FIRST DIVISION

Hence, the respondents prayed in their complaint that: (1) the

G.R. No. 198444, September 04, 2013 petitioners be held administratively liable;5 (2) the petitioners be liable
to pay an administrative fine pursuant to Section 54(ii), SRC; (3) the
CITIBANK N.A. AND THE CITIGROUP PRIVATE petitioners’ existing registration/s or secondary license/s to act as a
BANK, Petitioners, v.ESTER H. TANCO-GABALDON, ARSENIO broker/dealer in securities, government securities eligible dealer,
TANCO & THE HEIRS OF KU TIONG LAM, Respondents. investment adviser of an investment house/underwriter of securities
and transfer agent be revoked; and (4) criminal complaints against the
G.R. No. 198469-70, September 04, 2013 petitioners be filed and endorsed to the Department of Justice (DOJ)
for investigation.6cralaw virtualaw library
CAROL LIM, Petitioner, v. ESTER H. TANCO-GABALDON,
ARSENIO TANCO & THE HEIRS OF KU TIONG LAM, Respondents. Petitioners Citibank and Citigroup claimed that they did not receive a
copy of the complaint and it was only after the Bangko Sentral ng
DECISION Pilipinas (BSP) wrote them on October 26, 2007 that they were
furnished a copy. They replied to the BSP disclaiming any
participation by the Citibank or its officers on the transactions and
REYES, J.:
products complained of. Citibank and Citigroup furnished a copy of its
These consolidated cases arose from the same antecedent facts. 
letter to the SEC-EPD and the respondents’ counsel. 
On September 21, 2007, Ester H. Tanco-Gabaldon (Gabaldon),
On August 1, 2008, the SEC-EPD asked from the petitioners certain
Arsenio Tanco (Tanco) and the Heirs of Ku Tiong Lam (Lam)
documents to be submitted during a scheduled conference, to which
(respondents) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s
they complied. The petitioners, however, reiterated its position that
Enforcement and Prosecution Department1 (SEC-EPD) a complaint
they are not submitting to the jurisdiction of the SEC. The petitioners
for violation of the Revised Securities Act (RSA) and the Securities
were also required to submit other documents.6.acralaw virtualaw
Regulation Code (SRC) against petitioners Citibank N.A. (Citibank)
library
and its officials,2 Citigroup Private Bank (Citigroup) and its
officials,3 and petitioner Carol Lim (Lim), who is Citigroup’s Vice-
Thereafter, in an order dated December 8, 2008, the SEC-EPD
President and Director. In their Complaint,4 the respondents alleged
terminated its investigation on the ground that the respondents’ action
that Gabaldon, Tanco and Lam were joint account holders of
has already prescribed.7 According to the SEC-EPD, “[t]he aforesaid
petitioner Citigroup. Sometime in March 2000, the respondents met
complaint was filed before the [SEC-EPD] on 21 September 2007
with petitioner Lim, who “induced” them into signing a subscription
while a similar complaint was lodged before the [DOJ] on October
agreement for the purchase of USD 2,000,000.00 worth of Ceres II
2005. Seven (7) years had lapsed before the filing of the action before
Finance Ltd. Income Notes. In September of the same year, they met
the SEC while the complaint instituted before the DOJ was filed one
again with Lim for another investment proposal, this time for the
month after the expiration of the allowable period.”8 It appears that on
purchase of USD 500,000.00 worth of Aeries Finance II Ltd. Senior
October 24, 2005,9 the respondents had already filed with the
Subordinated Income Notes. In a January 2003 statement issued by
Mandaluyong City Prosecutor’s Office a complaint for violation of the
the Citigroup, the respondents learned that their investments declined,
RSA and SRC but it was referred to the SEC pursuant to Baviera v.
until their account was totally wiped out. Upon verification with the
Prosecutor Paglinawan.10cralaw virtualaw library
SEC, they learned that the Ceres II Finance Ltd. Notes and the Aeries
Finance II Ltd. Notes were not duly registered securities. They also
In 2009, petitioners Citibank and Citigroup received a copy of the
learned that Ceres II Finance Ltd., Aeries Finance II Ltd. and the
respondents’ Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeals but the
petitioners, among others, are not duly-registered security issuers,
officials did not, as according to them, the latter were not connected
brokers, dealers or agents.  
with them. Citibank also alleged that they did not receive any order to imposable penalty for the offenses with which the petitioners were
file a Reply Memorandum, in contravention of Section 11-5, Rule XI of charged, and applying Act No. 3326, the prescriptive period for the
the 2006 SEC Rules of Procedure. It turned out, however, that an filing of an action is twelve (12) years, reckoned from the time of
order was issued by the SEC, dated February 26, 2009, requiring the commission or discovery of the offense.18 The respondents’ filing of
petitioners to file their reply.11cralaw virtualaw library the complaint with the SEC, therefore, was within the prescriptive
period. 
On November 6, 2009, petitioners Citibank and Citigroup received the
SEC en banc Decision12 dated October 15, 2009 reinstating the In G.R. Nos. 198469-70, petitioner Lim share the view of petitioners
complaint and ordering the immediate investigation of the case. Citibank and Citigroup that Act No. 3326 is not applicable and the
Petitioner Lim, who was then based in Hong Kong, learned of the SRC provides for its own prescriptive period.19 Meanwhile, in G.R. No.
rendition of the SEC decision on November 20, 2009 through a 198444, petitioners Citibank and Citigroup maintain that the CA
teleconference with petitioner Citibank’s counsel.13 Thus, petitioners committed an error in applying Act No. 3326. According to the
Citibank and Citigroup filed a petition for review with the Court of petitioners, Section 62.2 of the SRC applies to both civil and criminal
Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 111501. Petitioner Lim liability. The petitioners also insist that laches bar the investigation of
filed her own petition for review with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP the respondents’ complaint against the petitioners. On the other hand,
No. 112309. These two petitions were then consolidated.   the respondents assert, among others, the applicability of Act No.
3326.20cralaw virtualaw library
Finally, the CA rendered the Decision14 dated October 5, 2010, which Ruling of the Court
provides for the following dispositive portion:chanrobles virtua1aw
1ibrary Resolution of the issue raised by the petitioners call for an
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is examination of the pertinent provisions of the SRC, particularly
partly GRANTED. The writ of injunction is hereby DISSOLVED. The Section 62, which states:chanrobles virtua1aw 1ibrary
Securities and Exchange Commission-Enforcement and Prosecution SEC. 62. Limitation of Actions. –
Department is ordered to proceed with its investigation with dispatch
and with due regard to the parties’ right to notice and 62.1. No action shall be maintained to enforce any liability created
hearing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary under Section 56 or 57 of this Code unless brought within two (2)
years after the discovery of the untrue statement or the omission, or, if
SO ORDERED.15 the action is to enforce a liability created under Subsection 57.1(a),
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied unless brought within two (2) years after the violation upon which it is
by the CA in its Resolution16 dated August 31, 2011. The petitioners based. In no event shall any such action be brought to enforce a
then filed the present consolidated petitions for review under Rule 45 liability created under Section 56 or Subsection 57.1(a) more than five
of the Rules of Court.  (5) years after the security was bona fide offered to the public, or
under Subsection 57.1(b) more than five (5) years after the sale. 
The issues raised in these petitions are: (1) whether the criminal
action for offenses punished under the SRC filed by the respondents 62.2. No action shall be maintained to enforce any liability created
against the petitioners has already prescribed; and (2) whether the under any other provision of this Code unless brought within two (2)
filing of the action for the petitioners’ administrative liability is barred years after the discovery of the facts constituting the cause of action
by laches.  and within five (5) years after such cause of action accrued.
Section 62 provides for two different prescriptive periods.  
It was the CA’s view that since the SRC has no specific provision on
prescription of criminal offenses, the applicable law is Act No. Section 62.1 specifically sets out the prescriptive period for the
3326.17Under the SRC, imprisonment of more than six (6) years is the liabilities created under Sections 56, 57, 57.1(a) and 57.1(b). Section
56 refers to Civil Liabilities on Account of False Registration phrase ‘any liability’ in subsection 62.2 can only refer to other liabilities
Statement while Section 57 pertains to Civil Liabilities on Arising in that are also civil in nature. The phrase could not have suddenly
Connection with Prospectus, Communications and Reports. Under intended to mean criminal liability for this would go beyond the context
these provisions, enforcement of the civil liability must be brought of the other provisions among which it is found.”26cralaw virtualaw
within two (2) years or five (5) years, as the case may be.  library

On the other hand, Section 62.2 provides for the prescriptive period to Given the absence of a prescriptive period for the enforcement of the
enforce any liability created under the SRC. It is the interpretation of criminal liability in violations of the SRC, Act No. 3326 now comes into
the phrase “any liability” that creates the uncertainty. Does it include play. Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice27 expressly ruled
both civil and criminal liability? Or does it pertain solely to civil that Act No. 3326 is the law applicable to offenses under special
liability?  laws which do not provide their own prescriptive periods.28cralaw
virtualaw library
In order to put said phrase in its proper perspective, reference must
be made to the rule of statutory construction that every part of the Section 1 of Act No. 3326 provides:chanrobles virtua1aw 1ibrary
statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided
every part of the statute must be considered together with the other in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) after
parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not
enactment.21 Section 62.2 should not be read in isolation of the other more than one month, or both; (b) after four years for those punished
provision included in Section 62, particularly Section 62.1, which by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c)
provides for the prescriptive period for the enforcement of civil liability after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or
in cases of violations of Sections 56, 57, 57.1(a) and 57.1(b).   more, but less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any
other offense punished by imprisonment for six years or more,
Moreover, it should be noted that the civil liabilities provided in the except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe after twenty
SRC are not limited to Sections 56 and 57. Section 58 provides for years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe
Civil Liability For Fraud in Connection With Securities Transactions; after two months. (Emphasis ours)
Section 59 – Civil Liability For Manipulation of Security Prices; Section Under Section 73 of the SRC, violation of its provisions or the rules
60 – Civil Liability With Respect to Commodity Future Contracts and and regulations is punishable with imprisonment of not less than
Pre-need Plans; and Section 61 – Civil Liability on Account of Insider seven (7) years nor more than twenty-one (21) years. Applying
Trading. Thus, bearing in mind that Section 62.1 merely addressed Section 1 of Act No. 3326, a criminal prosecution for violations of the
the prescriptive period for the civil liability provided in Sections 56, 57, SRC shall, therefore, prescribe in twelve (12) years. 
57.1(a) and 57.1(b), then it reasonably follows that the other sub-
provision, Section 62.2, deals with the other civil liabilities that were Hand in hand with Section 1, Section 2 of Act No. 3326 states that
not covered by Section 62.1, namely Sections 59, 60 and 61. This “prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the
conclusion is further supported by the fact that the subsequent violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the
provision, Section 63, explicitly pertains to the amount of damages discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
recoverable under Sections 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61,22 the trial court investigation and punishment.” In Republic v. Cojuangco, Jr.29 the
having jurisdiction over such actions,23 the persons liable24 and the Court ruled that Section 2 provides two rules for determining when the
extent of their liability25. Clearly, the intent is to encompass in Section prescriptive period shall begin to run: first, from the day of the
62 the prescriptive periods only of the civil liability in cases of commission of the violation of the law, if such commission is
violations of the SRC.  known; and second, from its discovery, if not then known, and the
institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and
The CA, therefore, did not commit any error when it ruled that “the punishment.30cralaw virtualaw library
 positively.36 Ultimately, the question of laches is addressed to the
The respondents alleged in their complaint that the transactions sound discretion of the court and, being an equitable doctrine, its
occurred between September 2000, when they purchased the application is controlled by equitable considerations.37cralaw virtualaw
Subscription Agreement for the purchase of USD 2,000,000.00 worth library
of Ceres II Finance Ltd. Income Notes, and July 31, 2003, when their
Ceres II Finance Ltd. account was totally wiped out. Nevertheless, it In this case, records bear that immediately after the respondents
was only sometime in November 2004 that the respondents discovered in 2004 that the securities they invested in were actually
discovered that the securities they purchased were actually worthless. worthless, they filed on October 23, 2005 a complaint for violation of
Thereafter, the respondents filed on October 23, 2005 with the the RSA and SRC with the Mandaluyong City Prosecutor’s Office. It
Mandaluyong City Prosecutor’s Office a complaint for violation of the took the prosecutor three (3) years to resolve the complaint and refer
RSA and SRC. In Resolution dated July 18, 2007, however, the the case to the SEC,38 in conformity with the Court’s pronouncement
prosecutor’s office referred the complaint to the SEC.31 Finally, the in Baviera39that all complaints for any violation of the SRC and its
respondents filed the complaint with the SEC on September 21, 2007. implementing rules and regulations should be filed with the SEC.
Based on the foregoing antecedents, only seven (7) years lapsed Clearly, the filing of the complaint with the SEC on September 21,
since the respondents invested their funds with the petitioners, and 2007 is not barred by laches as the respondents’ judicious actions
three (3) years since the respondents’ discovery of the alleged reveal otherwise. 
offenses, that the complaint was correctly filed with the SEC for
investigation. Hence, the respondents’ complaint was filed well within WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED for lack of
the twelve (12)-year prescriptive period provided by Section 1 of Act merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
No. 3326.  
SO ORDERED.
On the issue of laches. 

Petitioner Lim contends that the CA committed an error when it did

not apply the principle of laches vis-à-vis the petitioners’
administrative liability.32cralaw virtualaw library

Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable

and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due
diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to
a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned
or declined to assert it.33cralaw virtualaw library

Section 54 of the SRC provides for the administrative sanctions to be

imposed against persons or entities violating the Code, its rules or
SEC orders.34 Just as the SRC did not provide a prescriptive period
for the filing of criminal actions, it likewise omitted to provide for the
period until when complaints for administrative liability under the law
should be initiated. On this score, it is a well-settled principle of law
that laches is a recourse in equity, which is, applied only in the
absence of statutory law.35 And though laches applies even to
imprescriptible actions, its elements must be proved
 Republic of the Philippines Pesos (₱9,658,592.00) in favor of private complainant which were
SUPREME COURT dishonored upon presentment for payment.
Manila
On 5 December 1997, respondent filed a civil case for accounting,
SECOND DIVISION recovery of commercial documents, enforceability and effectivity of
contract and specific performance against private complainant before
G.R. No. 152662               June 13, 2012 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City. This was docketed
as Civil Case No. 1429-V-97.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, 
vs. Five days thereafter or on 10 December 1997, respondent filed a
MA. THERESA PANGILINAN, Respondent. "Petition to Suspend Proceedings on the Ground of Prejudicial
Question" before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City,
DECISION citing as basis the pendency of the civil action she filed with the RTC
of Valenzuela City.
PEREZ, J.:
On 2 March 1998, Assistant City Prosecutor Ruben Catubay
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed this petition for recommended the suspension of the criminal proceedings pending
certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, on behalf of the the outcome of the civil action respondent filed against private
Republic of the Philippines, praying for the nullification and setting complainant with the RTC of Valenzuela City. The recommendation
aside of the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. was approved by the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
66936, entitled "Ma. Theresa Pangilinan vs. People of the Philippines
and Private Complainant Virginia C. Malolos." Aggrieved, private complainant raised the matter before the
Department of Justice (DOJ).
The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:
On 5 January 1999, then Secretary of Justice Serafin P. Cuevas
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the reversed the resolution of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and
assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch ordered the filing of informations for violation of BP Blg. 22 against
218, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and Criminal Cases Nos. 89152 respondent in connection with her issuance of City Trust Check No.
and 89153 against petitioner Ma. Theresa Pangilinan are hereby 127219 in the amount of ₱4,129,400.00 and RCBC Check No.
ordered DISMISSED.3 423773 in the amount of ₱4,475,000.00, both checks totaling the
amount of ₱8,604,000.00. The estafa and violation of BP Blg. 22
Culled from the record are the following undisputed facts: charges involving the seven other checks included in the affidavit-
complaint filed on 16 September 1997 were, however, dismissed.
On 16 September 1997, Virginia C. Malolos (private complainant) filed
an affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) Consequently, two counts for violation of BP Blg. 22, both dated 18
Blg. 22 against Ma. Theresa Pangilinan (respondent) with the Office November 1999, were filed against respondent Ma.Theresa
of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. The complaint alleges that Pangilinan on 3 February 2000 before the Office of the Clerk of Court,
respondent issued nine (9) checks with an aggregate amount of Nine Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Quezon City. These cases were
Million Six Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-Two raffled to MeTC, Branch 31on 7 June 2000.
On 17 June 2000, respondent filed an "Omnibus Motion to Quash the Criminal Case Nos. 89152 and 89153 for the reason that the cases for
Information and to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest" before violation of BP Blg. 22 had already prescribed.
MeTC, Branch 31, Quezon City. She alleged that her criminal liability
has been extinguished by reason of prescription. In reversing the RTC Decision, the appellate court ratiocinated that:

The presiding judge of MeTC, Branch 31, Quezon City granted the xxx this Court reckons the commencement of the period of
motion in an Order dated 5 October 2000. prescription for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 imputed to
[respondent] sometime in the latter part of 1995, as it was within this
On 26 October 2000, private complainant filed a notice of appeal. The period that the [respondent] was notified by the private [complainant]
criminal cases were raffled to RTC, Branch 218, Quezon City. of the fact of dishonor of the subject checks and, the five (5) days
grace period granted by law had elapsed. The private respondent
In a Decision dated 27 July 2001, the presiding judge of RTC, Branch then had, pursuant to Section 1 of Act 3326, as amended, four years
218, Quezon City reversed the 5 October 2000 Order of the MeTC. therefrom or until the latter part of 1999 to file her complaint or
The pertinent portion of the decision reads: information against the petitioner before the proper court.

xxx Inasmuch as the informations in this case were filed on 03 The informations docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 89152 and
February 2000 with the Clerk of Court although received by the Court 89152(sic) against the petitioner having been filed with the
itself only on 07 June 2000, they are covered by the Rule as it was Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City only on 03 February 2000, the
worded before the latest amendment. The criminal action on two said cases had therefore, clearly prescribed.
counts for violation of BP Blg. 22, had, therefore, not yet prescribed
when the same was filed with the court a quo considering the xxx
appropriate complaint that started the proceedings having been filed
with the Office of the Prosecutor on 16 September 1997 yet. Pursuant to Section 2 of Act 3326, as amended, prescription shall be
interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Order dated 05 October 2000 is hereby
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Court a quo is hereby directed to In the case of Zaldivia vs. Reyes7 the Supreme Court held that the
proceed with the hearing of Criminal Cases Nos. 89152 and 89153.4 proceedings referred to in Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended, are
‘judicial proceedings’, which means the filing of the complaint or
Dissatisfied with the RTC Decision, respondent filed with the Supreme information with the proper court. Otherwise stated, the running of the
Court a petition for review5 on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of prescriptive period shall be stayed on the date the case is actually
Court. This was docketed as G.R. Nos. 149486-87. filed in court and not on any date before that, which is in consonance
with Section 2 of Act 3326, as amended.
In a resolution6 dated 24 September 2000, this Court referred the
petition to the CA for appropriate action. While the aforesaid case involved a violation of a municipal ordinance,
this Court, considering that Section 2 of Act 3326, as amended,
On 26 October 2001, the CA gave due course to the petition by governs the computation of the prescriptive period of both ordinances
requiring respondent and private complainant to comment on the and special laws, finds that the ruling of the Supreme Court in Zaldivia
petition. v. Reyes8 likewise applies to special laws, such as Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22.9
In a Decision dated 12 March 2002, the CA reversed the 27 July 2001
Decision of RTC, Branch 218, Quezon City, thereby dismissing
The OSG sought relief to this Court in the instant petition for Respondent contends that the arguments advanced by petitioner are
review.1âwphi1 According to the OSG, while it admits that Act No. anchored on erroneous premises. She claims that the cases relied
3326, as amended by Act No. 3585 and further amended by Act No. upon by petitioner involved felonies punishable under the Revised
3763 dated 23 November 1930, governs the period of prescription for Penal Code and are therefore covered by Article 91 of the Revised
violations of special laws, it is the institution of criminal actions, Penal Code (RPC)14 and Section 1, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on
whether filed with the court or with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Criminal Procedure.15 Respondent pointed out that the crime imputed
that interrupts the period of prescription of the offense charged.10 It against her is for violation of BP Blg. 22, which is indisputably a
submits that the filing of the complaint-affidavit by private complainant special law and as such, is governed by Act No. 3326, as amended.
Virginia C. Malolos on 16 September 1997 with the Office of the City She submits that a distinction should thus be made between offenses
Prosecutor of Quezon City effectively interrupted the running of the covered by municipal ordinances or special laws, as in this case, and
prescriptive period of the subject BP Blg. 22 cases. offenses covered by the RPC.

