the dance floor, AAA decided to stay in a tricycle because her
feet were already aching.
Suddenly, Regaspi approached AAA and pointed a knife at her. AAA noticed that
Regaspi dropped a tablet into the glass of beer that he was holding. Through force, AAA drank
the beer and lost her consciousness. The following day, AAA found herself naked in a nipa hut
and Regaspi was on top of her, forcing her to have sexual intercourse with him. She tried to resist
Regaspi, but the latter still prevailed. The same day, she was examined by a physician who found
lacerations in her vagina.
Accused interposed an alibi that he was the one being invited to dance by AAA that night
and it was his last time seeing her.
RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged which was affirmed by the CA.
Hence, this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime charged.

Held: No. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is
even conclusive and binding, unless the same is tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some
fact or circumstance of weight and influence. Since it had the full opportunity to observe directly
the deportment and the manner of testifying of the witnesses before it, the trial court is in a better
position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence. The rule finds an
even more stringent application where the CA sustained said findings, as in this case.
In light of the positive identification by AAA, whose narration of the incident was found
credible by both the RTC and the CA, Regaspi's proffered defense of denial fails.
Wherefore, the assailed CA decision was affirmed.
 PEOPLE VS. VILLARIEZ
G.R. No. 211160, September 02, 2015
CARPIO, J.:

Facts:
Accused appellant Villareiz was charged with the crime of murder for the death of
Enrique Olimba. The accused and the victim were both attended the burial of a relative.
Enrique’s daughter Ana who was on top of a tomb and about eight meters from her father, heard
a gun explode and saw her spinning. Ana ran towards her father and saw Villariez waving a gun,
accompanied by his brothers Amado and Tomas. Ana held her father's head and asked him the
identity of the person who shot him and at the brink of death the latter uttered the name "Toti."
Dr. Bermejo testified that the victim's cause of death was a gunshot wound at the back. He
further testified that both the victim and assailant were possibly standing when the incident
happened.
In his defense, the accused testified that he was present in the burial when he heard a
sudden outburst and saw a person fall down.
The RTC found no qualifying circumstances and found the accused guilty of Homicide.
The CA, however appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery and found the
accused guilty of murder.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of murder.

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court agree with the CA in appreciating treachery as a qualifying
circumstance. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting
victim, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. Here, the child of Enrique
witnessed that it was Villariez who shot his father at the back. Enrique, deep in thought while
listening to the burial service, was unprepared and had no means to put up a defense. Enrique
was shot unexpectedly which insured the commission of the crime without risk to Villariez. This
treacherous act qualified the killing to murder.
Wherefore, the assailed decision of the CA was affirmed.
 CARRERA VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 217804, September 02, 2015
VELASCO JR., J.:

Facts:
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape by sexual assault committed
against AAA.
It happened in the evening of June 13, 2004. AAA was walking on her way home a man
who she recognized to be Carrera suddenly emerged from a dark portion of the street and
waylaid AAA after which he grabbed her arm and dragged her toward a nearby church and
pushed his victim to the ground, then immediately pinned her down by placing his knees on top
of her back and holding her left arm. Carrera then pulled down AAA's garterized shorts and
panty with his free hand while she was pinned down and then inserted a finger into her vagina
against her will. AAA submitted herself for medical examination to Dr. Icamina who found fresh
and complete hymenal laceration in AAA's external genitalia.
For his defense, the accused interposed an alibi that he was in another barangay of the
same town when the supposed crime happened.
The RTC found the accused guilty as charged which was affirmed by CA.
Hence, this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty as charged.

Held: Yes. Clearly then, rape can be committed either through sexual intercourse or by sexual
assault. Rape by sexual assault is committed under any of the circumstances mentioned in
paragraph 1 and through any of the means enumerated under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A. The
gravamen of rape through sexual assault is "the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth
or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice.
Carrera inserted his finger into AAA’s vagina without her consent and by use of force,
the overt act constituted rape by sexual assault within the purview of Article 266-A.
Wherefore, the assailed CA decision was affirmed in toto.
 PEOPLE VS. YSALAPUDIN
G.R. No. 213913, September 02, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Facts:
Herein accused was charged with the crimes of carnapping and qualified theft. Accused-
appellant was hired as a messenger in E. Gloria Money Changer.
At 12:30pm of July 11, 2007, Emelina handed to appellant the cash with an aggregate
amount of P1,077,995.00 and of various foreign denominations and instructed the latter to bring
the currencies to her friend Rosalial, a money changer in Mabini, Manila. After receiving the
monies from, appellant left aboard his service motorcycle on his way to Manila.
By 1:30 p.m. of the same day, Emelina received a call from Rosalial informing her that
appellant has yet to arrive in her shop. Emelina's calls to the cellular phones of appellant and his
wife were not answered, prompting her to lodge a complaint against appellant at the PNP-CIDG.
Appellant vehemently denied asporting currency totaling P1,077,995.00, and the subject
motorcycle.
RTC rendered a guilty verdict in both criminal cases which was affirmed by the CA.
Hence, this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty as charge.