Petitioner further submits that the CA erred in its decision when it The key issue raised in this petition is whether the filing of the
relied on the doctrine laid down by this Court in the case of Zaldivia v. affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of BP Blg. 22 against
Reyes, Jr.11 that the filing of the complaint with the Office of the City respondent with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on
Prosecutor is not the "judicial proceeding" that could have interrupted 16 September 1997 interrupted the period of prescription of such
the period of prescription. In relying on Zaldivia,12 the CA allegedly offense.
failed to consider the subsequent jurisprudence superseding the
aforesaid ruling. We find merit in this petition.

Petitioner contends that in a catena of cases,13 the Supreme Court Initially, we see that the respondent’s claim that the OSG failed to
ruled that the filing of a complaint with the Fiscal’s Office for attach to the petition a duplicate original or certified true copy of the
preliminary investigation suspends the running of the prescriptive 12 March 2002 decision of the CA and the required proof of service is
period. It therefore concluded that the filing of the informations with refuted by the record. A perusal of the record reveals that attached to
the MeTC of Quezon City on 3 February 2000 was still within the the original copy of the petition is a certified true copy of the CA
allowable period of four years within which to file the criminal cases decision. It was also observed that annexed to the petition was the
for violation of BP Blg. 22 in accordance with Act No. 3326, as proof of service undertaken by the Docket Division of the OSG.
amended.
With regard to the main issue of the petition, we find that the CA
In her comment-opposition dated 26 July 2002, respondent avers that reversively erred in ruling that the offense committed by respondent
the petition of the OSG should be dismissed outright for its failure to had already prescribed. Indeed, Act No. 3326 entitled "An Act to
comply with the mandatory requirements on the submission of a Establish Prescription for Violations of Special Acts and Municipal
certified true copy of the decision of the CA and the required proof of Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin," as
service. Such procedural lapses are allegedly fatal to the cause of the amended, is the law applicable to BP Blg. 22 cases. Appositely, the
petitioner. law reads:

Respondent reiterates the ruling of the CA that the filing of the SECTION 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless
complaint before the City Prosecutor’s Office did not interrupt the otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the
running of the prescriptive period considering that the offense charged following rules: (a) xxx; (b) after four years for those punished by
is a violation of a special law. imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c)
xxx.
SECTION 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the In fact, in the case of Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice,24 which
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known is in all fours with the instant case, this Court categorically ruled that
at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused
proceedings for its investigation and punishment. before the Office of the City Prosecutor effectively interrupted the
prescriptive period for the offenses they had been charged under BP
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted Blg. 22. Aggrieved parties, especially those who do not sleep on their
against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the rights and actively pursue their causes, should not be allowed to
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. suffer unnecessarily further simply because of circumstances beyond
their control, like the accused’s delaying tactics or the delay and
Since BP Blg. 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty of inefficiency of the investigating agencies.
imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one
year or by a fine for its violation, it therefor prescribes in four (4) years We follow the factual finding of the CA that "sometime in the latter part
in accordance with the aforecited law. The running of the prescriptive of 1995" is the reckoning date of the commencement of presumption
period, however, should be tolled upon the institution of proceedings for violations of BP Blg. 22, such being the period within which herein
against the guilty person. respondent was notified by private complainant of the fact of dishonor
of the checks and the five-day grace period granted by law elapsed.
In the old but oft-cited case of People v. Olarte,16 this Court ruled that
the filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court even if it be merely The affidavit-complaints for the violations were filed against
for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation, should, and respondent on 16 September 1997. The cases reached the MeTC of
thus, interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal responsibility, Quezon City only on 13 February 2000 because in the meanwhile,
even if the court where the complaint or information is filed cannot try respondent filed a civil case for accounting followed by a petition
the case on the merits. This ruling was broadened by the Court in the before the City Prosecutor for suspension of proceedings on the
case of Francisco, et.al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al.17 when it held that ground of "prejudicial question". The matter was raised before the
the filing of the complaint with the Fiscal’s Office also suspends the Secretary of Justice after the City Prosecutor approved the petition to
running of the prescriptive period of a criminal offense. suspend proceedings. It was only after the Secretary of Justice so
ordered that the informations for the violation of BP Blg. 22 were filed
Respondent’s contention that a different rule should be applied to with the MeTC of Quezon City.
cases involving special laws is bereft of merit. There is no more
distinction between cases under the RPC and those covered by Clearly, it was respondent’s own motion for the suspension of the
special laws with respect to the interruption of the period of criminal proceedings, which motion she predicated on her civil case
prescription. The ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr.18 is not controlling in for accounting, that caused the filing in court of the 1997 initiated
special laws. In Llenes v. Dicdican,19 Ingco, et al. v. proceedings only in 2000.
Sandiganbayan,20 Brillante v. CA,21 and Sanrio Company Limited v.
Lim,22 cases involving special laws, this Court held that the institution As laid down in Olarte,25 it is unjust to deprive the injured party of the
of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the accused right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not under his
interrupts the period of prescription. In Securities and Exchange control. The only thing the offended must do to initiate the prosecution
Commission v. Interport Resources Corporation, et. al.,23 the Court of the offender is to file the requisite complaint.
even ruled that investigations conducted by the Securities and
Exchange Commission for violations of the Revised Securities Act IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is
and the Securities Regulations Code effectively interrupts the GRANTED. The 12 March 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals is
prescription period because it is equivalent to the preliminary hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Department of Justice is
investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal cases.
ORDERED to re-file the informations for violation of BP Blg. 22 suffered that fatal night in the hands of her batterer-spouse, in spite of
against the respondent. the fact that she was eight months pregnant with their child,
overwhelmed her and put her in the aforesaid emotional and mental
SO ORDERED. state, which overcame her reason and impelled her to vindicate her
life and her unborn child's.
EN BANC
Considering the presence of these two mitigating circumstances
G.R. No. 135981             January 15, 2004 arising from BWS, as well as the benefits of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, she may now apply for and be released from custody
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,  on parole, because she has already served the minimum period of her
vs. penalty while under detention during the pendency of this case.
MARIVIC GENOSA, appellant.
The Case

For automatic review before this Court is the September 25, 1998
DECISION Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City (Branch 35)
in Criminal Case No. 5016-0, finding Marivic Genosa guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of parricide. The decretal portion of the Decision
reads:
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"WHEREFORE, after all the foregoing being duly considered,
the Court finds the accused, Marivic Genosa y Isidro, GUILTY
Admitting she killed her husband, appellant anchors her prayer for
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide as provided
acquittal on a novel theory -- the "battered woman syndrome" (BWS),
under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code as restored by
which allegedly constitutes self-defense. Under the proven facts,
Sec. 5, RA No. 7659, and after finding treachery as a generic
however, she is not entitled to complete exoneration because there
aggravating circumstance and none of mitigating
was no unlawful aggression -- no immediate and unexpected attack
circumstance, hereby sentences the accused with the penalty
on her by her batterer-husband at the time she shot him.
of DEATH.
Absent unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, complete
"The Court likewise penalizes the accused to pay the heirs of
or incomplete.
the deceased the sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00),
Philippine currency as indemnity and another sum of fifty
But all is not lost. The severe beatings repeatedly inflicted on
thousand pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency as moral
appellant constituted a form of cumulative provocation that broke
damages."2
down her psychological resistance and self-control. This
"psychological paralysis" she suffered diminished her will power,
The Information3 charged appellant with parricide as follows:
thereby entitling her to the mitigating factor under paragraphs 9 and
10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
"That on or about the 15th day of November 1995, at Barangay
Bilwang, Municipality of Isabel, Province of Leyte, Philippines
In addition, appellant should also be credited with the extenuating
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have
named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
naturally produced passion and obfuscation. The acute battering she
 premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and the parents of Ben in their house at Isabel, Leyte. For a time,
feloniously attack, assault, hit and wound one BEN GENOSA, Ben's younger brother, Alex, and his wife lived with them too.
her legitimate husband, with the use of a hard deadly weapon, Sometime in 1995, however, appellant and Ben rented from
which the accused had provided herself for the purpose, Steban Matiga a house at Barangay Bilwang, Isabel, Leyte
[causing] the following wounds, to wit: where they lived with their two children, namely: John Marben
and Earl Pierre.
'Cadaveric spasm.
"On November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas went to a
'Body on the 2nd stage of decomposition. cockfight after receiving their salary. They each had two (2)
bottles of beer before heading home. Arturo would pass Ben's
'Face, black, blownup & swollen w/ evident post- house before reaching his. When they arrived at the house of
mortem lividity. Eyes protruding from its sockets and Ben, he found out that appellant had gone to Isabel, Leyte to
tongue slightly protrudes out of the mouth. look for him. Ben went inside his house, while Arturo went to a
store across it, waiting until 9:00 in the evening for
'Fracture, open, depressed, circular located at the the masiaorunner to place a bet. Arturo did not see appellant
occipital bone of the head, resulting [in] laceration of arrive but on his way home passing the side of the Genosas'
the brain, spontaneous rupture of the blood vessels on rented house, he heard her say 'I won't hesitate to kill you' to
the posterior surface of the brain, laceration of the dura which Ben replied 'Why kill me when I am innocent?' That was
and meningeal vessels producing severe intracranial the last time Arturo saw Ben alive. Arturo also noticed that
hemorrhage. since then, the Genosas' rented house appeared uninhabited
and was always closed.
'Blisters at both extrem[i]ties, anterior chest, posterior
chest, trunk w/ shedding of the epidermis. "On November 16, 1995, appellant asked Erlinda Paderog, her
close friend and neighbor living about fifty (50) meters from her
'Abdomen distended w/ gas. Trunk bloated.' house, to look after her pig because she was going to Cebu for
a pregnancy check-up. Appellant likewise asked Erlinda to sell
her motorcycle to their neighbor Ronnie Dayandayan who
which caused his death."4
unfortunately had no money to buy it.
With the assistance of her counsel,5 appellant pleaded not guilty
"That same day, about 12:15 in the afternoon, Joseph Valida
during her arraignment on March 3, 1997.6 In due course, she was
was waiting for a bus going to Ormoc when he saw appellant
tried for and convicted of parricide.
going out of their house with her two kids in tow, each one
carrying a bag, locking the gate and taking her children to the
The Facts waiting area where he was. Joseph lived about fifty (50)
meters behind the Genosas' rented house. Joseph, appellant
Version of the Prosecution and her children rode the same bus to Ormoc. They had no
conversation as Joseph noticed that appellant did not want to
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarizes the talk to him.
prosecution's version of the facts in this wise:
"On November 18, 1995, the neighbors of Steban Matiga told
"Appellant and Ben Genosa were united in marriage on him about the foul odor emanating from his house being
November 19, 1983 in Ormoc City. Thereafter, they lived with rented by Ben and appellant. Steban went there to find out the
cause of the stench but the house was locked from the inside. "Appellant admitted killing Ben. She testified that going
Since he did not have a duplicate key with him, Steban home after work on November 15, 1995, she got worried that
destroyed the gate padlock with a borrowed steel saw. He was her husband who was not home yet might have gone gambling
able to get inside through the kitchen door but only after since it was a payday. With her cousin Ecel Araño, appellant
destroying a window to reach a hook that locked it. Alone, went to look for Ben at the marketplace and taverns at Isabel,
Steban went inside the unlocked bedroom where the offensive Leyte but did not find him there. They found Ben drunk upon
smell was coming from. There, he saw the lifeless body of Ben their return at the Genosas' house. Ecel went home despite
lying on his side on the bed covered with a blanket. He was appellant's request for her to sleep in their house.
only in his briefs with injuries at the back of his head. Seeing
this, Steban went out of the house and sent word to the "Then, Ben purportedly nagged appellant for following him,
mother of Ben about his son's misfortune. Later that day, even challenging her to a fight. She allegedly ignored him and
Iluminada Genosa, the mother of Ben, identified the dead body instead attended to their children who were doing their
as that of [her] son. homework. Apparently disappointed with her reaction, Ben
switched off the light and, with the use of a chopping knife, cut
"Meanwhile, in the morning of the same day, SPO3 Leo the television antenna or wire to keep her from watching
Acodesin, then assigned at the police station at Isabel, Leyte, television. According to appellant, Ben was about to attack her
received a report regarding the foul smell at the Genosas' so she ran to the bedroom, but he got hold of her hands and
rented house. Together with SPO1 Millares, SPO1 Colon, and whirled her around. She fell on the side of the bed and
Dr. Refelina Cerillo, SPO3 Acodesin proceeded to the house screamed for help. Ben left. At this point, appellant
and went inside the bedroom where they found the dead body packed his clothes because she wanted him to leave. Seeing
of Ben lying on his side wrapped with a bedsheet. There was his packed clothes upon his return home, Ben allegedly flew
blood at the nape of Ben who only had his briefs on. SPO3 into a rage, dragged appellant outside of the bedroom towards
Acodesin found in one corner at the side of an aparadora a drawer holding her by the neck, and told her 'You might as
metal pipe about two (2) meters from where Ben was, leaning well be killed so nobody would nag me.' Appellant testified that
against a wall. The metal pipe measured three (3) feet and six she was aware that there was a gun inside the drawer but
(6) inches long with a diameter of one and half (1 1/2) inches. since Ben did not have the key to it, he got a three-inch long
It had an open end without a stop valve with a red stain at one blade cutter from his wallet. She however, 'smashed' the arm
end. The bedroom was not in disarray. of Ben with a pipe, causing him to drop the blade and his
wallet. Appellant then 'smashed' Ben at his nape with the pipe
"About 10:00 that same morning, the cadaver of Ben, because as he was about to pick up the blade and his wallet. She
of its stench, had to be taken outside at the back of the house thereafter ran inside the bedroom.
before the postmortem examination was conducted by Dr.
Cerillo in the presence of the police. A municipal health officer "Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of her
at Isabel, Leyte responsible for medico-legal cases, Dr. Cerillo husband by shooting him. She supposedly 'distorted' the
found that Ben had been dead for two to three days and his drawer where the gun was and shot Ben. He did not die on the
body was already decomposing. The postmortem examination spot, though, but in the bedroom."7 (Citations omitted)
of Dr. Cerillo yielded the findings quoted in the Information for
parricide later filed against appellant. She concluded that the Version of the Defense
cause of Ben's death was 'cardiopulmonary arrest secondary
to severe intracranial hemorrhage due to a depressed fracture Appellant relates her version of the facts in this manner:
of the occipital [bone].'
"1. Marivic and Ben Genosa were allegedly married on arm; the second incident was on November 15, 1994, when
November 19, 1983. Prior to her marriage, Marivic had Marivic struck Ben on the forehead 'using a sharp instrument
graduated from San Carlos, Cebu City, obtaining a degree of until the eye was also affected. It was wounded and also the
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, and was ear' and her husband went to Ben to help; and the third
working, at the time of her husband's death, as a Secretary to incident was in 1995 when the couple had already transferred
the Port Managers in Ormoc City. The couple had three (3) to the house in Bilwang and she saw that Ben's hand was
children: John Marben, Earl Pierre and Marie Bianca. plastered as 'the bone cracked.'

"2. Marivic and Ben had known each other since elementary "Both mother and son claimed they brought Ben to a Pasar
school; they were neighbors in Bilwang; they were classmates; clinic for medical intervention.
and they were third degree cousins. Both sets of parents were
against their relationship, but Ben was persistent and tried to "5. Arturo Basobas, a co-worker of Ben, testified that on
stop other suitors from courting her. Their closeness November 15, 1995 'After we collected our salary, we went to
developed as he was her constant partner at fiestas. the cock-fighting place of ISCO.' They stayed there for three
(3) hours, after which they went to 'Uniloks' and drank beer –
"3. After their marriage, they lived first in the home of Ben's allegedly only two (2) bottles each. After drinking they bought
parents, together with Ben's brother, Alex, in Isabel, Leyte. In barbeque and went to the Genosa residence. Marivic was not
the first year of marriage, Marivic and Ben 'lived happily'. But there. He stayed a while talking with Ben, after which he went
apparently, soon thereafter, the couple would quarrel often across the road to wait 'for the runner and the usher of the
and their fights would become violent. masiao game because during that time, the hearing on masiao
numbers was rampant. I was waiting for the ushers and
"4. Ben's brother, Alex, testified for the prosecution that he runners so that I can place my bet.' On his way home at about
could not remember when Ben and Marivic married. He said 9:00 in the evening, he heard the Genosas arguing. They were
that when Ben and Marivic quarreled, generally when Ben quarreling loudly. Outside their house was one 'Fredo' who is
would come home drunk, Marivic would inflict injuries on him. used by Ben to feed his fighting cocks. Basobas' testimony on
He said that in one incident in 1993 he saw Marivic holding a the root of the quarrel, conveniently overheard by him was
kitchen knife after Ben had shouted for help as his left hand Marivic saying 'I will never hesitate to kill you', whilst Ben
was covered with blood. Marivic left the house but after a replied 'Why kill me when I am innocent.' Basobas thought
week, she returned apparently having asked for Ben's they were joking.
forgiveness. In another incident in May 22, 1994, early
morning, Alex and his father apparently rushed to Ben's aid "He did not hear them quarreling while he was across the road
again and saw blood from Ben's forehead and Marivic holding from the Genosa residence. Basobas admitted that he and
an empty bottle. Ben and Marivic reconciled after Marivic had Ben were always at the cockpits every Saturday and Sunday.
apparently again asked for Ben's forgiveness. He claims that he once told Ben 'before when he was stricken
with a bottle by Marivic Genosa' that he should leave her and
"Mrs. Iluminada Genosa, Marivic's mother-in-law, testified too, that Ben would always take her back after she would leave
saying that Ben and Marivic married in '1986 or 1985 more or him 'so many times'.
less here in Fatima, Ormoc City.' She said as the marriage
went along, Marivic became 'already very demanding. Mrs. "Basobas could not remember when Marivic had hit Ben, but it
Iluminada Genosa said that after the birth of Marivic's two was a long time that they had been quarreling. He said Ben
sons, there were 'three (3) misunderstandings.' The first was 'even had a wound' on the right forehead. He had known the
when Marivic stabbed Ben with a table knife through his left couple for only one (1) year.
"6. Marivic testified that after the first year of marriage, Ben '7.3. Mr. Teodoro Sarabia was a former neighbor of the
became cruel to her and was a habitual drinker. She said he Genosas while they were living in Isabel, Leyte. His house was
provoked her, he would slap her, sometimes he would pin her located about fifty (50) meters from theirs. Marivic is his niece
down on the bed, and sometimes beat her. and he knew them to be living together for 13 or 14 years. He
said the couple was always quarreling. Marivic confided in him
"These incidents happened several times and she would often that Ben would pawn items and then would use the money to
run home to her parents, but Ben would follow her and seek gamble. One time, he went to their house and they were
her out, promising to change and would ask for her quarreling. Ben was so angry, but would be pacified 'if
forgiveness. She said after she would be beaten, she would somebody would come.' He testified that while Ben was alive
seek medical help from Dr. Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero and Dra. 'he used to gamble and when he became drunk, he would go
Cerillo. These doctors would enter the injuries inflicted upon to our house and he will say, 'Teody' because that was what
her by Ben into their reports. Marivic said Ben would beat her he used to call me, 'mokimas ta,' which means 'let's go and
or quarrel with her every time he was drunk, at least three look for a whore.' Mr. Sarabia further testified that Ben 'would
times a week. box his wife and I would see bruises and one time she ran to
me, I noticed a wound (the witness pointed to his right breast)
"7. In her defense, witnesses who were not so closely related as according to her a knife was stricken to her.' Mr. Sarabia
to Marivic, testified as to the abuse and violence she received also said that once he saw Ben had been injured too. He said
at the hands of Ben. he voluntarily testified only that morning.

'7.1. Mr. Joe Barrientos, a fisherman, who was a [neighbor] of '7.4. Miss Ecel Arano, an 18-year old student, who is a cousin
the Genosas, testified that on November 15, 1995, he of Marivic, testified that in the afternoon of November 15,
overheard a quarrel between Ben and Marivic. Marivic was 1995, Marivic went to her house and asked her help to look for
shouting for help and through the open jalousies, he saw the Ben. They searched in the market place, several taverns and
spouses 'grappling with each other'. Ben had Marivic in a some other places, but could not find him. She accompanied
choke hold. He did not do anything, but had come voluntarily Marivic home. Marivic wanted her to sleep with her in the
to testify. (Please note this was the same night as that testified Genosa house 'because she might be battered by her
to by Arturo Busabos.8 ) husband.' When they got to the Genosa house at about 7:00 in
the evening, Miss Arano said that 'her husband was already
'7.2. Mr. Junnie Barrientos, also a fisherman, and the brother there and was drunk.' Miss Arano knew he was drunk
of Mr. Joe Barrientos, testified that he heard his neighbor 'because of his staggering walking and I can also detect his
Marivic shouting on the night of November 15, 1995. He face.' Marivic entered the house and she heard them quarrel
peeped through the window of his hut which is located beside noisily. (Again, please note that this is the same night as that
the Genosa house and saw 'the spouses grappling with each testified to by Arturo Basobas) Miss Arano testified that this
other then Ben Genosa was holding with his both hands the was not the first time Marivic had asked her to sleep in the
neck of the accused, Marivic Genosa'. He said after a while, house as Marivic would be afraid every time her husband
Marivic was able to extricate he[r]self and enter the room of would come home drunk. At one time when she did sleep
the children. After that, he went back to work as he was to go over, she was awakened at 10:00 in the evening when Ben
fishing that evening. He returned at 8:00 the next morning. arrived because the couple 'were very noisy in the sala and I
(Again, please note that this was the same night as that had heard something was broken like a vase.' She said
testified to by Arturo Basobas). Marivic ran into her room and they locked the door. When Ben
couldn't get in he got a chair and a knife and 'showed us the
knife through the window grill and he scared us.' She said that
Marivic shouted for help, but no one came. On cross- "Marivic said she did not provoke her husband when she got
examination, she said that when she left Marivic's house on home that night it was her husband who began the
November 15, 1995, the couple were still quarreling. provocation. Marivic said she was frightened that her husband
would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver
'7.5. Dr. Dino Caing, a physician testified that he and Marivic her baby safely. In fact, Marivic had to be admitted later at the
were co-employees at PHILPHOS, Isabel, Leyte. Marivic was Rizal Medical Centre as she was suffering from eclampsia and
his patient 'many times' and had also received treatment from hypertension, and the baby was born prematurely on
other doctors. Dr. Caing testified that from July 6, 1989 until December 1, 1995.
November 9, 1995, there were six (6) episodes of physical
injuries inflicted upon Marivic. These injuries were reported in "Marivic testified that during her marriage she had tried to
his Out-Patient Chart at the PHILPHOS Hospital. The leave her husband at least five (5) times, but that Ben would
prosecution admitted the qualifications of Dr. Caing and always follow her and they would reconcile. Marivic said that
considered him an expert witness.' the reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that
night was because 'he was crazy about his recent girlfriend,
xxx   xxx   xxx Lulu x x x Rubillos.'

'Dr. Caing's clinical history of the tension headache and "On cross-examination, Marivic insisted she shot Ben with a
hypertention of Marivic on twenty-three (23) separate gun; she said that he died in the bedroom; that their quarrels
occasions was marked at Exhibits '2' and '2-B.' The OPD Chart could be heard by anyone passing their house; that Basobas
of Marivic at the Philphos Clinic which reflected all the lied in his testimony; that she left for Manila the next day,
consultations made by Marivic and the six (6) incidents of November 16, 1995; that she did not bother anyone in Manila,
physical injuries reported was marked as Exhibit '3.' rented herself a room, and got herself a job as a field
researcher under the alias 'Marvelous Isidro'; she did not tell
"On cross-examination, Dr. Caing said that he is not a anyone that she was leaving Leyte, she just wanted to have a
psychiatrist, he could not say whether the injuries were directly safe delivery of her baby; and that she was arrested in San
related to the crime committed. He said it is only a psychiatrist Pablo, Laguna.
who is qualified to examine the psychological make-up of the
patient, 'whether she is capable of committing a crime or not.' 'Answering questions from the Court, Marivic said that she
threw the gun away; that she did not know what happened to
'7.6 Mr. Panfilo Tero, the barangay captain in the place where the pipe she used to 'smash him once'; that she was wounded
the Genosas resided, testified that about two (2) months by Ben on her wrist with the bolo; and that two (2) hours after
before Ben died, Marivic went to his office past 8:00 in the she was 'whirled' by Ben, he kicked her 'ass' and dragged her
evening. She sought his help to settle or confront the Genosa towards the drawer when he saw that she had packed his
couple who were experiencing 'family troubles'. He told Marivic things.'
to return in the morning, but he did not hear from her again
and assumed 'that they might have settled with each other or "9. The body of Ben Genosa was found on November 18,
they might have forgiven with each other.' 1995 after an investigation was made of the foul odor emitting
from the Genosa residence. This fact was testified to by all the
xxx   xxx   xxx prosecution witnesses and some defense witnesses during the
trial.
"10. Dra. Refelina Y. Cerillo, a physician, was the Municipal "14. The case was elevated to this Honorable Court upon
Health Officer of Isabel, Leyte at the time of the incident, and automatic review and, under date of 24 January 2000,
among her responsibilities as such was to take charge of all Marivic's trial lawyer, Atty. Gil Marvel P. Tabucanon, filed a
medico-legal cases, such as the examination of cadavers and Motion to Withdraw as counsel, attaching thereto, as a
the autopsy of cadavers. Dra. Cerillo is not a forensic precautionary measure, two (2) drafts of Appellant's Briefs he
pathologist. She merely took the medical board exams and had prepared for Marivic which, for reasons of her own, were
passed in 1986. She was called by the police to go to the not conformed to by her.
Genosa residence and when she got there, she saw 'some
police officer and neighbor around.' She saw Ben Genosa, "The Honorable Court allowed the withdrawal of Atty.
covered by a blanket, lying in a semi-prone position with his Tabucanon and permitted the entry of appearance of
back to the door. He was wearing only a brief. undersigned counsel.

xxxxxxxxx "15. Without the knowledge of counsel, Marivic Genosa wrote

a letter dated 20 January 2000, to the Chief Justice, coursing
"Dra. Cerillo said that 'there is only one injury and that is the the same through Atty. Teresita G. Dimaisip, Deputy Clerk of
injury involving the skeletal area of the head' which she Court of Chief Judicial Records Office, wherein she submitted
described as a 'fracture'. And that based on her examination, her 'Brief without counsels' to the Court.
Ben had been dead 2 or 3 days. Dra. Cerillo did not testify as
to what caused his death. "This letter was stamp-received by the Honorable Court on 4
February 2000.
"Dra. Cerillo was not cross-examined by defense counsel.
"16. In the meantime, under date of 17 February 2000, and
"11. The Information, dated November 14, 1996, filed against stamp-received by the Honorable Court on 19 February 2000,
Marivic Genosa charged her with the crime of PARRICIDE undersigned counsel filed an URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION
committed 'with intent to kill, with treachery and evidence praying that the Honorable Court allow the exhumation of Ben
premeditation, x x x wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, Genosa and the re-examination of the cause of his death;
assault, hit and wound x x x her legitimate husband, with the allow the examination of Marivic Genosa by qualified
use of a hard deadly weapon x x x which caused his death.' psychologists and psychiatrists to determine her state of mind
at the time she killed her husband; and finally, to allow a partial
"12. Trial took place on 7 and 14 April 1997, 14 May 1997, 21 re-opening of the case a quo to take the testimony of said
July 1997, 17, 22 and 23 September 1997, 12 November psychologists and psychiatrists.
1997, 15 and 16 December 1997, 22 May 1998, and 5 and 6
August 1998. "Attached to the URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION was a letter of
Dr. Raquel Fortun, then the only qualified forensic pathologist
"13. On 23 September 1998, or only fifty (50) days from the in the country, who opined that the description of the death
day of the last trial date, the Hon. Fortunito L. Madrona, wound (as culled from the post-mortem findings, Exhibit 'A') is
Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City, rendered a more akin to a gunshot wound than a beating with a lead pipe.
JUDGMENT finding Marivic guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'
of the crime of parricide, and further found treachery as an "17. In a RESOLUTION dated 29 September 2000, the
aggravating circumstance, thus sentencing her to the ultimate Honorable Court partly granted Marivic's URGENT OMNIBUS
penalty of DEATH. MOTION and remanded the case 'to the trial court for the
reception of expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on
the 'battered woman syndrome' plea, within ninety (90) days "Dra. Dayan testified that for the research she conducted, on
from notice, and, thereafter to forthwith report to this Court the the socio-demographic and psychological profile of families
proceedings taken, together with the copies of the TSN and involved in domestic violence, and nullity cases, she looked at
relevant documentary evidence, if any, submitted.' about 500 cases over a period of ten (10) years and
discovered that 'there are lots of variables that cause all of this
"18. On 15 January 2001, Dra. Natividad A. Dayan appeared marital conflicts, from domestic violence to infidelity, to
and testified before the Hon. Fortunito L. Madrona, RTC- psychiatric disorder.'
Branch 35, Ormoc City.
"Dra. Dayan described domestic violence to comprise of 'a lot
"Immediately before Dra. Dayan was sworn, the Court a of incidents of psychological abuse, verbal abuse, and
quo asked if she had interviewed Marivic Genosa. Dra. Dayan emotional abuse to physical abuse and also sexual abuse.'
informed the Court that interviews were done at the Penal
Institution in 1999, but that the clinical interviews and xxx   xxx   xxx
psychological assessment were done at her clinic.
"Dra. Dayan testified that in her studies, 'the battered woman
"Dra. Dayan testified that she has been a clinical psychologist usually has a very low opinion of herself. She has a self-
for twenty (20) years with her own private clinic and connected defeating and self-sacrificing characteristics. x x x they usually
presently to the De La Salle University as a professor. Before think very lowly of themselves and so when the violence would
this, she was the Head of the Psychology Department of the happen, they usually think that they provoke it, that they were
Assumption College; a member of the faculty of Psychology at the one who precipitated the violence, they provoke their
the Ateneo de Manila University and St. Joseph's College; and spouse to be physically, verbally and even sexually abusive to
was the counseling psychologist of the National Defense them.' Dra. Dayan said that usually a battered x x x comes
College. She has an AB in Psychology from the University of from a dysfunctional family or from 'broken homes.'
the Philippines, a Master of Arts in Clinical [Counseling],
Psychology from the Ateneo, and a PhD from the U.P. She "Dra. Dayan said that the batterer, just like the battered
was the past president of the Psychological Association of the woman, 'also has a very low opinion of himself. But then
Philippines and is a member of the American Psychological emerges to have superiority complex and it comes out as
Association. She is the secretary of the International Council of being very arrogant, very hostile, very aggressive and very
Psychologists from about 68 countries; a member of the angry. They also had (sic) a very low tolerance for frustrations.
Forensic Psychology Association; and a member of the A lot of times they are involved in vices like gambling, drinking
ASEAN [Counseling] Association. She is actively involved with and drugs. And they become violent.' The batterer also usually
the Philippine Judicial Academy, recently lecturing on the comes from a dysfunctional family which over-pampers them
socio-demographic and psychological profile of families and makes them feel entitled to do anything. Also, they see
involved in domestic violence and nullity cases. She was with often how their parents abused each other so 'there is a lot of
the Davide Commission doing research about Military modeling of aggression in the family.'
Psychology. She has written a book entitled 'Energy Global
Psychology' (together with Drs. Allan Tan and Allan Bernardo). "Dra. Dayan testified that there are a lot of reasons why a
The Genosa case is the first time she has testified as an battered woman does not leave her husband: poverty, self-
expert on battered women as this is the first case of that blame and guilt that she provoked the violence, the cycle itself
nature. which makes her hope her husband will change, the belief in
her obligations to keep the family intact at all costs for the sake
of the children.
 xxx   xxx   xxx Memorial Medical Centre where he gained his training on
psychiatry and neurology. After that, he was called to active
"Dra. Dayan said that abused wives react differently to the duty in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, assigned to the V.
violence: some leave the house, or lock themselves in another Luna Medical Center for twenty six (26) years. Prior to his
room, or sometimes try to fight back triggering 'physical retirement from government service, he obtained the rank of
violence on both of them.' She said that in a 'normal marital Brigadier General. He obtained his medical degree from the
relationship,' abuses also happen, but these are 'not University of Santo Tomas. He was also a member of the
consistent, not chronic, are not happening day in [and] day World Association of Military Surgeons; the Quezon City
out.' In an 'abnormal marital relationship,' the abuse occurs Medical Society; the Cagayan Medical Society; and the
day in and day out, is long lasting and 'even would cause Philippine Association of Military Surgeons.
hospitalization on the victim and even death on the victim.'
"He authored 'The Comparative Analysis of Nervous
xxx   xxx   xxx Breakdown in the Philippine Military Academy from the Period
1954 – 1978' which was presented twice in international
"Dra. Dayan said that as a result of the battery of congresses. He also authored 'The Mental Health of the
psychological tests she administered, it was her opinion that Armed Forces of the Philippines 2000', which was likewise
Marivic fits the profile of a battered woman because 'inspite of published internationally and locally. He had a medical
her feeling of self-confidence which we can see at times there textbook published on the use of Prasepam on a Parke-Davis
are really feeling (sic) of loss, such feelings of humiliation grant; was the first to use Enanthate (siquiline), on an E.R.
which she sees herself as damaged and as a broken person. Squibb grant; and he published the use of the drug Zopiclom
And at the same time she still has the imprint of all the abuses in 1985-86.
that she had experienced in the past.'
"Dr. Pajarillo explained that psychiatry deals with the functional
xxx   xxx   xxx disorder of the mind and neurology deals with the ailment of
the brain and spinal cord enlarged. Psychology, on the other
"Dra. Dayan said Marivic thought of herself as a loving wife hand, is a bachelor degree and a doctorate degree; while one
and did not even consider filing for nullity or legal separation has to finish medicine to become a specialist in psychiatry.
inspite of the abuses. It was at the time of the tragedy that
Marivic then thought of herself as a victim. "Even only in his 7th year as a resident in V. Luna Medical
Centre, Dr. Pajarillo had already encountered a suit involving
xxx   xxx   xxx violent family relations, and testified in a case in 1964. In the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, violent family disputes
"19. On 9 February 2001, Dr. Alfredo Pajarillo, a physician, abound, and he has seen probably ten to twenty thousand
who has since passed away, appeared and testified before cases. In those days, the primordial intention of therapy was
RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City. reconciliation. As a result of his experience with domestic
violence cases, he became a consultant of the Battered
Woman Office in Quezon City under Atty. Nenita Deproza.
"Dr. Pajarillo was a Diplomate of the Philippine Board of
Psychiatry; a Fellow of the Philippine Board of Psychiatry and
a Fellow of the Philippine Psychiatry Association. He was in "As such consultant, he had seen around forty (40) cases of
the practice of psychiatry for thirty-eight (38) years. Prior to severe domestic violence, where there is physical abuse: such
being in private practice, he was connected with the Veterans as slapping, pushing, verbal abuse, battering and boxing a
woman even to an unconscious state such that the woman is
sometimes confined. The affliction of Post-Traumatic Stress the battering, that re-experiencing of the trauma occurred (sic)
Disorder 'depends on the vulnerability of the victim.' Dr. because the individual cannot control it. It will just come up in
Pajarillo said that if the victim is not very healthy, perhaps one her mind or in his mind.'
episode of violence may induce the disorder; if the
psychological stamina and physiologic constitutional stamina xxx   xxx   xxx
of the victim is stronger, 'it will take more repetitive trauma to
precipitate the post-traumatic stress disorder and this x x x is "Dr. Pajarillo said that a woman suffering post traumatic stress
very dangerous.' disorder try to defend themselves, and 'primarily with knives.
Usually pointed weapons or any weapon that is available in
"In psychiatry, the post-traumatic stress disorder is the immediate surrounding or in a hospital x x x because that
incorporated under the 'anxiety neurosis or neurologic abound in the household.' He said a victim resorts to weapons
anxcietism.' It is produced by 'overwhelming brutality, trauma.' when she has 'reached the lowest rock bottom of her life and
there is no other recourse left on her but to act decisively.'
xxx   xxx   xxx
xxx   xxx   xxx
"Dr. Pajarillo explained that with 'neurotic anxiety', the victim
relives the beating or trauma as if it were real, although she is "Dr. Pajarillo testified that he met Marivic Genosa in his office
not actually being beaten at that time. She thinks 'of nothing in an interview he conducted for two (2) hours and seventeen
but the suffering.' (17) minutes. He used the psychological evaluation and social
case studies as a help in forming his diagnosis. He came out
xxx   xxx   xxx with a Psychiatric Report, dated 22 January 2001.

"A woman who suffers battery has a tendency to become xxx   xxx   xxx

neurotic, her emotional tone is unstable, and she is irritable
and restless. She tends to become hard-headed and "On cross-examination by the private prosecutor, Dr. Pajarillo
persistent. She has higher sensitivity and her 'self-world' is said that at the time she killed her husband Marivic'c mental
damaged. condition was that she was 're-experiencing the trauma.' He
said 'that we are trying to explain scientifically that the re-
"Dr. Pajarillo said that an abnormal family background relates experiencing of the trauma is not controlled by Marivic. It will
to an individual's illness, such as the deprivation of the just come in flashes and probably at that point in time that
continuous care and love of the parents. As to the batterer, he things happened when the re-experiencing of the trauma
normally 'internalizes what is around him within the flashed in her mind.' At the time he interviewed Marivic 'she
environment.' And it becomes his own personality. He is very was more subdued, she was not super alert anymore x x x she
competitive; he is aiming high all the time; he is so macho; he is mentally stress (sic) because of the predicament she is
shows his strong façade 'but in it there are doubts in himself involved.'
and prone to act without thinking.'
xxx   xxx   xxx
xxx   xxx   xxx
"20. No rebuttal evidence or testimony was presented by either
"Dr. Pajarillo emphasized that 'even though without the the private or the public prosecutor. Thus, in accord with the
presence of the precipator (sic) or the one who administered
 Resolution of this Honorable Court, the records of the partially The Issues
re-opened trial a quo were elevated."9
Appellant assigns the following alleged errors of the trial court for this
Ruling of the Trial Court Court's consideration:

Finding the proffered theory of self-defense untenable, the RTC gave "1. The trial court gravely erred in promulgating an obviously
credence to the prosecution evidence that appellant had killed the hasty decision without reflecting on the evidence adduced as
deceased while he was in bed sleeping. Further, the trial court to self-defense.
appreciated the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery,
because Ben Genosa was supposedly defenseless when he was "2. The trial court gravely erred in finding as a fact that Ben
killed -- lying in bed asleep when Marivic smashed him with a pipe at and Marivic Genosa were legally married and that she was
the back of his head. therefore liable for parricide.

The capital penalty having been imposed, the case was elevated to "3. The trial court gravely erred finding the cause of death to
this Court for automatic review. be by beating with a pipe.