Held: Yes.
In this case, all the elements of carnapping were established by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt; (1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (2) the taking is
without the consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or
by using force upon things; and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain.
Moreover, all the elements of Qualified Theft were established in the present case as
Emelina positively and credibly testified that she entrusted to appellant the amount of
P1,077,995.00 to the appellant. Instead of delivering the money to the designated money changer
as directed by Emelina, appellant breached the trust reposed in him and disappeared with the
cash bills.
Wherefore, the assailed CA decision was affirmed.
 PEOPLE VS. ROLANDO CARRERA
G.R. No. 215731, September 02, 2015
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Facts:
The PDEA team with an informant went to Brgy. Malaria, Caloocan City to conduct a buy-
bust operation. Upon arrival, IO1 Samson and the informant proceeded to the designated area.
With the team positioned, the informant called the appellant, arrived shortly after the call. The
informant introduced IO1 Samson as the buyer and asked whether he had the item with him.
Appellant replied in the affirmative and asked IO1 Samson if he brought the money. IO1 Samson
opened the plastic bag containing the money. Appellant pulled out from his pocket the item and
handed it to IO1 Samson. Upon receipt of the plastic packet with the crystalline substance, IO1
Samson grabbed appellant, introduced himself as PDEA agent, the team approached the target
area and IO1 Santos assisted IO1 Samson in arresting appellant by handcuffing him and reading
to him his constitutional rights. The item was found positive for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride.
Appellant denied owning and possessing the plastic sachets containing the white crystalline
substance. Appellant, a tricycle driver, asserts that he was working on that day.
The RTC found the accused guilty of Illegal Sale of Dangerous.
The CA affirmed the conviction but of Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs.
Hence, this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime charged.

Held: No. The CA decision was modified finding the accused guilty of Illegal Delivery of
Prohibited drugs.
In this case, accused-appellant was originally charged with illegal sale of shabu
but convicted for illegal delivery of shabu because of the non-payment by the poseur-buyer
which was an essential element of the original indictment.
 PEOPLE VS. POSADA
G.R. No. 196052, September 02, 2015
BRION, J.:

Facts:
Accused-appellants, Francisco and Jocelyn Posada were charged with the crime of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs. By virtue of a search warrant, police officers went to the house of
the accused-appellants in Virac, Catanduanes. A total of thirty-seven (37) sachets were recovered
from the pavement which were photographed by PO3 Raul Santos, and then were turned over to
the crime laboratory for inventory, documentation, and examination. The results of the
examination of the contents of the thirty-seven (37) plastic sachets done in the crime laboratory
showed that these contained shabu.
The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged and found the search warrant,
which led to the immediate arrest of accused-appellants, valid and the chain of custody of the
seized items preserved.
The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty of the crime charged.

Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The prosecution
was able to establish the presence of all the required elements for violation of Section 11, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165 that (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is
identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and
(c) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.
The Supreme Court also affirmed that the chain of custody is not broken in the operation
done by the police.
 PEOPLE VS. SAMSON
G.R. No. 214883, September 02, 2015
MENDOZA, J.:

Facts:
Accused-appellant, Cristina was charged with the crime of Parricide for the death of her
husband defined and penalized under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. Accused claimed
that one night her husband arrived home drunk and started an altercation with her caused by her
failure to cook dinner. He pointed a knife at Cristina's neck. While Gerry was still holding the
knife, Cristina pushed him and he fell on the ground. She took the knife which Gerry was
holding and begged him not to come near her. She was holding the knife near her chest pointed
at Gerry when he suddenly grabbed her and that was the time that the knife went in contact with
his chest.
The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged and was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.
Hence, the accused appealed invoking self-defense.

Issue: Whether or not the claim of the accused-appellant for self-defense tenable.

Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that To invoke self-defense, in order to escape criminal
liability, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the
concurrence of the following requisites under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the RPC: (1)
unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
Contrary to the conclusion of the CA that Gerry's aggression had already ceased when he
was disarmed, it is the Court's view that the aggression still continued. Her perceived peril to her
life continued and persisted until she put an end to it. And that she had no other available means
or any less deadly weapon to repel the threat other than the knife in her hand. Her shoving him
cannot be considered a sufficient provocation proportionate to the act of aggression.

Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed and the accused-appellant
was acquitted.
 PEOPLE VS. HIDALGO

G.R. No. 203313, September 02, 2015

PEREZ, J.:

Facts:
Accused-appellants Roberto, Don Juan, and Bombasi were charged with three counts of
simple rape committed against thirteen-year old AAA. AAA testified that while she was
sleeping, she was awakened when Roberto and Bombasi tied both of her hands at her back.
Thereafter, both men turned her around, touched her body and Roberto took her shorts and panty
off and went on top of her. He then inserted his penis inside her vagina. After satisfying his lust,
he got off from AAA. Thereafter, Bombasi and Don Juan took turns in having carnal knowledge
with AAA. This was corroborated by a medico-legal report. The defense on the other hand
averred the credibility of the victim.
The RTC found the accused-appellants guilty of the crime charged which was affirmed
by the CA.
Hence, this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellants are guilty of the crime charged.

Ruling: Yes. The Court held that for the prosecution of rape to prosper, the following elements
must be proved: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) said act was
accomplished (a) through the use of force, threat or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or
is demented.
In the case at bar, the court finds that the prosecution was able to prove that the three
accused Roberto, Don Juan and Bombasi conspired with one another to commit carnal
knowledge of AAA through the use of force and threat.
Wherefore, the assailed decisions were affirmed.