Supervening Circumstances "4. The trial court gravely erred in ignoring and disregarding
evidence adduced from impartial and unbiased witnesses that
On February 19, 2000, appellant filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion Ben Genosa was a drunk, a gambler, a womanizer and wife-
praying that this Court allow (1) the exhumation of Ben Genosa and beater; and further gravely erred in concluding that Ben
the reexamination of the cause of his death; (2) the examination of Genosa was a battered husband.
appellant by qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to determine her
state of mind at the time she had killed her spouse; and (3) the "5. The trial court gravely erred in not requiring testimony from
inclusion of the said experts' reports in the records of the case for the children of Marivic Genosa.
purposes of the automatic review or, in the alternative, a partial
reopening of the case for the lower court to admit the experts' "6. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that Marivic's
testimonies. flight to Manila and her subsequent apologies were indicia of
guilt, instead of a clear attempt to save the life of her unborn
On September 29, 2000, this Court issued a Resolution granting in child.
part appellant's Motion, remanding the case to the trial court for the
reception of expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the "7. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that there was an
"battered woman syndrome" plea; and requiring the lower court to aggravating circumstance of treachery.
report thereafter to this Court the proceedings taken as well as to
submit copies of the TSN and additional evidence, if any. "8. The trial court gravely erred in refusing to re-evaluate the
traditional elements in determining the existence of self-
Acting on the Court's Resolution, the trial judge authorized the defense and defense of foetus in this case, thereby
examination of Marivic by two clinical psychologists, Drs. Natividad erroneously convicting Marivic Genosa of the crime of
Dayan10 and Alfredo Pajarillo,11 supposedly experts on domestic parricide and condemning her to the ultimate penalty of
violence. Their testimonies, along with their documentary evidence, death."13
were then presented to and admitted by the lower court before finally
being submitted to this Court to form part of the records of the case.12
In the main, the following are the essential legal issues: (1) whether least 13 hearings were held for over a year. It took the trial judge
appellant acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus; and (2) about two months from the conclusion of trial to promulgate his
whether treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa. judgment. That he conducted the trial and resolved the case with
dispatch should not be taken against him, much less used to
The Court's Ruling condemn him for being unduly hasty. If at all, the dispatch with which
he handled the case should be lauded. In any case, we find his
The appeal is partly meritorious. actions in substantial compliance with his constitutional obligation.15

Collateral Factual Issues Second, the lower court did not err in finding as a fact that Ben
Genosa and appellant had been legally married, despite the non-
The first six assigned errors raised by appellant are factual in nature, presentation of their marriage contract. In People v. Malabago,16 this
if not collateral to the resolution of the principal issues. As consistently Court held:
held by this Court, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to a high degree of "The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender
respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any with the victim. In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best
showing that the trial judge gravely abused his discretion or proof of the relationship between the accused and the
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied material facts or deceased is the marriage certificate. In the absence of a
circumstances of weight and substance that could affect the outcome marriage certificate, however, oral evidence of the fact of
of the case.14 marriage may be considered by the trial court if such proof is
not objected to."
In appellant's first six assigned items, we find no grave abuse of
discretion, reversible error or misappreciation of material facts that Two of the prosecution witnesses -- namely, the mother and the
would reverse or modify the trial court's disposition of the case. In any brother of appellant's deceased spouse -- attested in court that Ben
event, we will now briefly dispose of these alleged errors of the trial had been married to Marivic.17 The defense raised no objection to
court. these testimonies. Moreover, during her direct examination, appellant
herself made a judicial admission of her marriage to Ben.18 Axiomatic
First, we do not agree that the lower court promulgated "an obviously is the rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party
hasty decision without reflecting on the evidence adduced as to self- making it, except only when there is a showing that (1) the admission
defense." We note that in his 17-page Decision, Judge Fortunito L. was made through a palpable mistake, or (2) no admission was in fact
Madrona summarized the testimonies of both the prosecution and the made.19 Other than merely attacking the non-presentation of the
defense witnesses and -- on the basis of those and of the marriage contract, the defense offered no proof that the admission
documentary evidence on record -- made his evaluation, findings and made by appellant in court as to the fact of her marriage to the
conclusions. He wrote a 3-page discourse assessing the testimony deceased was made through a palpable mistake.
and the self-defense theory of the accused. While she, or even this
Court, may not agree with the trial judge's conclusions, we cannot Third, under the circumstances of this case, the specific or direct
peremptorily conclude, absent substantial evidence, that he failed to cause of Ben's death -- whether by a gunshot or by beating with a
reflect on the evidence presented. pipe -- has no legal consequence. As the Court elucidated in its
September 29, 2000 Resolution, "[c]onsidering that the appellant has
Neither do we find the appealed Decision to have been made in an admitted the fact of killing her husband and the acts of hitting his nape
"obviously hasty" manner. The Information had been filed with the with a metal pipe and of shooting him at the back of his head, the
lower court on November 14, 1996. Thereafter, trial began and at Court believes that exhumation is unnecessary, if not immaterial, to
determine which of said acts actually caused the victim's death."
Determining which of these admitted acts caused the death is not (and similarly, defense of a stranger or third person) shifts the burden
dispositive of the guilt or defense of appellant. of proof from the prosecution to the defense.22

Fourth, we cannot fault the trial court for not fully appreciating The Battered Woman Syndrome
evidence that Ben was a drunk, gambler, womanizer and wife-beater.
Until this case came to us for automatic review, appellant had not In claiming self-defense, appellant raises the novel theory of the
raised the novel defense of "battered woman syndrome," for which battered woman syndrome. While new in Philippine jurisprudence, the
such evidence may have been relevant. Her theory of self-defense concept has been recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form of self-
was then the crucial issue before the trial court. As will be discussed defense or, at the least, incomplete self-defense.23 By appreciating
shortly, the legal requisites of self-defense under prevailing evidence that a victim or defendant is afflicted with the syndrome,
jurisprudence ostensibly appear inconsistent with the surrounding foreign courts convey their "understanding of the justifiably fearful
facts that led to the death of the victim. Hence, his personal character, state of mind of a person who has been cyclically abused and
especially his past behavior, did not constitute vital evidence at the controlled over a period of time."24
time.
A battered woman has been defined as a woman "who is repeatedly
Fifth, the trial court surely committed no error in not requiring subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man
testimony from appellant's children. As correctly elucidated by the in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without
solicitor general, all criminal actions are prosecuted under the concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in
direction and control of the public prosecutor, in whom lies the any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be
discretion to determine which witnesses and evidence are necessary classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the
to present.20 As the former further points out, neither the trial court nor battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an
the prosecution prevented appellant from presenting her children as abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and
witnesses. Thus, she cannot now fault the lower court for not requiring she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman."25
them to testify.
Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as low self-
Finally, merely collateral or corroborative is the matter of whether the esteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female
flight of Marivic to Manila and her subsequent apologies to her sex role; emotional dependence upon the dominant male; the
brother-in-law are indicia of her guilt or are attempts to save the life of tendency to accept responsibility for the batterer's actions; and false
her unborn child. Any reversible error as to the trial court's hopes that the relationship will improve.26
appreciation of these circumstances has little bearing on the final
resolution of the case. More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by
the so-called "cycle of violence,"27 which has three phases: (1) the
First Legal Issue: tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the
tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.28
Self-Defense and Defense of a Fetus
During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could
Appellant admits killing Ben Genosa but, to avoid criminal liability, be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior.
invokes self-defense and/or defense of her unborn child. When the The woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind,
accused admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon her to prove nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. What actually
any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and convincing happens is that she allows herself to be abused in ways that, to her,
evidence.21 Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, self-defense are comparatively minor. All she wants is to prevent the escalation of
the violence exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however, proves to
be double-edged, because her "placatory" and passive behavior A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of the
legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse her in the first emotional stability of the batterer. Sensing his isolation and despair,
place. she feels responsible for his well-being. The truth, though, is that the
chances of his reforming, or seeking or receiving professional help,
However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her effort to are very slim, especially if she remains with him. Generally, only after
placate him are not usually successful, and the verbal and/or physical she leaves him does he seek professional help as a way of getting her
abuse worsens. Each partner senses the imminent loss of control and back. Yet, it is in this phase of remorseful reconciliation that she is
the growing tension and despair. Exhausted from the persistent most thoroughly tormented psychologically.
stress, the battered woman soon withdraws emotionally. But the more
she becomes emotionally unavailable, the more the batterer becomes The illusion of absolute interdependency is well-entrenched in a
angry, oppressive and abusive. Often, at some unpredictable point, battered woman's psyche. In this phase, she and her batterer are
the violence "spirals out of control" and leads to an acute battering indeed emotionally dependent on each other -- she for his nurturant
incident.29 behavior, he for her forgiveness. Underneath this miserable cycle of
"tension, violence and forgiveness," each partner may believe that it is
The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality, better to die than to be separated. Neither one may really feel
destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems independent, capable of functioning without the other.31
this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase,
she has no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. History of Abuse
Its nature can be as unpredictable as the time of its explosion, and so in the Present Case
are his reasons for ending it. The battered woman usually realizes
that she cannot reason with him, and that resistance would only To show the history of violence inflicted upon appellant, the defense
exacerbate her condition. presented several witnesses. She herself described her heart-rending
experience as follows:
At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the
terrible pain, although she may later clearly remember every detail. "ATTY. TABUCANON
Her apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may be
rationalized thus: the batterer is almost always much stronger Q How did you describe your marriage with Ben Genosa?
physically, and she knows from her past painful experience that it is
futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often very savage A In the first year, I lived with him happily but in the
and out of control, such that innocent bystanders or intervenors are subsequent year he was cruel to me and a behavior of
likely to get hurt.30 habitual drinker.

The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute Q You said that in the subsequent year of your marriage, your
battering incident ends. During this tranquil period, the couple husband was abusive to you and cruel. In what way was this
experience profound relief. On the one hand, the batterer may show a abusive and cruelty manifested to you?
tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner. He knows that he
has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her A He always provoke me in everything, he always slap me and
forgiveness and promising never to beat her again. On the other sometimes he pinned me down on the bed and sometimes
hand, the battered woman also tries to convince herself that the beat me.
battery will never happen again; that her partner will change for the
better; and that this "good, gentle and caring man" is the real person
Q How many times did this happen?
whom she loves.
A Several times already. A Yes, sir.

Q What did you do when these things happen to you? xxx   xxx   xxx

A I went away to my mother and I ran to my father and we [Court] /to the witness
separate each other.
Q How frequent was the alleged cruelty that you said?
Q What was the action of Ben Genosa towards you leaving
home? A Everytime he got drunk.

A He is following me, after that he sought after me. Q No, from the time that you said the cruelty or the infliction of
injury inflicted on your occurred, after your marriage, from that
Q What will happen when he follow you? time on, how frequent was the occurrence?

A He said he changed, he asked for forgiveness and I was A Everytime he got drunk.
convinced and after that I go to him and he said 'sorry'.
Q Is it daily, weekly, monthly or how many times in a month or
Q During those times that you were the recipient of such in a week?
cruelty and abusive behavior by your husband, were you able
to see a doctor? A Three times a week.

A Yes, sir. Q Do you mean three times a week he would beat you?

Q Who are these doctors? A Not necessarily that he would beat me but sometimes he will
just quarrel me." 32
A The company physician, Dr. Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero and
Dra. Cerillo. Referring to his "Out-Patient Chart"33 on Marivic Genosa at the
Philphos Hospital, Dr. Dino D. Caing bolstered her foregoing
xxx   xxx   xxx testimony on chronic battery in this manner:

Q You said that you saw a doctor in relation to your injuries? "Q So, do you have a summary of those six (6) incidents which
are found in the chart of your clinic?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q Who inflicted these injuries?
Q Who prepared the list of six (6) incidents, Doctor?
A Of course my husband.
A I did.
Q You mean Ben Genosa?
Q Will you please read the physical findings together with the Q What is meant by pain mastitis secondary to trauma?
dates for the record.
A So, in this 4th episode of physical injuries there is an
A 1. May 12, 1990 - physical findings are as follows: inflammation of left breast. So, [pain] meaning there is
Hematoma (R) lower eyelid and redness of eye. Attending tenderness. When your breast is traumatized, there is
physician: Dr. Lucero; tenderness pain.

2. March 10, 1992 - Contusion-Hematoma (L) lower Q So, these are objective physical injuries. Doctor?
arbital area, pain and contusion (R) breast. Attending
physician: Dr. Canora; xxx   xxx   xxx

3. March 26, 1993 - Abrasion, Furuncle (L) Axilla; Q Were you able to talk with the patient?

4. August 1, 1994 - Pain, mastitis (L) breast, 2o to A Yes, sir.

trauma. Attending physician: Dr. Caing;
Q What did she tell you?
5. April 17, 1995 - Trauma, tenderness (R) Shoulder.
Attending physician: Dr. Canora; and A As a doctor-patient relationship, we need to know the cause
of these injuries. And she told me that it was done to her by
6. June 5, 1995 - Swelling Abrasion (L) leg, multiple her husband.
contusion Pregnancy. Attending physician: Dr. Canora.
Q You mean, Ben Genosa?
Q Among the findings, there were two (2) incidents wherein
you were the attending physician, is that correct? A Yes, sir.

A Yes, sir. xxx   xxx   xxx

Q Did you actually physical examine the accused? ATTY. TABUCANON:

A Yes, sir. Q By the way Doctor, were you able to physical examine the
accused sometime in the month of November, 1995 when this
Q Now, going to your finding no. 3 where you were the one incident happened?
who attended the patient. What do you mean by abrasion
furuncle left axilla? A As per record, yes.

A Abrasion is a skin wound usually when it comes in contact Q What was the date?
with something rough substance if force is applied.
A It was on November 6, 1995.
Q What is meant by furuncle axilla?
Q So, did you actually see the accused physically?
A It is secondary of the light infection over the abrasion.
A Yes, sir. What is this all about?

Q On November 6, 1995, will you please tell this Honorable A Because she has this problem of tension headache
Court, was the patient pregnant? secondary to hypertension and I think I have a record here,
also the same period from 1989 to 1995, she had a
A Yes, sir. consultation for twenty-three (23) times.

Q Being a doctor, can you more engage at what stage of Q For what?
pregnancy was she?
A Tension headache.
A Eight (8) months pregnant.
Q Can we say that specially during the latter consultation, that
Q So in other words, it was an advance stage of pregnancy? the patient had hypertension?

A Yes, sir. A The patient definitely had hypertension. It was refractory to

our treatment. She does not response when the medication
Q What was your November 6, 1995 examination, was it an was given to her, because tension headache is more or less
examination about her pregnancy or for some other findings? stress related and emotional in nature.

A No, she was admitted for hypertension headache which Q What did you deduce of tension headache when you said is
complicates her pregnancy. emotional in nature?

Q When you said admitted, meaning she was confined? A From what I deduced as part of our physical examination of
the patient is the family history in line of giving the root cause
A Yes, sir. of what is causing this disease. So, from the moment you ask
to the patient all comes from the domestic problem.
Q For how many days?
Q You mean problem in her household?
A One day.
A Probably.
Q Where?
Q Can family trouble cause elevation of blood pressure,
A At PHILPHOS Hospital. Doctor?

xxx   xxx   xxx A Yes, if it is emotionally related and stressful it can cause

increases in hypertension which is unfortunately does not
response to the medication.
Q Lets go back to the clinical history of Marivic Genosa. You
said that you were able to examine her personally on
November 6, 1995 and she was 8 months pregnant. Q In November 6, 1995, the date of the incident, did you take
the blood pressure of the accused?
 A On November 6, 1995 consultation, the blood pressure was Q Please tell this Court, can you recall the incident in
180/120. November 15, 1995 in the evening?

Q Is this considered hypertension? A Whole morning and in the afternoon, I was in the office
working then after office hours, I boarded the service bus and
A Yes, sir, severe. went to Bilwang. When I reached Bilwang, I immediately asked
my son, where was his father, then my second child said, 'he
Q Considering that she was 8 months pregnant, you mean this was not home yet'. I was worried because that was payday, I
is dangerous level of blood pressure? was anticipating that he was gambling. So while waiting for
him, my eldest son arrived from school, I prepared dinner for
A It was dangerous to the child or to the fetus." 34 my children.

Another defense witness, Teodoro Sarabia, a former neighbor of the Q This is evening of November 15, 1995?
Genosas in Isabel, Leyte, testified that he had seen the couple
quarreling several times; and that on some occasions Marivic would A Yes, sir.
run to him with bruises, confiding that the injuries were inflicted upon
her by Ben.35 Q What time did Ben Genosa arrive?

Ecel Arano also testified36 that for a number of times she had been A When he arrived, I was not there, I was in Isabel looking for
asked by Marivic to sleep at the Genosa house, because the latter him.
feared that Ben would come home drunk and hurt her. On one
occasion that Ecel did sleep over, she was awakened about ten Q So when he arrived you were in Isabel looking for him?
o'clock at night, because the couple "were very noisy … and I heard
something was broken like a vase." Then Marivic came running into A Yes, sir.
Ecel's room and locked the door. Ben showed up by the window grill
atop a chair, scaring them with a knife. Q Did you come back to your house?

On the afternoon of November 15, 1995, Marivic again asked her help A Yes, sir.
-- this time to find Ben -- but they were unable to. They returned to the
Genosa home, where they found him already drunk. Again afraid that Q By the way, where was your conjugal residence situated this
he might hurt her, Marivic asked her to sleep at their house. Seeing time?
his state of drunkenness, Ecel hesitated; and when she heard the
couple start arguing, she decided to leave. A Bilwang.
On that same night that culminated in the death of Ben Genosa, at Q Is this your house or you are renting?
least three other witnesses saw or heard the couple
quarreling.37 Marivic relates in detail the following backdrop of the
A Renting.
fateful night when life was snuffed out of him, showing in the process
a vivid picture of his cruelty towards her:
Q What time were you able to come back in your residence at
Bilwang?
"ATTY. TABUCANON:
A I went back around almost 8:00 o'clock. Q What time?

Q What happened when you arrived in your residence? A When I arrived home, he was there already in his usual
behavior.
A When I arrived home with my cousin Ecel whom I requested
to sleep with me at that time because I had fears that he was Q Will you tell this Court what was his disposition?
again drunk and I was worried that he would again beat me so
I requested my cousin to sleep with me, but she resisted A He was drunk again, he was yelling in his usual unruly
because she had fears that the same thing will happen again behavior.
last year.
Q What was he yelling all about?
Q Who was this cousin of yours who you requested to sleep
with you? A His usual attitude when he got drunk.

A Ecel Araño, the one who testified. Q You said that when you arrived, he was drunk and yelling at
you? What else did he do if any?
Q Did Ecel sleep with you in your house on that evening?
A He is nagging at me for following him and he dared me to
A No, because she expressed fears, she said her father would quarrel him.
not allow her because of Ben.
Q What was the cause of his nagging or quarreling at you if
Q During this period November 15, 1995, were you pregnant? you know?

A Yes, 8 months. A He was angry at me because I was following x x x him,

looking for him. I was just worried he might be overly drunk
Q How advance was your pregnancy? and he would beat me again.

A Eight (8) months. Q You said that he was yelling at you, what else, did he do to
you if any?
Q Was the baby subsequently born?
A He was nagging at me at that time and I just ignore him
A Yes, sir. because I want to avoid trouble for fear that he will beat me
again. Perhaps he was disappointed because I just ignore him
Q What's the name of the baby you were carrying at that time? of his provocation and he switch off the light and I said to him,
'why did you switch off the light when the children were there.'
A Marie Bianca. At that time I was also attending to my children who were
doing their assignments. He was angry with me for not
Q What time were you able to meet personally your husband? answering his challenge, so he went to the kitchen and [got] a
bolo and cut the antenna wire to stop me from watching
television.
A Yes, sir.
Q What did he do with the bolo? A Outside perhaps to drink more.

A He cut the antenna wire to keep me from watching T.V. Q When he left what did you do in that particular time?

Q What else happened after he cut the wire? A I packed all his clothes.

A He switch off the light and the children were shouting Q What was your reason in packing his clothes?
because they were scared and he was already holding the
bolo. A I wanted him to leave us.

Q How do you described this bolo? Q During this time, where were your children, what were their
reactions?
A 1 1/2 feet.
A After a couple of hours, he went back again and he got
Q What was the bolo used for usually? angry with me for packing his clothes, then he dragged me
again of the bedroom holding my neck.
A For chopping meat.
Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he
Q You said the children were scared, what else happened as dragged you? How did he drag you?
Ben was carrying that bolo?
COURT INTERPRETER:
A He was about to attack me so I run to the room.
The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her
Q What do you mean that he was about to attack you? right hand flexed forcibly in her front neck)

A When I attempt to run he held my hands and he whirled me A And he dragged me towards the door backward.
and I fell to the bedside.
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q So when he whirled you, what happened to you?
Q Where did he bring you?
A I screamed for help and then he left.
A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and
Q You said earlier that he whirled you and you fell on the then he kept on shouting at me that 'you might as well be killed
bedside? so there will be nobody to nag me.'

A Yes, sir. Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer?

Q You screamed for help and he left, do you know where he A Yes, sir.
was going?
Q What is there in the drawer?
A I was aware that it was a gun. A Dining.

COURT INTERPRETER: Q Where were the children during that time?

(At this juncture the witness started crying). A My children were already asleep.

ATTY. TABUCANON: Q You mean they were inside the room?

Q Were you actually brought to the drawer? A Yes, sir.

A Yes, sir. Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you
please describe this blade about 3 inches long, how does it
Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer? look like?

A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to A Three (3) inches long and 1/2 inch wide.
open the drawer but he could not open it because he did not
have the key then he pulled his wallet which contained a blade Q Is it a flexible blade?
about 3 inches long and I was aware that he was going to kill
me and I smashed his arm and then the wallet and the blade A It's a cutter.
fell. The one he used to open the drawer I saw, it was a pipe
about that long, and when he was about to pick-up the wallet Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges?
and the blade, I smashed him then I ran to the other room, and
on that very moment everything on my mind was to pity on A Yes, because he once used it to me.
myself, then the feeling I had on that very moment was the
same when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about to Q How did he do it?
vomit.
A He wanted to cut my throat.
COURT INTERPRETER:
Q With the same blade?
(The witness at this juncture is crying intensely).
A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me." 38
xxx   xxx   xxx
In addition, Dra. Natividad Dayan was called by the RTC to testify as
ATTY. TABUCANON: an expert witness to assist it in understanding the psyche of a
battered person. She had met with Marivic Genosa for five sessions
Q Talking of drawer, is this drawer outside your room? totaling about seventeen hours. Based on their talks, the former briefly
related the latter's ordeal to the court a quo as follows:
A Outside.

Q In what part of the house?

 "Q: What can you say, that you found Marivic as a battered Q Did you gather an information from Marivic that on the side
wife? Could you in layman's term describe to this Court what of her husband they were fond of battering their wives?
her life was like as said to you?
A I also heard that from her?
A: What I remember happened then was it was more than ten
years, that she was suffering emotional anguish. There were a Q You heard that from her?
lot of instances of abuses, to emotional abuse, to verbal abuse
and to physical abuse. The husband had a very meager A Yes, sir.
income, she was the one who was practically the bread earner
of the family. The husband was involved in a lot of vices, going Q Did you ask for a complete example who are the relatives of
out with barkadas, drinking, even womanizing being involved her husband that were fond of battering their wives?
in cockfight and going home very angry and which will trigger a
lot of physical abuse. She also had the experience a lot of A What I remember that there were brothers of her husband
taunting from the husband for the reason that the husband who are also battering their wives.
even accused her of infidelity, the husband was saying that the
child she was carrying was not his own. So she was very
Q Did she not inform you that there was an instance that she
angry, she was at the same time very depressed because she
stayed in a hotel in Ormoc where her husband followed her
was also aware, almost like living in purgatory or even hell
and battered [her] several times in that room?
when it was happening day in and day out." 39
A She told me about that.
In cross-examining Dra. Dayan, the public prosecutor not merely
elicited, but wittingly or unwittingly put forward, additional supporting
evidence as shown below: Q Did she inform you in what hotel in Ormoc?

"Q In your first encounter with the appellant in this case in A Sir, I could not remember but I was told that she was
1999, where you talked to her about three hours, what was the battered in that room.
most relevant information did you gather?
Q Several times in that room?
A The most relevant information was the tragedy that
happened. The most important information were escalating A Yes, sir. What I remember was that there is no problem
abuses that she had experienced during her marital life. about being battered, it really happened.

Q Before you met her in 1999 for three hours, we presume Q Being an expert witness, our jurisprudence is not complete
that you already knew of the facts of the case or at least you on saying this matter. I think that is the first time that we have
have substantial knowledge of the facts of the case? this in the Philippines, what is your opinion?

A I believe I had an idea of the case, but I do not know A Sir, my opinion is, she is really a battered wife and in this
whether I can consider them as substantial. kind happened, it was really a self-defense. I also believe that
there had been provocation and I also believe that she
xxx   xxx   xxx became a disordered person. She had to suffer anxiety
reaction because of all the battering that happened and so she
became an abnormal person who had lost she's not during the
 time and that is why it happened because of all the physical The drinking sprees of Ben greatly changed the attitude he showed
battering, emotional battering, all the psychological abuses toward his family, particularly to his wife. The Report continued: "At
that she had experienced from her husband. first, it was verbal and emotional abuses but as time passed, he
became physically abusive. Marivic claimed that the viciousness of
Q I do believe that she is a battered wife. Was she extremely her husband was progressive every time he got drunk. It was a painful
battered? ordeal Marivic had to anticipate whenever she suspected that her
husband went for a drinking [spree]. They had been married for twelve
A Sir, it is an extreme form of battering. Yes.40 years[;] and practically more than eight years, she was battered and
maltreated relentlessly and mercilessly by her husband whenever he
Parenthetically, the credibility of appellant was demonstrated as was drunk."
follows:
Marivic sought the help of her mother-in-law, but her efforts were in
"Q And you also said that you administered [the] objective vain. Further quoting from the Report, "[s]he also sought the advice
personality test, what x x x [is this] all about? and help of close relatives and well-meaning friends in spite of her
feeling ashamed of what was happening to her. But incessant
A The objective personality test is the Millon Clinical Multiaxial battering became more and more frequent and more severe. x x x."43
Inventory. The purpose of that test is to find out about the lying
prone[ne]ss of the person. From the totality of evidence presented, there is indeed no doubt in
the Court's mind that Appellant Marivic Genosa was a severely
Q What do you mean by that? abused person.

A Meaning, am I dealing with a client who is telling me the Effect of Battery on Appellant
truth, or is she someone who can exaggerate or x x x [will] tell
a lie[?] Because of the recurring cycles of violence experienced by the
abused woman, her state of mind metamorphoses. In determining her
Q And what did you discover on the basis of this objective state of mind, we cannot rely merely on the judgment of an ordinary,
personality test? reasonable person who is evaluating the events immediately
surrounding the incident. A Canadian court has aptly pointed out that
expert evidence on the psychological effect of battering on wives and
A She was a person who passed the honesty test. Meaning
common law partners are both relevant and necessary. "How can the
she is a person that I can trust. That the data that I'm gathering
mental state of the appellant be appreciated without it? The average
from her are the truth."41
member of the public may ask: Why would a woman put up with this
kind of treatment? Why should she continue to live with such a man?
The other expert witness presented by the defense, Dr. Alfredo How could she love a partner who beat her to the point of requiring
Pajarillo, testified on his Psychiatric Report,42 which was based on his hospitalization? We would expect the woman to pack her bags and
interview and examination of Marivic Genosa. The Report said that go. Where is her self-respect? Why does she not cut loose and make
during the first three years of her marriage to Ben, everything looked a new life for herself? Such is the reaction of the average person
good -- the atmosphere was fine, normal and happy -- until "Ben confronted with the so-called 'battered wife syndrome.'"44
started to be attracted to other girls and was also enticed in[to]
gambling[,] especially cockfighting. x x x. At the same time Ben was
To understand the syndrome properly, however, one's viewpoint
often joining his barkada in drinking sprees."
should not be drawn from that of an ordinary, reasonable person.
What goes on in the mind of a person who has been subjected to
repeated, severe beatings may not be consistent with -- nay, Dr. Pajarillo explained that "overwhelming brutality, trauma" could
comprehensible to -- those who have not been through a similar result in posttraumatic stress disorder, a form of "anxiety neurosis or
experience. Expert opinion is essential to clarify and refute common neurologic anxietism."51 After being repeatedly and severely abused,
myths and misconceptions about battered women.45 battered persons "may believe that they are essentially helpless,
lacking power to change their situation. x x x [A]cute battering
The theory of BWS formulated by Lenore Walker, as well as her incidents can have the effect of stimulating the development of coping
research on domestic violence, has had a significant impact in the responses to the trauma at the expense of the victim's ability to
United States and the United Kingdom on the treatment and muster an active response to try to escape further trauma.
prosecution of cases, in which a battered woman is charged with the Furthermore, x x x the victim ceases to believe that anything she can
killing of her violent partner. The psychologist explains that the cyclical do will have a predictable positive effect."52
nature of the violence inflicted upon the battered woman immobilizes
the latter's "ability to act decisively in her own interests, making her A study53 conducted by Martin Seligman, a psychologist at the
feel trapped in the relationship with no means of escape."46 In her University of Pennsylvania, found that "even if a person has control
years of research, Dr. Walker found that "the abuse often escalates at over a situation, but believes that she does not, she will be more likely
the point of separation and battered women are in greater danger of to respond to that situation with coping responses rather than trying to
dying then."47 escape." He said that it was the cognitive aspect -- the individual's
thoughts -- that proved all-important. He referred to this phenomenon
Corroborating these research findings, Dra. Dayan said that "the as "learned helplessness." "[T]he truth or facts of a situation turn out
battered woman usually has a very low opinion of herself. She has x x to be less important than the individual's set of beliefs or perceptions
x self-defeating and self-sacrificing characteristics. x x x [W]hen the concerning the situation. Battered women don't attempt to leave the
violence would happen, they usually think that they provoke[d] it, that battering situation, even when it may seem to outsiders that escape is
they were the one[s] who precipitated the violence[; that] they possible, because they cannot predict their own safety; they believe
provoke[d] their spouse to be physically, verbally and even sexually that nothing they or anyone else does will alter their terrible
abusive to them."48 circumstances."54

According to Dra. Dayan, there are a lot of reasons why a battered Thus, just as the battered woman believes that she is somehow
woman does not readily leave an abusive partner -- poverty, self- responsible for the violent behavior of her partner, she also believes
blame and guilt arising from the latter's belief that she provoked the that he is capable of killing her, and that there is no escape.55 Battered
violence, that she has an obligation to keep the family intact at all cost women feel unsafe, suffer from pervasive anxiety, and usually fail to
for the sake of their children, and that she is the only hope for her leave the relationship.56 Unless a shelter is available, she stays with
spouse to change.49 her husband, not only because she typically lacks a means of self-
support, but also because she fears that if she leaves she would be
The testimony of another expert witness, Dr. Pajarillo, is also helpful. found and hurt even more.57
He had previously testified in suits involving violent family relations,
having evaluated "probably ten to twenty thousand" violent family In the instant case, we meticulously scoured the records for specific
disputes within the Armed Forces of the Philippines, wherein such evidence establishing that appellant, due to the repeated abuse she
cases abounded. As a result of his experience with domestic violence had suffered from her spouse over a long period of time, became
cases, he became a consultant of the Battered Woman Office in afflicted with the battered woman syndrome. We, however, failed to
Quezon City. As such, he got involved in about forty (40) cases of find sufficient evidence that would support such a conclusion. More
severe domestic violence, in which the physical abuse on the woman specifically, we failed to find ample evidence that would confirm the
would sometimes even lead to her loss of consciousness.50 presence of the essential characteristics of BWS.
The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the "cycle of experiences and thoughts that appellant had related to them -- if at all
violence" supposedly characterizing the relationship of Ben and -- based on which they concluded that she had BWS.
Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute battering incidents. In
relating to the court a quohow the fatal incident that led to the death of We emphasize that in criminal cases, all the elements of a modifying
Ben started, Marivic perfectly described the tension-building phase of circumstance must be proven in order to be appreciated. To repeat,
the cycle. She was able to explain in adequate detail the typical the records lack supporting evidence that would establish all the
characteristics of this stage. However, that single incident does not essentials of the battered woman syndrome as manifested specifically
prove the existence of the syndrome. In other words, she failed to in the case of the Genosas.
prove that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had
gone through a similar pattern. BWS as Self-Defense

How did the tension between the partners usually arise or build up In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not
prior to acute battering? How did Marivic normally respond to Ben's in itself establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive
relatively minor abuses? What means did she employ to try to prevent partner. Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-
the situation from developing into the next (more violent) stage? defense.59

Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third From the expert opinions discussed earlier, the Court reckons further
phase of the cycle. She simply mentioned that she would usually run that crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered
away to her mother's or father's house;58 that Ben would seek her out, woman at the time of the offense60 -- she must have actually feared
ask for her forgiveness and promise to change; and that believing his imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believed in the need to
words, she would return to their common abode. kill him in order to save her life.

Did she ever feel that she provoked the violent incidents between her Settled in our jurisprudence, however, is the rule that the one who
and her spouse? Did she believe that she was the only hope for Ben resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on one's life; and the
to reform? And that she was the sole support of his emotional stability peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not merely
and well-being? Conversely, how dependent was she on him? Did imaginary.61 Thus, the Revised Penal Code provides the following
she feel helpless and trapped in their relationship? Did both of them requisites and effect of self-defense:62
regard death as preferable to separation?
"Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. -- The following do not incur
In sum, the defense failed to elicit from appellant herself her factual any criminal liability:
experiences and thoughts that would clearly and fully demonstrate the
essential characteristics of the syndrome. "1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur;
The Court appreciates the ratiocinations given by the expert
witnesses for the defense. Indeed, they were able to explain fully, First. Unlawful aggression;
albeit merely theoretically and scientifically, how the personality of the
battered woman usually evolved or deteriorated as a result of Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
repeated and severe beatings inflicted upon her by her partner or prevent or repel it;
spouse. They corroborated each other's testimonies, which were
culled from their numerous studies of hundreds of actual
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
cases. However, they failed to present in court the factual
defending himself."
Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense.63 It From several psychological tests she had administered to Marivic,
presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected attack -- or an imminent Dra. Dayan, in her Psychological Evaluation Report dated November
danger thereof -- on the life or safety of a person.64 In the present 29, 2000, opined as follows:
case, however, according to the testimony of Marivic herself, there
was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben "This is a classic case of a Battered Woman Syndrome. The
and her fatal attack upon him. She had already been able to withdraw repeated battering Marivic experienced with her husband
from his violent behavior and escape to their children's bedroom. constitutes a form of [cumulative] provocation which broke
During that time, he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. down her psychological resistance and natural self-control. It is
The reality or even the imminence of the danger he posed had ended very clear that she developed heightened sensitivity to sight of
altogether. He was no longer in a position that presented an actual impending danger her husband posed continuously. Marivic
threat on her life or safety. truly experienced at the hands of her abuser husband a state
of psychological paralysis which can only be ended by an act
Had Ben still been awaiting Marivic when she came out of their of violence on her part." 70
children's bedroom -- and based on past violent incidents, there was a
great probability that he would still have pursued her and inflicted Dr. Pajarillo corroborates the findings of Dra. Dayan. He explained
graver harm -- then, the imminence of the real threat upon her life that the effect of "repetitious pain taking, repetitious battering, [and]
would not have ceased yet. Where the brutalized person is already repetitious maltreatment" as well as the severity and the prolonged
suffering from BWS, further evidence of actual physical assault at the administration of the battering is posttraumatic stress
time of the killing is not required. Incidents of domestic battery usually disorder.71 Expounding thereon, he said:
have a predictable pattern. To require the battered person to await an
obvious, deadly attack before she can defend her life "would amount "Q What causes the trauma, Mr. Witness?
to sentencing her to 'murder by installment.'"65 Still, impending danger
(based on the conduct of the victim in previous battering episodes) A What causes the trauma is probably the repetitious
prior to the defendant's use of deadly force must be shown. battering. Second, the severity of the battering. Third, the
Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the required prolonged administration of battering or the prolonged
imminence of danger.66Considering such circumstances and the commission of the battering and the psychological and
existence of BWS, self-defense may be appreciated. constitutional stamina of the victim and another one is the
public and social support available to the victim. If nobody is
We reiterate the principle that aggression, if not continuous, does not interceding, the more she will go to that disorder....
warrant self-defense.67 In the absence of such aggression, there can
be no self-defense -- complete or incomplete -- on the part of the xxx   xxx   xxx
victim.68 Thus, Marivic's killing of Ben was not completely justified
under the circumstances. Q You referred a while ago to severity. What are the
qualifications in terms of severity of the postraumatic stress
Mitigating Circumstances Present disorder, Dr. Pajarillo?

In any event, all is not lost for appellant. While she did not raise any A The severity is the most severe continuously to trig[g]er this
other modifying circumstances that would alter her penalty, we deem post[t]raumatic stress disorder is injury to the head, banging of
it proper to evaluate and appreciate in her favor circumstances that the head like that. It is usually the very very severe stimulus
mitigate her criminal liability. It is a hornbook doctrine that an appeal that precipitate this post[t]raumatic stress disorder. Others are
in a criminal case opens it wholly for review on any issue, including suffocating the victim like holding a pillow on the face,
that which has not been raised by the parties.69
 strangulating the individual, suffocating the individual, and Q As you were saying[,] it x x x obfuscated her rationality?
boxing the individual. In this situation therefore, the victim is
heightened to painful stimulus, like for example she is A Of course obfuscated."73
pregnant, she is very susceptible because the woman will not
only protect herself, she is also to protect the fetus. So the In sum, the cyclical nature and the severity of the violence inflicted
anxiety is heightened to the end [sic] degree. upon appellant resulted in "cumulative provocation which broke down
her psychological resistance and natural self-control," "psychological
Q But in terms of the gravity of the disorder, Mr. Witness, how paralysis," and "difficulty in concentrating or impairment of memory."
do you classify?
Based on the explanations of the expert witnesses, such
A We classify the disorder as [acute], or chronic or delayed or manifestations were analogous to an illness that diminished the
[a]typical. exercise by appellant of her will power without, however, depriving her
of consciousness of her acts.There was, thus, a resulting diminution
Q Can you please describe this pre[-]classification you called of her freedom of action, intelligence or intent. Pursuant to paragraphs
delayed or [atypical]? 974and 1075 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, this circumstance
should be taken in her favor and considered as a mitigating factor. 76
A The acute is the one that usually require only one battering
and the individual will manifest now a severe emotional In addition, we also find in favor of appellant the extenuating
instability, higher irritability remorse, restlessness, and fear circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have
and probably in most [acute] cases the first thing will be naturally produced passion and obfuscation. It has been held that this
happened to the individual will be thinking of suicide. state of mind is present when a crime is committed as a result of an
uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper
Q And in chronic cases, Mr. Witness? acts or by a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome
reason.77 To appreciate this circumstance, the following requisites
A The chronic cases is this repetitious battering, repetitious should concur: (1) there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to
maltreatment, any prolonged, it is longer than six (6) months. produce such a condition of mind; and (2) this act is not far removed
The [acute] is only the first day to six (6) months. After this six from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time,
(6) months you become chronic. It is stated in the book during which the accused might recover her normal equanimity.78
specifically that after six (6) months is chronic. The [a]typical
one is the repetitious battering but the individual who is Here, an acute battering incident, wherein Ben Genosa was the
abnormal and then become normal. This is how you get unlawful aggressor, preceded his being killed by Marivic. He had
neurosis from neurotic personality of these cases of further threatened to kill her while dragging her by the neck towards a
post[t]raumatic stress disorder." 72 cabinet in which he had kept a gun. It should also be recalled that she
was eight months pregnant at the time. The attempt on her life was
Answering the questions propounded by the trial judge, the expert likewise on that of her fetus.79 His abusive and violent acts, an
witness clarified further: aggression which was directed at the lives of both Marivic and her
unborn child, naturally produced passion and obfuscation overcoming
"Q But just the same[,] neurosis especially on battered woman her reason. Even though she was able to retreat to a separate room,
syndrome x x x affects x x x his or her mental capacity? her emotional and mental state continued. According to her, she felt
her blood pressure rise; she was filled with feelings of self-pity and of
A Yes, your Honor. fear that she and her baby were about to die. In a fit of indignation,
she pried open the cabinet drawer where Ben kept a gun, then she There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against
took the weapon and used it to shoot him. persons by employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof without risk to oneself arising from the defense that the
The confluence of these events brings us to the conclusion that there offended party might make.81 In order to qualify an act as treacherous,
was no considerable period of time within which Marivic could have the circumstances invoked must be proven as indubitably as the
recovered her normal equanimity. Helpful is Dr. Pajarillo's killing itself; they cannot be deduced from mere inferences, or
testimony80 that with "neurotic anxiety" -- a psychological effect on a conjectures, which have no place in the appreciation of
victim of "overwhelming brutality [or] trauma" -- the victim relives the evidence.82Because of the gravity of the resulting offense, treachery
beating or trauma as if it were real, although she is not actually being must be proved as conclusively as the killing itself.83
beaten at the time. She cannot control "re-experiencing the whole
thing, the most vicious and the trauma that she suffered." She thinks Ruling that treachery was present in the instant case, the trial court
"of nothing but the suffering." Such reliving which is beyond the imposed the penalty of death upon appellant. It inferred this qualifying
control of a person under similar circumstances, must have been what circumstances merely from the fact that the lifeless body of Ben had
Marivic experienced during the brief time interval and prevented her been found lying in bed with an "open, depressed, circular" fracture
from recovering her normal equanimity. Accordingly, she should located at the back of his head. As to exactly how and when he had
further be credited with the mitigating circumstance of passion and been fatally attacked, however, the prosecution failed to establish
obfuscation. indubitably. Only the following testimony of appellant leads us to the
events surrounding his death:
It should be clarified that these two circumstances -- psychological
paralysis as well as passion and obfuscation -- did not arise from the "Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he
same set of facts. dragged you? How did he drag you?

On the one hand, the first circumstance arose from the cyclical nature COURT:
and the severity of the battery inflicted by the batterer-spouse upon
appellant. That is, the repeated beatings over a period of time resulted The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her
in her psychological paralysis, which was analogous to an illness right hand flexed forcibly in her front neck)
diminishing the exercise of her will power without depriving her of
consciousness of her acts. A And he dragged me towards the door backward.

The second circumstance, on the other hand, resulted from the violent ATTY. TABUCANON:
aggression he had inflicted on her prior to the killing. That the incident
occurred when she was eight months pregnant with their child was Q Where did he bring you?
deemed by her as an attempt not only on her life, but likewise on that
of their unborn child. Such perception naturally produced passion and A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and
obfuscation on her part. then he kept on shouting at me that 'you might as well be killed
so there will be nobody to nag me'
Second Legal Issue:
Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer?
Treachery
A Yes, sir.
Q What is there in the drawer? Q It is a flexible blade?

A I was aware that it was a gun. A It's a cutter.

COURT INTERPRETER Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges?

(At this juncture the witness started crying) A Yes, because he once used it to me.

ATTY. TABUCANON: Q How did he do it?

Q Were you actually brought to the drawer? A He wanted to cut my throat.

A Yes, sir. Q With the same blade?

Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer? A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me.

A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to xxx   xxx   xxx

open the drawer but he could not open it because he did not
have the key then he pulled his wallet which contained a blade ATTY. TABUCANON:
about 3 inches long and I was aware that he was going to kill
me and I smashed his arm and then the wallet and the blade Q You said that this blade fell from his grip, is it correct?
fell. The one he used to open the drawer I saw, it was a pipe
about that long, and when he was about to pick-up the wallet A Yes, because I smashed him.
and the blade, I smashed him then I ran to the other room, and
on that very moment everything on my mind was to pity on Q What happened?
myself, then the feeling I had on that very moment was the
same when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about to
A Ben tried to pick-up the wallet and the blade, I pick-up the
vomit.
pipe and I smashed him and I ran to the other room.
COURT INTERPRETER
Q What else happened?
(The witness at this juncture is crying intensely).
A When I was in the other room, I felt the same thing like what
happened before when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I
xxx   xxx   xxx was about to vomit. I know my blood pressure was raised. I
was frightened I was about to die because of my blood
Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you pressure.
please describe this blade about 3 inches long, how does it
look like? COURT INTERPRETER:
A Three (3) inches long and ½ inch wide.
 (Upon the answer of the witness getting the pipe and method by which she committed the crime in order to ensure its
smashed him, the witness at the same time pointed at execution, this Court resolves the doubt in her favor.87
the back of her neck or the nape).
Proper Penalty
ATTY. TABUCANON:
The penalty for parricide imposed by Article 246 of the Revised Penal
Q You said you went to the room, what else happened? Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Since two mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance have been found to
A Considering all the physical sufferings that I've been through have attended the commission of the offense, the penalty shall be
with him, I took pity on myself and I felt I was about to die also lowered by one (1) degree, pursuant to Article 64 of paragraph 588 of
because of my blood pressure and the baby, so I got that gun the same Code.89 The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
and I shot him. period is imposable, considering that two mitigating circumstances are
to be taken into account in reducing the penalty by one degree, and
COURT no other modifying circumstances were shown to have attended the
commission of the offense.90 Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
/to Atty. Tabucanon the minimum of the penalty shall be within the range of that which is
next lower in degree -- prision mayor -- and the maximum shall be
Q You shot him? within the range of the medium period of reclusion temporal.

A Yes, I distorted the drawer."84 Considering all the circumstances of the instant case, we deem it just
and proper to impose the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
period, or six (6) years and one (1) day in prison as minimum;
The above testimony is insufficient to establish the presence of
to reclusion temporal in its medium period, or 14 years 8 months and
treachery. There is no showing of the victim's position relative to
1 day as maximum. Noting that appellant has already served the
appellant's at the time of the shooting. Besides, equally axiomatic is
minimum period, she may now apply for and be released from
the rule that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel,
detention on parole.91
treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance,
because the deceased may be said to have been forewarned and to
have anticipated aggression from the assailant.85 Epilogue

Moreover, in order to appreciate alevosia, the method of assault Being a novel concept in our jurisprudence, the battered woman
adopted by the aggressor must have been consciously and syndrome was neither easy nor simple to analyze and recognize vis-
deliberately chosen for the specific purpose of accomplishing the à-vis the given set of facts in the present case. The Court agonized on
unlawful act without risk from any defense that might be put up by the how to apply the theory as a modern-day reality. It took great effort
party attacked.86 There is no showing, though, that the present beyond the normal manner in which decisions are made -- on the
appellant intentionally chose a specific means of successfully basis of existing law and jurisprudence applicable to the proven facts.
attacking her husband without any risk to herself from any retaliatory To give a just and proper resolution of the case, it endeavored to take
act that he might make. To the contrary, it appears that the thought of a good look at studies conducted here and abroad in order to
using the gun occurred to her only at about the same moment when understand the intricacies of the syndrome and the distinct personality
she decided to kill her batterer-spouse. In the absence of any of the chronically abused person. Certainly, the Court has learned
convincing proof that she consciously and deliberately employed the much. And definitely, the solicitor general and appellant's counsel,
Atty. Katrina Legarda, have helped it in such learning process.
While our hearts empathize with recurrently battered persons, we can
only work within the limits of law, jurisprudence and given facts. We
cannot make or invent them. Neither can we amend the Revised
Penal Code. Only Congress, in its wisdom, may do so.

The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense

arising from the battered woman syndrome. We now sum up our main
points. First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be
proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between
the appellant and her intimate partner. Second, the final acute
battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have
produced in the battered person's mind an actual fear of an imminent
harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use
force in order to save her life. Third, at the time of the killing, the
batterer must have posed probable -- not necessarily immediate and
actual -- grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence
perpetrated by the former against the latter. Taken altogether, these
circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-defense. Under the
existing facts of the present case, however, not all of these elements
were duly established.

WHEREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for

parricide is hereby AFFIRMED. However, there being two (2)
mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance attending
her commission of the offense, her penalty is REDUCED to six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum; to 14 years, 8
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

Inasmuch as appellant has been detained for more than the minimum
penalty hereby imposed upon her, the director of the Bureau of
Corrections may immediately RELEASE her from custody upon due
determination that she is eligible for parole, unless she is being held
for some other lawful cause. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and

Tinga, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., join
Justice Santiago in her dissent.
Vitug and Quisumbing JJ., in the result.
Ynares-Santiago J., see dissenting opinion.
 THIRD DIVISION Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force,
violence and intimidation, did then and there, (sic) willfully, unlawfully
[G.R. NO. 151085 : August 20, 2008] and feloniously (sic) had carnal knowledge of and/or sexual
intercourse with the said AAA, a minor, then about 6 years old,
JOEMAR ORTEGA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE against her will.
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8
DECISION
Upon arraignment on September 10, 1998, petitioner pleaded not
NACHURA, J.: guilty to the offense charged.9 Thus, trial on the merits ensued. In the
course of the trial, two varying versions arose.
Before this Court is a Petition1 for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking the reversal of the Court of Version of the Prosecution
Appeals (CA) Decision2 dated October 26, 2000 which affirmed in
totothe Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, On February 27, 1990, AAA was born to spouses FFF and
Branch 50, dated May 13, 1999, convicting petitioner Joemar MMM.10 Among her siblings CCC, BBB, DDD, EEE and GGG, AAA is
Ortega4 (petitioner) of the crime of Rape. the only girl in the family. Before these disturbing events, AAA's family
members were close friends of petitioner's family, aside from the fact
The Facts that they were good neighbors. However, BBB caught petitioner
raping his younger sister AAA inside their own home. BBB then
Petitioner, then about 14 years old,5 was charged with the crime of informed their mother MMM who in turn asked AAA.11 There, AAA
Rape in two separate informations both dated April 20, 1998, for confessed that petitioner raped her three (3) times on three (3)
allegedly raping AAA,6 then about eight (8) years of age. The different occasions.
accusatory portions thereof respectively state:
The first occasion happened sometime in August 1996. MMM left her
Criminal Case No. 98-19083 daughter AAA, then 6 years old and son BBB, then 10 years old, in
the care of Luzviminda Ortega12 (Luzviminda), mother of petitioner, for
That sometime in August, 1996, in the Municipality of XXX, Province two (2) nights because MMM had to stay in a hospital to attend to her
of YYY, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, other son who was sick.13 During the first night at petitioner's
the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and residence, petitioner entered the room where AAA slept together with
intimidation, did then and there, (sic) willfully, unlawfully and Luzviminda and her daughter. Petitioner woke AAA up and led her to
feloniously (sic) had carnal knowledge of and/or sexual intercourse the sala. There petitioner raped AAA. The second occasion occurred
with the said AAA, a minor, then about 6 years old, against her will. the following day, again at the petitioner's residence. Observing that
nobody was around, petitioner brought AAA to their comfort room and
raped her there. AAA testified that petitioner inserted his penis into
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
her vagina and she felt pain. In all of these instances, petitioner
warned AAA not to tell her parents, otherwise, he would spank
Criminal Case No. 98-19084 her.14 AAA did not tell her parents about her ordeal.

That on or about the 1st day of December, 1996, in the Municipality of

XXX, Province of YYY, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
The third and last occasion happened in the evening of December 1, the Bacolod City Health Office. Dr. Jocson made an unofficial written
1996. Petitioner went to the house of AAA and joined her and her report21showing that there were "abrasions on both right and left of the
siblings in watching a battery-powered television. At that time, labia minora and a small laceration at the posterior fourchette." She
Luzviminda was conversing with MMM. While AAA's siblings were also found that the minor injuries she saw on AAA's genitals were
busy watching, petitioner called AAA to come to the room of CCC and relatively fresh; and that such abrasions were superficial and could
BBB. AAA obeyed. While inside the said room which was lighted by a disappear after a period of 3 to 4 days. Dr. Jocson, however, indicated
kerosene lamp, petitioner pulled AAA behind the door, removed his in her certification that her findings required the confirmation of the
pants and brief, removed AAA's shorts and panty, and in a standing Municipal Health Officer of the locality.
position inserted his penis into the vagina of AAA.15 AAA described
petitioner's penis as about five (5) inches long and the size of two (2) Subsequently, an amicable settlement22was reached between the two
ballpens. She, likewise, narrated that she saw pubic hair on the base families through the DAWN Foundation, an organization that helps
of his penis.16 abused women and children. Part of the settlement required petitioner
to depart from their house to avoid contact with AAA.23 As such,
This last incident was corroborated by BBB in his testimony. When petitioner stayed with a certain priest in the locality. However, a few
BBB was about to drink water in their kitchen, as he was passing by months later, petitioner went home for brief visits and in order to bring
his room, BBB was shocked to see petitioner and AAA both naked his dirty clothes for laundry. At the sight of petitioner, AAA's father
from their waist down in the act of sexual intercourse. BBB saw FFF was infuriated and confrontations occurred. At this instance,
petitioner holding AAA and making a pumping motion. Immediately, AAA's parents went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
BBB told petitioner to stop; the latter, in turn, hurriedly left. Thereafter, which assisted them in filing the three (3) counts of rape. However,
BBB reported the incident to his mother, MMM.17 the prosecutor's office only filed the two (2) instant cases.

MMM testified that when she asked AAA about what BBB saw, AAA Version of the Defense
told her that petitioner inserted his fingers and his penis into her
vagina. MMM learned that this was not the only incident that petitioner Petitioner was born on August 8, 1983 to spouses Loreto (Loreto) and
molested AAA as there were two previous occasions. MMM also Luzviminda Ortega.24 He is the second child of three siblings ― an
learned that AAA did not report her ordeal to them out of fear that elder brother and a younger sister. Petitioner denied the accusations
petitioner would spank her. MMM testified that when BBB reported the made against him. He testified that: his parents and AAA's parents
matter to her, petitioner and Luzviminda already left her house. After were good friends; when MMM left AAA and her brothers to the care
waiting for AAA's brothers to go to sleep, MMM, with a heavy heart, of his mother, petitioner slept in a separate room together with BBB
examined AAA's vagina and she noticed that the same was reddish and CCC while AAA slept together with Luzviminda and his younger
and a whitish fluid was coming out from it. Spouses FFF and MMM sister; he never touched or raped AAA or showed his private parts to
were not able to sleep that night. The following morning, at about four her; petitioner did not threaten AAA in any instance; he did not rape
o'clock, MMM called Luzviminda and petitioner to come to their house. AAA in the former's comfort room, but he merely accompanied and
MMM confronted Luzviminda about what petitioner did to her helped AAA clean up as she defecated and feared the toilet bowl; in
daughter, and consequently, she demanded that AAA should be the process of washing, he may have accidentally touched AAA's
brought to a doctor for examination.18 anus; on December 1, 1996, petitioner together with his parents, went
to AAA's house;25they were dancing and playing together with all the
MMM, together with Luzviminda, brought AAA to Dr. Lucifree other children at the time; while they were dancing, petitioner hugged
Katalbas19 (Dr. Katalbas), the Rural Health Officer of the locality who and lifted AAA up in a playful act, at the instance of which BBB ran
examined AAA and found no indication that she was and reported the matter to MMM, who at the time was with
molested.20Refusing to accept such findings, on December 12, 1996, Luzviminda, saying that petitioner and AAA were having sexual
MMM went to Dr. Joy Ann Jocson (Dr. Jocson), Medical Officer IV of intercourse;26 petitioner explained to MMM that they were only playing,
and that he could not have done to AAA what he was accused of employer who recommended that they should seek advice from the
doing, as they were together with her brothers, and he treated AAA Women's Center. At the said Center, both agreed on an amicable
like a younger sister;27 BBB was lying; AAA's parents and his parents settlement wherein petitioner would stay away from AAA. Thus,
did not get angry at him nor did they quarrel with each other; petitioner petitioner stayed with a certain priest in the locality for almost two (2)
and his parents peacefully left AAA's house at about nine o'clock in years. But almost every Saturday, petitioner would come home to visit
the evening; however, at about four o'clock in the morning, petitioner his parents and to bring his dirty clothes for laundry. Every time
and his parents were summoned by MMM to go to the latter's house; petitioner came home, FFF bad-mouthed petitioner, calling him a
upon arriving there they saw BBB being maltreated by his father as rapist. Confrontations occurred until an altercation erupted wherein
AAA pointed to BBB as the one who molested her; and MMM and FFF allegedly slapped Luzviminda. Subsequently, AAA's parents filed
Luzviminda agreed to bring AAA to a doctor for examination.28 the instant cases.29

Luzviminda corroborated the testimony of her son. She testified that: The RTC's Ruling
her son was a minor at the time of the incident; CCC and BBB were
the children of MMM in her first marriage, while AAA and the rest of On May 13, 1999, the RTC held that petitioner's defenses of denial
her siblings were of the second marriage; CCC and BBB are half- cannot prevail over the positive identification of petitioner as the
brothers of AAA; when MMM entrusted AAA and her brothers to her perpetrator of the crime by AAA and BBB, who testified with honesty
sometime in August of 1996, she slept with AAA and her youngest and credibility. Moreover, the RTC opined that it could not perceive
daughter in a separate room from petitioner; on December 1, 1996, any motive for AAA's family to impute a serious crime of Rape to
she was at AAA's house watching television and conversing with petitioner, considering the close relations of both families. Thus, the
MMM, while FFF and Loreto were having a drinking spree in the RTC disposed of this case in this wise:
kitchen; from where they were seated, she could clearly see all the
children, including petitioner and AAA, playing and dancing in the FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused Joemar
dining area; she did not hear any unusual cry or noise at the time; Ortega Y Felisario GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as Principal by
while they were conversing, BBB came to MMM saying that petitioner Direct Participation of the crime of RAPE as charged in Criminal
and AAA were having sexual intercourse; upon hearing such Cases Nos. 98-19083 and 98-19084 and there being no aggravating
statement, Luzviminda and MMM immediately stood up and looked for or mitigating circumstance, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
them, but both mothers did not find anything unusual as all the Two (2) Reclusion Temporal in its medium period. Applying the
children were playing and dancing in the dining area; Luzviminda and Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused shall be imprisoned for
MMM just laughed at BBB's statement; the parents of AAA, at that each case for a period of Six (6) years and One (1) day of Prision
time, did not examine her in order to verify BBB's statement nor did Mayor, as minimum, to Fifteen (15) years of Reclusion Temporal, as
they get angry at petitioner or at them; and they peacefully left AAA's maximum. The accused is condemned to pay the offended party AAA,
house. However, the following day, MMM woke Luzviminda up, saying the sum of P100,000.00 as indemnification for the two (2) rapes (sic).
that FFF was spanking BBB with a belt as AAA was pointing to BBB
nor to petitioner as the one who molested her. At this instance, Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the RTC Decision to the CA.30
Luzviminda intervened, telling FFF not to spank BBB but instead, to
bring AAA to a doctor for examination. Luzviminda accompanied Taking into consideration the age of petitioner and upon posting of the
MMM to Dr. Katalbas who found no indication that AAA was molested. corresponding bail bond for his provisional liberty in the amount of
She also accompanied her to Dr. Jocson. After getting the results of P40,000.00, the RTC ordered the petitioner's release pending
the examination conducted by Dr. Jocson, they went to the police and appeal.31
at this instance only did Luzviminda learn that MMM accused
petitioner of raping AAA. Petitioner vehemently denied to Luzviminda
The CA's Ruling
that he raped AAA. Thereafter, MMM and Luzviminda went to their
On October 26, 2000, the CA affirmed in toto the ruling of the RTC, IV.
holding that the petitioner's defense of denial could not prevail over
the positive identification of the petitioner by the victim AAA and her THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING
brother BBB, which were categorical, consistent and without any THE FACTS SET FORTH BY THE ALLEGED VICTIM REGARDING
showing of ill motive. The CA also held that the respective medical THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE COMMISSION OF RAPE
examinations conducted by the two doctors were irrelevant, as it is SOMETIME IN AUGUST 1996.34
established that the slightest penetration of the lips of the female
organ consummates rape; thus, hymenal laceration is not an element Petitioner argues that, while it is true that the factual findings of the
of rape. Moreover, the CA opined that petitioner acted with CA are conclusive on this Court, we are not prevented from
discernment as shown by his covert acts. Finally, the CA accorded overturning such findings if the CA had manifestly overlooked certain
great weight and respect to the factual findings of the RTC, facts of substance and value which if considered might affect the
particularly in the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses. result of the case. Petitioner stresses that from the testimonies of AAA
and BBB, it can be deduced that penetration was achieved; thus, AAA
Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration32 of the assailed felt pain. Petitioner contends that assuming the allegations of AAA are
Decision which the CA denied in its Resolution33dated November 7, true that petitioner inserted his fingers and his penis into her vagina,
2001. certainly such acts would leave certain abrasions, wounds and/or
lacerations on the genitalia of AAA, taking into consideration her age
Hence, this Petition based on the following grounds: at the time and the alleged size of petitioner's penis. However, such
allegation is completely belied by the medical report of Dr. Katalbas
I. who, one day after the alleged rape, conducted a medical examination
on AAA and found that there were no signs or indications that AAA
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS OVERLOOKED was raped or molested. Petitioner submits that the CA committed a
CERTAIN FACTS OF SUBSTANCE AND VALUE WHICH IF grave error when it disregarded such medical report since it disproves
CONSIDERED MIGHT AFFECT THE RESULT OF THE CASE. the allegation of the existence of rape and, consequently, the
prosecution failed to prove its case; thus, the presumption of
II. innocence in favor of the petitioner subsists. Moreover, petitioner
opines that like AAA, petitioner is also a child of the barrio who is
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE innocent, unsophisticated and lacks sexual experience. As such, it is
ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE MEDICAL incredible and contrary to human reason that a 13 - year-old boy
FINDINGS OF DR. LUCIFREE KATALBAS. would commit such act in the very dwelling of AAA, whose reaction to
pain, at the age of six, could not be controlled or subdued. Petitioner
claims that poverty was MMM's motive in filing the instant case, as
III.
she wanted to extort money from the parents of the petitioner.
Petitioner points out that the medical report of Dr. Jocson indicated
THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT, AFFIRMED BY THE that the abrasions that were inflicted on the genitalia of AAA were
APPELLATE COURT, THAT PETITIONER-APPELLANT IN FACT relatively fresh and the same could disappear within a period of 3 to 4
COMMITTED AND IS CAPABLE OF COMMITTING THE ALLEGED days. Considering that Dr. Jocson conducted the medical examination
RAPE WITHIN THE RESIDENCE OF THE VICTIM WHERE on December 12, 1996, or after the lapse of eleven (11) days after the
SEVERAL OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM'S FAMILY MEMBERS AND alleged incident of rape, and that AAA's parents only filed the instant
THEIR RESPECTIVE MOTHERS WERE PRESENT IS case after almost a year, in order to deter Luzviminda from filing a
IMPROBABLE AND CONTRARY TO HUMAN EXPERIENCE. case of slander by deed against FFF, it is not inconceivable that MMM
inflicted said abrasions on AAA to prove their case and to depart from
the initial confession of AAA that it was actually BBB who raped her. Title VIII
Finally, petitioner submits that AAA and BBB were merely coached by Transitory Provisions
MMM to fabricate these stories.35
SECTION 64. Children in Conflict with the Law Fifteen (15) Years Old
On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines through the and Below. - Upon effectivity of this Act, cases of children fifteen (15)
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that: the arguments years old and below at the time of the commission of the crime shall
raised by the petitioner are mere reiterations of his disquisitions immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred to the
before the CA; the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, did not rely on the appropriate local social welfare and development officer. Such officer,
testimonies of both doctors since despite the absence of abrasions, upon thorough assessment of the child, shall determine whether to
rape is consummated even with the slightest penetration of the lips of release the child to the custody of his/her parents, or refer the child to
the female organ; what is relevant in this case is the reliable testimony prevention programs, as provided under this Act. Those with
of AAA that petitioner raped her in August and December of 1996; suspended sentences and undergoing rehabilitation at the youth
even in the absence of force, rape was committed considering AAA's rehabilitation center shall likewise be released, unless it is contrary to
age at that time; as such, AAA did not have any ill motive in accusing the best interest of the child.
petitioner; and it is established that the crime of rape could be
committed even in the presence of other people nearby. Moreover, SECTION 65. Children Detained Pending Trial. - If the child is
the OSG relies on the doctrine that the evaluation made by a trial detained pending trial, the Family Court shall also determine whether
court is accorded the highest respect as it had the opportunity to or not continued detention is necessary and, if not, determine
observe directly the demeanor of a witness and to determine whether appropriate alternatives for detention. If detention is necessary and
said witness was telling the truth or not. Lastly, the OSG claims that he/she is detained with adults, the court shall immediately order the
petitioner acted with discernment when he committed the said crime, transfer of the child to a youth detention home.
as manifested in his covert acts.36
SECTION 66. Inventory of "Locked-up" and Detained Children in
However, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9344,37or the Juvenile Justice and Conflict with the Law. - The PNP, the BJMP and the BUCOR are
Welfare Act of 2006, was enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and it hereby directed to submit to the JJWC, within ninety (90) days from
took effect on May 20, 2006.38 The law establishes a comprehensive the effectivity of this Act, an inventory of all children in conflict with the
system to manage children in conflict with the law39 (CICL) and law under their custody.
children at risk40 with child-appropriate procedures and
comprehensive programs and services such as prevention, SECTION 67. Children Who Reach the Age of Eighteen (18) Years
intervention, diversion, rehabilitation, re-integration and after-care Pending Diversion and Court Proceedings. - If a child reaches the age
programs geared towards their development. In order to ensure its of eighteen (18) years pending diversion and court proceedings, the
implementation, the law, particularly Section 841 thereof, has created appropriate diversion authority in consultation with the local social
the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) and vested it with welfare and development officer or the Family Court in consultation
certain duties and functions42 such as the formulation of policies and with the Social Services and Counseling Division (SSCD) of the
strategies to prevent juvenile delinquency and to enhance the Supreme Court, as the case may be, shall determine the appropriate
administration of juvenile justice as well as the treatment and disposition. In case the appropriate court executes the judgment of
rehabilitation of the CICL. The law also provides for the immediate conviction, and unless the child in conflict with the law has already
dismissal of cases of CICL, specifically Sections 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 availed of probation under Presidential Decree No. 603 or other
of R.A. No. 9344's Transitory Provisions.43 similar laws, the child may apply for probation if qualified under the
provisions of the Probation Law.
The said Transitory Provisions expressly provide:
SECTION 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving not required.46 Therefore, it is not necessary for conviction that the
Sentences. - Persons who have been convicted and are serving petitioner succeeded in having full penetration, because the slightest
sentence at the time of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below touching of the lips of the female organ or of the labia of the
the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the commission of the pudendum constitutes rape.47
offense for which they were convicted and are serving sentence, shall
likewise benefit from the retroactive application of this Act. They shall However, for one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting
be entitled to appropriate dispositions provided under this Act and circumstances, although he commits a crime, by the complete
their sentences shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or
immediately released if they are so qualified under this Act or other voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arises.48Therefore, while
applicable laws. there is a crime committed, no criminal liability attaches. Thus,
in Guevarra v. Almodovar,49 we held:
Ostensibly, the only issue that requires resolution in this case is
whether or not petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the [I]t is worthy to note the basic reason behind the enactment of the
crime of rape as found by both the RTC and the CA. However, with exempting circumstances embodied in Article 12 of the RPC; the
the advent of R.A. No. 9344 while petitioner's case is pending before complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or
this Court, a new issue arises, namely, whether the pertinent on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. In
provisions of R.A. No. 9344 apply to petitioner's case, considering that expounding on intelligence as the second element of dolus, Albert has
at the time he committed the alleged rape, he was merely 13 years stated:
old.
"The second element of dolus is intelligence; without this power,
In sum, we are convinced that petitioner committed the crime of rape necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit
against AAA. In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's candor is from an illicit act, no crime can exist, and because . . . the infant (has)
the single most important factor. If the complainant's testimony meets no intelligence, the law exempts (him) from criminal liability."
the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted solely on that
basis.44 The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, did not doubt AAA's It is for this reason, therefore, why minors nine years of age and
credibility, and found no ill motive for her to charge petitioner of the below are not capable of performing a criminal act.
heinous crime of rape and to positively identify him as the malefactor.
Both courts also accorded respect to BBB's testimony that he saw In its Comment50 dated April 24, 2008, the OSG posited that petitioner
petitioner having sexual intercourse with his younger sister. While is no longer covered by the provisions of Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344
petitioner asserts that AAA's poverty is enough motive for the since as early as 1999, petitioner was convicted by the RTC and the
imputation of the crime, we discard such assertion for no mother or conviction was affirmed by the CA in 2001. R.A. No. 9344 was passed
father like MMM and FFF would stoop so low as to subject their into law in 2006, and with the petitioner now approximately 25 years
daughter to the tribulations and the embarrassment of a public trial old, he no longer qualifies as a child as defined by R.A. No. 9344.
knowing that such a traumatic experience would damage their Moreover, the OSG claimed that the retroactive effect of Section 64 of
daughter's psyche and mar her life if the charge is not true.45 We find R.A. No. 9344 is applicable only if the child-accused is still below 18
petitioner's claim that MMM inflicted the abrasions found by Dr. years old as explained under Sections 67 and 68 thereof. The OSG
Jocson in the genitalia of AAA, in order to extort money from also asserted that petitioner may avail himself of the provisions of
petitioner's parents, highly incredible. Lastly, it must be noted that in Section 3851 of R.A. No. 9344 providing for automatic suspension of
most cases of rape committed against young girls like AAA who was sentence if finally found guilty. Lastly, the OSG argued that while it is
only 6 years old then, total penetration of the victim's organ is a recognized principle that laws favorable to the accused may be
improbable due to the small vaginal opening. Thus, it has been held given retroactive application, such principle does not apply if the law
that actual penetration of the victim's organ or rupture of the hymen is itself provides for conditions for its application.
We are not persuaded. Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such
laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving
Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 clearly and explicitly provides: the same.

SECTION 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen We also have extant jurisprudence that the principle has been given
(15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the expanded application in certain instances involving special
offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall laws.54 R.A. No. 9344 should be no exception.
be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this
Act. In fact, the legislative intent for R.A. No. 9344's retroactivity is even
patent from the deliberations on the bill in the Senate, quoted as
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age follows:
shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an
intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in Sections 67-69 On Transitory Provisions
which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with this Act. Senator Santiago. In Sections 67 to 69 on Transitory Provisions,
pages 34 to 35, may I humbly propose that we should insert, after
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not Sections 67 to 69, the following provision:
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
accordance with existing laws. ALL CHILDREN WHO DO NOT HAVE CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER
THIS LAW PENDING THE CREATION OF THE OFFICE OF
Likewise, Section 64 of the law categorically provides that cases of JUVENILE WELFARE AND RESTORATION (OJWR) AND THE
children 15 years old and below, at the time of the commission of the LOCAL COUNCIL FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (LCPC)
crime, shall immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred WITHIN A YEAR, SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY TRANSFERRED TO
to the appropriate local social welfare and development officer DSWD INSTITUTIONS, AND DSWD SHALL UNDERTAKE
(LSWDO). What is controlling, therefore, with respect to the DIVERSION PROGRAMS FOR THEM, PRIORITIZING THE
exemption from criminal liability of the CICL, is not the CICL's age at YOUNGER CHILDREN BELOW 15 YEARS OF AGE AND THE
the time of the promulgation of judgment but the CICL's age at the LIGHTER OFFENSES.
time of the commission of the offense. In short, by virtue of R.A. No.
9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 The only question will be: Will the DSWD have enough facilities for
years old.52 these adult offenders?cra lawlibrary

Given this precise statutory declaration, it is imperative that this Court Senator Pangilinan, Mr. President, according to the CWC, the DSWD
accord retroactive application to the aforequoted provisions of R.A. does not have the capability at the moment. It will take time to develop
No. 9344 pursuant to the well-entrenched principle in criminal law the capacity.
- favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are
favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.53 This principle is Senator Santiago. Well, we can say that they shall be transferred
embodied in Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides: whenever the facilities are ready.

Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal laws shall have a Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Mr. President, just a clarification. When we
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, speak here of children who do not have criminal liability under this
who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of law, we are referring here to those who currently have criminal
liability, but because of the retroactive effect of this measure, will methodologies will apply. They do not necessarily have to remain in
now be exempt. It is quite confusing. detention.

Senator Santiago. That is correct. Senator Pangilinan. Yes, that is correct, Mr. President. But it will still
require some sort of infrastructure, meaning, manpower. The
Senator Pangilinan. In other words, they should be released either to personnel from the DSWD will have to address the counseling. So,
their parents or through a diversion program, Mr. President. That is there must be a transition in terms of building the capacity and
my understanding. absorbing those who will benefit from this measure.

Senator Santiago. Yes, that is correct. But there will have to be a The President. Therefore, that should be specifically provided for as
process of sifting before that. That is why I was proposing that they an amendment.
should be given to the DSWD, which will conduct the sifting process,
except that apparently, the DSWD does not have the physical Senator Pangilinan. That is correct, Mr. President.
facilities.
The President. All right. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being
Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President, conceptually, we have no none, the Santiago amendment is accepted.55
argument. We will now have to just craft it to ensure that the input
raised earlier by the good Senator is included and the capacity of the xxx
DSWD to be able to absorb these individuals. Likewise, the issue
should also be incorporated in the amendment. PIMENTEL AMENDMENTS

The President. Just a question from the Chair. The moment this law xxx
becomes effective, all those children in conflict with the law, who
were convicted in the present Penal Code, for example, who will Senator Pimentel.
now not be subject to incarceration under this law, will be
immediately released. Is that the understanding? xxx
Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President. Now, considering that laws are normally prospective, Mr. President, in
their application, I would like to suggest to the Sponsor if he could
Senator Santiago. They would immediately fall under . . . . incorporate some kind of a transitory provision that would make
this law apply also to those who might already have been
Senator Pangilinan. The diversion requirements, Mr. President. convicted but are awaiting, let us say, execution of their
penalties as adults when, in fact, they are juveniles.
Senator Santiago. Yes.
Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President. We do have a provision
The President. But since the facilities are not yet available, what will under the Transitory Provisions wherein we address the issue
happen to them?cra lawlibrary raised by the good Senator, specifically, Section 67. For
example, "Upon effectivity of this Act, cases of children fifteen
Senator Santiago. Well, depending on their age, which has not yet (15) years old and below at the time of the commission of the
been settled . . . . . provides, for example, for conferencing family crime shall immediately be dismissed and the child shall be
mediation, negotiation, apologies, censure, et cetera. These
referred to the appropriate local social welfare and development leads away from the true intent and purpose of the legislature and to
officer." So that would be giving retroactive effect. conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. Intent is
the spirit which gives life to a legislative enactment. In construing
Senator Pimentel. Of cases that are still to be prosecuted. statutes the proper course is to start out and follow the true intent of
the legislature and to adopt that sense which harmonizes best with
Senator Pangilinan. Yes. the context and promotes in the fullest manner the apparent policy
and objects of the legislature.57
Senator Pimentel. What about those that have already been
prosecuted? I was trying to cite the instance of juvenile offenders Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the
erroneously convicted as adults awaiting execution. accused.58 In this case, the plain meaning of R.A. No. 9344's
unambiguous language, coupled with clear lawmakers' intent, is most
Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President, we are willing to include that as an favorable to herein petitioner. No other interpretation is justified, for
additional amendment, subject to style. the simple language of the new law itself demonstrates the legislative
intent to favor the CICL.
Senator Pimentel. I would certainly appreciate that because that is a
reality that we have to address, otherwise injustice will really be . . . It bears stressing that the petitioner was only 13 years old at the time
of the commission of the alleged rape. This was duly proven by the
Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President, we would also include that as certificate of live birth, by petitioner's own testimony, and by the
a separate provision. testimony of his mother. Furthermore, petitioner's age was never
assailed in any of the proceedings before the RTC and the CA.
Indubitably, petitioner, at the time of the commission of the crime, was
The President. In other words, even after final conviction if, in fact, the
below 15 years of age. Under R.A. No. 9344, he is exempted from
offender is able to prove that at the time of the commission of the
criminal liability.
offense he is a minor under this law, he should be given the benefit of
the law.
However, while the law exempts petitioner from criminal liability for the
two (2) counts of rape committed against AAA, Section 6 thereof
Senator Pimentel. Yes, Mr. President. That is correct.
expressly provides that there is no concomitant exemption from civil
liability. Accordingly, this Court sustains the ruling of the RTC, duly
Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President. We accept that proposed affirmed by the CA, that petitioner and/or his parents are liable to pay
amendment.56 AAA P100,000.00 as civil indemnity. This award is in the nature of
actual or compensatory damages, and is mandatory upon a conviction
The Court is bound to enforce this legislative intent, which is the for rape.
dominant factor in interpreting a statute. Significantly, this Court has
declared in a number of cases, that intent is the soul of the law, viz.: The RTC, however, erred in not separately awarding moral damages,
distinct from the civil indemnity awarded to the rape victim. AAA is
The intent of a statute is the law. If a statute is valid it is to have effect entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count
according to the purpose and intent of the lawmaker. The intent is the of rape, pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, without the
vital part, the essence of the law, and the primary rule of construction necessity of additional pleading or proof other than the fact of rape.
is to ascertain and give effect to the intent. The intention of the Moral damages are granted in recognition of the victim's injury
legislature in enacting a law is the law itself, and must be enforced necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape.59
when ascertained, although it may not be consistent with the strict
letter of the statute. Courts will not follow the letter of a statute when it
A final note. While we regret the delay, we take consolation in the fact Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) and moral damages in the
that a law intended to protect our children from the harshness of life amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). No costs.
and to alleviate, if not cure, the ills of the growing number of CICL and
children at risk in our country, has been enacted by Congress. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the two Houses of Congress
However, it has not escaped us that major concerns have been raised and the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC).
on the effects of the law. It is worth mentioning that in the Rationale
for the Proposed Rule on Children Charged under R.A. No. 9165, or SO ORDERED.
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, it was found that:

The passage of Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006 raising the age of criminal irresponsibility from 9
years old to 15 years old has compounded the problem of
employment of children in the drug trade several times over. Law
enforcement authorities, Barangay Kagawads and the police, most
particularly, complain that drug syndicates have become more
aggressive in using children 15 years old or below as couriers or foot
soldiers in the drug trade. They claim that Republic Act No. 9344 has
rendered them ineffective in the faithful discharge of their duties in
that they are proscribed from taking into custody children 15 years old
or below who openly flaunt possession, use and delivery or
distribution of illicit drugs, simply because their age exempts them
from criminal liability under the new law.60

The Court is fully cognizant that our decision in the instant case
effectively exonerates petitioner of rape, a heinous crime committed
against AAA who was only a child at the tender age of six (6) when
she was raped by the petitioner, and one who deserves the law's
greater protection. However, this consequence is inevitable because
of the language of R.A. No. 9344, the wisdom of which is not subject
to review by this Court.61 Any perception that the result reached herein
appears unjust or unwise should be addressed to Congress. Indeed,
the Court has no discretion to give statutes a meaning detached from
the manifest intendment and language of the law. Our task is
constitutionally confined only to applying the law and jurisprudence to
the proven facts, and we have done so in this case.62

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Criminal Case Nos. 98-19083

and 98-19084 filed against petitioner Joemar F. Ortega are
hereby DISMISSED. Petitioner is hereby referred to the local social
welfare and development officer of the locality for the appropriate
intervention program. Nevertheless, the petitioner is hereby ordered to
pay private complainant AAA, civil indemnity in the amount of One
 Republic of the Philippines The information dated 9 October 1985 was consequently filed, which
SUPREME COURT narrated in part:
Manila
. . . the above-named accused, who is over 9 years but
SECOND DIVISION below 15 years of age and acting with discernment, did
then and there, without taking the necessary
G.R. No. 75256 January 26, 1989 precautions to prevent and/or avoid accident or injuries
to persons, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously operate
JOHN PHILIP GUEVARRA, petitioner,  and cause to be fired, in a reckless and imprudent
vs. manner, an air rifle with .22 caliber bore with rifling,
HONORABLE IGNACIO ALMODOVAR, respondent. oxygen and bolt operated thereby hitting as a result of
said carelessness and imprudence one TEODORICO
Teresita Dy-Liacco and Roberto Madrid for petitioner. PABLO ALMINE at the left side of the body with its
pellet, causing injuries which directly caused his
untimely death; . . . (p. 8, Rollo)
PARAS, J.:
On 25 October 1985, petitioner moved to quash the said information
Presented before Us is a special civil action for certiorari against the on the following grounds:
Honorable Judge Ignacio Almodovar of the City Court of Legaspi,
Branch 1, Legaspi City, raising beautiful questions of law which We I
are tasked to resolve. Considering the issues and arguments raised
by petitioner, We impleaded the People of the Philippines as party THAT THE FACTS CHARGED DO NOT CONSTITUTE
respondents herein in a resolution dated 17 September 1986 (p. 41, OFFENSE.
Rollo).
II
The relevant facts gathered from the records are as follows:
THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINS AVERMENTS
Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, then 11 years old, was playing with WHICH IF TRUE WOULD CONSTITUTE A LEGAL
his best friend Teodoro Almine, Jr. and three other children in their EXCUSE OR JUSTIFICATION.
backyard in the morning of 29 October 1984. They were target-
shooting a bottle cap (tansan) placed around fifteen (15) to twenty III
(20) meters away with an air rifle borrowed from a neighbor. In the
course of their game, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS NO
bone which caused his unfortunate death. JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED
AND THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT. (p. 9,
After conduct a preliminary investigation, the examining Fiscal Rollo)
exculpated petitioner due to his age and because the unfortunate
occurrence appeared to be an accident. The victim's parents This motion, in an Order dated 4 April 1986, was denied with respect
appealed to the Ministry of Justice, which ordered the Fiscal to file a to the first and third grounds relied upon. However, the resolution of
case against petitioner for Homicide through reckless Imprudence.
the second ground was deferred until evidence shall have been If petitioner's argument is correct, then no minor between the ages of
presented during trial. 9 and 15 may be convicted of a quasi-offense under Article 265 of the
RPC.
On 26 July 1986, this present petition for certiorari was filed, raising
two (2) issues, to wit: On the contrary, the Solicitor General insists that discernment and
intent are two different concepts. We agree with the Solicitor
I General's view; the two terms should not be confused.

WHETHER AN ELEVEN (11) YEAR OLD BOY COULD The word "intent" has been defined as
BE CHARGED WITH THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE
THRU RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE, AND (a) design; a determination to do a certain things; an
aim; the purpose of the mind, including such
II knowledge as is essential to such intent;. . .; the design
resolve, or determination with which a person acts.' (46
WHETHER THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER CJS Intent p. 1103.)
THE CASE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT IT
DID NOT PASS THRU THE BARANGAY LUPON. It is this intent which comprises the third element of dolo as a means
(Petition, p. 3, Rollo) of committing a felony, freedom and intelligence being the other two.
On the other hand, We have defined the term discernment, as used in
Going through the written arguments of the parties, the surfacing of a Article 12(3) of the RPC, in the old case of People vs. Doquena, 68
corollary controversy with respect to the first issue raised is evident, Phil. 580(1939), in this wise:
that is, whether the term "discernment", as used in Article 12(3) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) is synonymous with "intent." It is the The discernment that constitutes an exception to the
position of the petitioner that "discernment" connotes 'intent' (p. 96, exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen
Rollo), invoking the unreported case of People vs. Nieto, G.R. No. years of age but over nine, who commits an act
11965, 30 April 1958. In that case We held that the allegation of "with prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand
intent to kill . . ." amply meets the requirement that discernment the difference between right and wrong . . . (Emphasis
should be alleged when the accused is a minor between 9 and 15 supplied) p. 583
years old. Petitioner completes his syllogism in saying that:
From the foregoing, it is clear that the terms "intent" and
If discernment is the equivalent of 'with intent', then the "discernment" convey two distinct thoughts. While both are products
allegation in the information that the accused acted of the mental processes within a person, the former refers to the
with discernment and willfully unlawfully, and desired of one's act while the latter relates to the moral significance
feloniously, operate or cause to be fired in a reckless that person ascribes to the said act. Hence a person may not intend to
and imprudent manner an air rifle .22 caliber' is an shoot another but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent
inherent contradiction tantamount to failure of the act which may cause injury to the same person in negligently handling
information to allege a cause of action or constitute a an air rifle. It is not connect, therefore, to argue, as petitioner does,
legal excuse or exception. (Memorandum for Petitioner, that since a minor above nine years of age but below fifteen acted
p. 97, Rollo) with discernment, then he intended such act to be done. He may
negligently shoot his friend, thus did not intend to shoot him, and at
the same time recognize the undesirable result of his negligence.
In further outlining the distinction between the words "intent" and "Any person. . ." without any distinction or exception made. Ubi lex
"discernment," it is worthy to note the basic reason behind the non distinquit nec nos distinguere debemos.
enactment of the exempting circumstances embodied in Article 12 of
the RPC; the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or In his last attempt to justify his position equating the words "intent"
intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. 1 In and "discernment" used under the law, he cites the case of People vs.
expounding on intelligence as the second element of dolus, Nieto, supra. However, petitioner failed to present the qualifying
Albert 2 has stated: sentence preceding the ruling he now invokes, which reads:

The second element of dolus is intelligence; without That requirement should be deemed amply met with
this power, necessary to determine the morality of the allegation in the information that she. . ."with the
human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act, no intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, criminally and
crime can exist, and because ... the infant 3 (has) no feloniously push one Lolita Padilla . . ." into a deep
intelligence, the law exempts (him) from criminal place of the Peñaranda River and as a consequence
liability. (Emphasis supplied) thereof Lolita Padilla got drowned and died right then
and there.' This allegation clearly conveys the Idea that
lt is for this reason, therefore, why minors nine years of age and below she knew what would be the consequence of her
are not capable of performing a criminal act. On the other hand, unlawful act of pushing her victim into deep water and
minors above nine years of appeal but below fifteen are not absolutely that she knew it to be wrong. (Emphasis supplied)
exempt. However, they are presumed to be without criminal capacity,
but which presumption may be rebutted if it could be proven that they From the above, it is clear that We did not mean to equate the words
were "capable of appreciating the nature and criminality of the act, "intent" and "discernment." What We meant was that the combined
that is, that (they) acted with discernment. " 4 The preceding effect of the words used in the information is to express a knowledge,
discussion shows that "intelligence" as an element of dolo actually on the part of the accused Nieto, of the wrongness or rightness of her
embraces the concept of discernment as used in Article 12 of the act. Hence, petitioner may not validly contend that since the
RPC and as defined in the aforecited case of People vs. information now in question alleged "discernment", it in effect alleged
Doquena, supra. It could not therefore be argued that discernment is "intent." The former may never embrace the Idea of the latter; the
equivalent or connotes 'intent' for they refer to two different concepts. former expresses the thought of passivity while the latter signifies
Intelligence, which includes discernment, is a distinct element activity.
of dolo as a means of committing an offense.
Coming now to the second issue of jurisdiction, it is contended by the
In evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa, three (3) petitioner that the case against him should have first been brought
elements are indispensable, namely, intelligence, freedom of action, before the Lupong Tagapayapa pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
and negligence. Obviously, intent is wanting in such felonies. 1508, Section 2(3). He submits that, considering his entitlement to a
However, intelligence remains as an essential element, hence, it is two-degree privileged mitigating circumstance due to his minority,
necessary that a minor above nine but below fifteen years of age be P.D. 1508 applies to his case because the penalty imposable is
possessed with intelligence in committing a negligent act which reduced to not higher than arresto menor from an original arresto
results in a quasi-offense. For him to be criminally liable, he must mayor maximum to prision correccional medium as prescribed in
discern the rightness or wrongness of the effects of his negligent act. Article 365 of the RPC. This is not correct. The jurisdiction of a court
Indeed, a minor over nine years of age but below fifteen may be held over a criminal case is determined by the penalty imposable under the
liable for a quasi-offense under Article 365 of the RPC. A reading of law for the offense and not the penalty ultimately imposed (People vs.
the said Article would reveal such fact as it starts off with the phrase Caldito, 72 Phil. 263; People vs. Purisima, 69 SCRA 314; Dioquino vs.
Cruz and People vs. Savellano, 116 SCRA 451). The same principle
applies in construing Section 2(3) of P.D. 1508, which states:

xxx xxx xxx

(3) Offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding 30

day , or a fine exceeding P 200.00; ... (emphasis
supplied)

Expounding on the above provision, a member of the committee that

drafted P.D. 1508 has said:

The law says 'punishable,' not 'punished.' One should

therefore consider the penalty provided for by law or
ordinance as distinguished from the penalty actually
imposed in particular cases after considering the
attendant circumstances affecting criminal liability. 5

The foregoing finds support in our jurisprudence as above cited. We

therefore rule that, in construing Section 2(3) of P.D. 1508, the penalty
which the law defining the offense attaches to the latter should be
considered. Hence, any circumstance which may affect criminal
liability must not be considered.

The petitioner, in his arguments, asserts that since P.D. 1508 has not
been complied with, the trial court has no jurisdiction over the case.
This erroneous perception has been corrected long before. As
intimated in the case of Royales vs. IAC, 127 SCRA 470, and
categorically stated in Ebol vs. Amin, 135 SCRA 438, P.D. 1508 is not
jurisdictional.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this petition is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of merit and the Temporary Restraining Order
effective 17 September 1986 is LIFTED. Let this case be REMANDED
to the lower court for trial on the merits. No cost.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado,

JJ., concur.
 Republic of the Philippines The herein accused, who was also in said yard, intervened
SUPREME COURT and, catching the ball, tossed it at Juan Ragojos, hitting him on
Manila the stomach. For this act of the accused, Juan Ragojos
chased him around the yard and, upon overtaking him,
EN BANC slapped him on the nape. Said accused then turned against
the deceased assuming a threatening attitude, for which the
G.R. No. 46539           September 27, 1939 reason said deceased struck him on the mouth with his fist,
returning immediately to the place where Epifanio Rarang was
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,  in order to continue playing with him. The accused, offended
vs. by what he considered an abuse on the part of Juan Ragojos,
VALENTIN DOQUEÑA, defendant-appellant. who was taller and more robust than he, looked around the
yard for a stone with which to attack the now deceased Juan
Primicias, Abad, Mencias and Castillo for appellant. Ragojos, but finding none, he approached a cousin of his
Assistant Solicitor-General Concepcion and Assistant Attorney named Romualdo Cocal, to ask the latter to lend him his knife.
Paredes, Jr., for appellee. Epifanio Rarang, who had heard what the accused had been
asking his cousin, told the latter not to give the accused his
knife because he might attack Juan Ragojos with it. The
DIAZ, J.:
accused, however, succeeded in taking possession of the
knife which was in a pocket of his cousin's pants. Once in
The accused-appellant, who is a minor, was prosecuted for homicide possession of the knife, Valentin Doqueña approached Juan
in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, for having killed Juan Ragojos and challenged the latter to give him another blow
Ragojos by stabbing him in the breast with a knife on November 19, with his fist, to which the deceased answered that he did not
1938, in the municipality of Sual, Pangasinan. The court, after trying want to do so because he (Juan Ragojos) was bigger that the
the case, held that the accused acted with discernment in committing accused. Juan Ragojos, ignorant of the intentions of the
the act imputed to him and, proceeding in accordance with the accused, continued playing and, while he was thus
provisions of article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by unprepared and in the act of stopping the ball with his two
Commonwealth Act No. 99, ordered him to be sent to the Training hands, the accused stabbed him in the chest with the knife
School for Boys to remain therein until he reaches the age of majority. which he carried.
From this order the accused interposed an appeal alleging that the
court erred in holding that he had acted with discernment and in not
The order also contains the following conclusions and findings of fact
having dismissal the case.
which we are not at liberty to alter, not being called upon or authorized
to do so, in view of the nature of the appeal before us, by section 138
On the date of the crime, the appellant was exactly thirteen years, of the Administrative Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 3:
nine months and five days old. The incident that gave rise to the
aggression committed by him on the deceased is narrated in the
Taking into account the fact that when the accused Valentin
appealed order as follows:
Doqueña committed the crime in question, he was a 7th grade
pupil in the intermediate school of the municipality of Sual,
Between 1 and 2 o'clock in the afternoon of November 19, Pangasinan, and as such pupil, he was one of the brightest in
1938, the now deceased Juan Ragojos and one Epifanio said school and was a captain of a company of the cadet
Rarang were playing volleyball in the yard of the intermediate corps thereof, and during the time he was studying therein he
school of the municipality of Sual, Province of Pangasinan. always obtained excellent marks, this court is convinced that
 the accused, in committing the crime, acted with discernment
and was conscious of the nature and consequences of his act,
and so also has this court observed at the time said accused
was testifying in his behalf during the trial of this case.

The proven facts, as stated by the lower court in the appealed order,
convinces us that the appeal taken from said order is absolutely
unfounded, because it is error to determine discernment by the means
resorted to by the attorney for the defense, as discussed by him in his
brief. He claims that to determine whether or not a minor acted with
discernment, we must take into consideration not only the facts and
circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the minor, but
also his state of mind at the time the crime was committed, the time
he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the
consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have
had at that moment. It is clear that the attorney for the defense
mistakes the discernment referred to in article 12, subsection 3, of the
Revised Penal Code, for premeditation, or at least for lack of intention
which, as a mitigating circumstance, is included among other
mitigating circumstances in article 13 of said Code. The discernment
that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of
a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act
prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference
between right and wrong, and such capacity may be known and
should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the very
appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behaviour of
said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but
also after and even during the trial (U.S. vs. Maralit, 36 Phil., 155).
This was done by the trial court, and the conclusion arrived at by it is
correct.

Wherefore, the appealed order is affirmed, with the costs to the

appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Laurel, and Concepcion,

JJ., concur.
 Republic of the Philippines Contrary to law with the aggravating circumstance that the victim is
SUPREME COURT under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a relative by
Manila consanguinity within the third civil degree.5

FIRST DIVISION Criminal Case No. 2000-01-47

G.R. No. 183563               December 14, 2011 That sometime in the month of July, 1999 in the municipality of [XXX],
Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,  Honorable Court, the said accused, who is the uncle of [AAA],
vs. the twelve-year-old offended party, actuated by lust, did, then and
HENRY ARPON y JUNTILLA, Accused-Appellant. there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with the use of force
and violence succeed in having carnal knowledge of the said [AAA],
DECISION without her consent and against her will.

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: Contrary to law with the aggravating circumstance that the victim is
under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a relative by
Assailed before Us is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated consanguinity within the third civil degree.6
February 8, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00560, which affirmed with
modification the Decision2 dated September 9, 2002 of the Regional Criminal Case No. 2000-01-48
Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City, Branch 7, in Criminal Case Nos.
2001-01-46 to 2001-01-53, finding the accused-appellant Henry That sometime in the month July 1999 in the municipality of [XXX],
Arpon y Juntilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one (1) count of Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
statutory rape and seven (7) counts of rape against the private Honorable Court, the said accused, who is the uncle of [AAA],
complainant AAA.3 the twelve-year-old offended party, actuated by lust, did, then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with the use of force
On December 29, 1999, the accused-appellant was charged4 with and violence succeed in having carnal knowledge of the said [AAA],
eight (8) counts of rape in separate informations, the accusatory without her consent and against her will.
portions of which state:
Contrary to law with the aggravating circumstance that the victim is
Criminal Case No. 2000-01-46 under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a relative by
consanguinity within the third civil degree.7
That sometime in the year 1995 in the municipality of [XXX], Province
of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Criminal Case No. 2000-01-49
Court, the said accused, who is the uncle of [AAA], the offended party,
actuated by lust, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and That sometime in the month of July, 1999 in the municipality of [XXX],
feloniously, succeed in having carnal knowledge of the said [AAA], Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
who was then only eight (8) years old, without her consent and Honorable Court, the said accused, who is the uncle of [AAA],
against her will. the twelve-year-old offended party, actuated by lust, did, then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with the use of force
and violence succeed in having carnal knowledge of the said [AAA], there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with the use of force
without her consent and against her will. and violence succeed in having carnal knowledge of the said [AAA],
without her consent and against her will.
Contrary to law with the aggravating circumstance that the victim is
under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a relative by Contrary to law with the aggravating circumstance that the victim is
consanguinity within the third civil degree.8 under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a relative by
consanguinity within the third civil degree.11
Criminal Case No. 2000-01-50
Criminal Case No. 2000-01-47
That sometime in the month of July, 1999 in the municipality of [XXX],
Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this That sometime in the month of August, 1999 in the municipality of
Honorable Court, the said accused, who is the uncle of [AAA], [XXX], Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
the twelve-year-old offended party, actuated by lust, did, then and Honorable Court, the said accused, who is the uncle of [AAA],
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with the use of force the twelve-year-old offended party, actuated by lust, did, then and
and violence succeed in having carnal knowledge of the said [AAA], there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with the use of force
without her consent and against her will. and violence succeed in having carnal knowledge of the said [AAA],
without her consent and against her will.
Contrary to law with the aggravating circumstance that the victim is
under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a relative by Contrary to law with the aggravating circumstance that the victim is
consanguinity within the third civil degree.9 under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a relative by
consanguinity within the third civil degree.12 (Emphases ours.)
Criminal Case No. 2000-01-51
During the arraignment of the accused-appellant on November 28,
That sometime in the month of July, 1999 in the municipality of [XXX], 2000, he entered a plea of not guilty.13 On March 13, 2001, the pre-
Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this trial conference of the cases was conducted and the parties stipulated
Honorable Court, the said accused, who is the uncle of [AAA], on the identity of the accused-appellant in all the cases, the minority
the twelve-year-old offended party, actuated by lust, did, then and of the victim and the fact that the accused appellant is the uncle of the
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with the use of force victim.14
and violence succeed in having carnal knowledge of the said [AAA],
without her consent and against her will. The pre-trial order containing the foregoing stipulations was signed by
the accused and his counsel. The cases were then heard on
Contrary to law with the aggravating circumstance that the victim is consolidated trial.
under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a relative by
consanguinity within the third civil degree.10 The prosecution presented the lone testimony of AAA to prove the
charges against the accused-appellant. AAA testified that she was
Criminal Case No. 2000-01-52 born on November 1, 1987.15 In one afternoon when she was only
eight years old, she stated that the accused-appellant raped her
That sometime in the month of August, 1999 in the municipality of inside their house. She could not remember, though, the exact month
[XXX], Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this and date of the incident. The accused-appellant stripped off her
Honorable Court, the said accused, who is the uncle of [AAA], shorts, panties and shirt and went on top of her. He had his clothes on
the twelve-year-old offended party, actuated by lust, did, then and and only pulled down his zipper. He then pulled out his organ, put it in
her vagina and did the pumping motion. AAA felt pain but she did not - (-) Physical injuries.
know if his organ penetrated her vagina. When he pulled out his
organ, she did not see any blood. She did so only when she OB- NOTES:
urinated.16
- Patient came in with history of rape since 8 year old for so
AAA also testified that the accused-appellant raped her again in July many times. last act was March 1999.
1999 for five times on different nights. The accused-appellant was
then drinking alcohol with BBB, the stepfather of AAA, in the house of O: Pelvic Exam:
AAA’s neighbor. He came to AAA’s house, took off her panty and
went on top of her. She could not see what he was wearing as it was Ext. Genetalia – grossly normal.
nighttime. He made her hold his penis then he left. When asked again
how the accused-appellant raped her for five nights in July of the said Introitus: Old, healed incomplete laceration at 3 & 9 o’clock
year, AAA narrated that he pulled down her panty, went on top of her position
and pumped. She felt pain as he put his penis into her vagina. Every
time she urinated, thereafter, she felt pain. AAA said that she
Speculum Exam: not done due to resistance.
recognized the accused-appellant as her assailant since it was a
moonlit night and their window was only covered by cloth. He entered
through the kitchen as the door therein was detached.17 Internal Exam:

AAA further related that the accused-appellant raped her again twice Vaginal smear for presence of spermatozoa: = NEGATIVE21
in August 1999 at nighttime. He kissed her and then he took off his
shirt, went on top of her and pumped. She felt pain in her vagina and Upon the other hand, the defense called the accused-appellant to the
in her chest because he was heavy. She did not know if his penis witness stand to deny the informations filed against him and to refute
penetrated her vagina. She related that the accused-appellant was the testimony of AAA. He testified that when the first incident of rape
her uncle as he was the brother of her mother. AAA said that she did allegedly happened in 1995, he was only 13 years old as he was born
not tell anybody about the rapes because the accused-appellant on February 23, 1982. In 1995, he worked in Sagkahan, Tacloban
threatened to kill her mother if she did. She only filed a complaint City as a houseboy for a certain Gloria Salazar and he stayed there
when he proceeded to also rape her younger sister, DDD.18 up to 1996. He stated that he was working in Tacloban City when the
alleged rapes happened in the municipality of XXX. When he would
After the testimony of AAA, the prosecution formally offered its go home from Tacloban, he would stay at the house of a certain Fred
documentary evidence, consisting of: (1) Exhibit A - the Medico-Legal Antoni. He did not go to the house of AAA as the latter’s parents were
Report,19 which contained the results of the medical examination his enemies. He said that he had a quarrel with AAA’s parents
conducted on AAA by Dr. Rommel Capungcol and Dr. Melissa Adel because he did not work with them in the ricefields. He further
Gagala on October 26, 1999; and (2) Exhibit B - the Social Case recounted that in July 1999, he was also living in Tacloban City and
Study Report20 pertaining to AAA’s case, which was issued by the worked there as a dishwasher at a restaurant. He worked there from
Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office of the Province of 1998 up to September 1999. The accused-appellant likewise stated
Leyte. that in August 1999, he was still working at the same restaurant in
Tacloban City. While working there, he did not go home to XXX as he
was busy with work. He denied that he would have drinking sprees
The Medico-Legal Report stated the following findings:
with AAA’s stepfather, BBB, because they were enemies.22
P. E. Findings: Surg. Findings:
On cross-examination, the accused-appellant admitted that the time of the commission of the rape incidents and the accused-
mother of AAA was his sister and they were close to each other. He appellant was her uncle, a relative by consanguinity within the third
said that his parents were still alive in 1995 up to October 1999 and civil degree. The trial court also appreciated against the accused-
the latter then resided at Calaasan, Alangalang, Leyte. He indicated appellant the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence and
that his parents’ house was about two kilometers away from the nighttime.
house of AAA. While he was working at the restaurant in Tacloban
City, he would visit his parents once every month, mainly on The accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration25 of the RTC
Sundays.23 Decision, asserting that the trial court failed to consider his minority as
a privileged mitigating circumstance. As stated in his direct
The Judgment of the RTC examination, the accused-appellant claimed that he was born on
February 23, 1982, such that he was only 13 and 17 years old when
On September 9, 2002, the RTC of Tacloban City, Branch 7, rendered the incidents of rape allegedly occurred in 1995 and 1999,
a Decision convicting the accused-appellant as follows: respectively. In a Resolution26 dated November 6, 2002, the trial court
denied the accused-appellant’s motion, holding that the latter failed to
WHEREFORE, premises considered, pursuant to Art. 266-A and 266- substantiate with clear and convincing evidence his allegation of
B of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and further amended by minority.
R.A. 8353 (Rape Law of 1997) and R.A. 7659 (Death Penalty Law)
the Court found accused HENRY ARPON, GUILTY beyond The cases were elevated to the Court on automatic review and were
reasonable doubt of ONE COUNT OF STATUTORY docketed as G.R. Nos. 165201-08.27 The parties then filed their
RAPE and SEVEN COUNTS OF RAPE charged under the respective briefs.28 On February 7, 2006, we resolved29 to transfer the
informations and sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH, cases to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our ruling in People v.
and to indemnify the victim, [AAA] the amount of Fifty Thousand Mateo.30 The cases were docketed in the appellate court as CA-G.R.
(₱50,000.00) Pesos for each count of Rape and pay moral damages CR.-H.C. No. 00560.
in the amount of Fifty Thousand (₱50,000.00) Pesos and pay the
cost.24 (Emphases in the original.) The Decision of the Court of Appeals

The court a quo found more credible the testimony of AAA. The fact On February 8, 2008, the Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed
that AAA was in tears when she testified convinced the trial court of decision, decreeing thus:
the truthfulness of her rape charges against the accused-appellant. If
there were inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony, the trial court deemed WHEREFORE, the Decision dated September 9, 2002 of the
the same understandable considering that AAA was pitted against a Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City in Criminal Case Nos.
learned opposing counsel. The delay in the reporting of the rape 2001-01-46 to 2001-01-53 is AFFIRMED with modification awarding
incidents was not also an indication that the charges were fabricated. exemplary damages to [AAA] in the amount of Twenty[-]Five
Moreover, the trial court ruled that the findings of the medico-legal Thousand (₱25,000.00) Pesos for each count of rape and clarification
officer confirmed that she was indeed raped. The accused-appellant’s that the separate award of Fifty Thousand (₱50,000.00) Pesos as
defense of alibi was likewise disregarded by the trial court, declaring moral damages likewise pertains to each count of rape. The death
that it was not physically impossible for him to be present in XXX at penalty imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua in accord with Rep.
any time of the day after working hours while he was working in Act No. 9346.31
Tacloban City. The trial court stated that the accused-appellant was
positively identified by AAA as the person who sexually abused her The Court of Appeals adjudged that the inconsistencies pointed out by
and she held no grudge against him. The trial court imposed the the accused-appellant in the testimony of AAA were not sufficient to
penalty of death as it found that AAA was less than 18 years old at the discredit her. The appellate court held that the exact age of AAA when
the incidents of rape occurred no longer mattered, as she was still a THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
minor at the time. More significant was her "straightforward, ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE
categorical and candid testimony" that she was raped eight times by THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT
the accused-appellant. The Court of Appeals also agreed with the BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
ruling of the RTC that AAA’s charges of rape conformed with the
physical evidence and the accused-appellant’s uncorroborated II
defense of alibi could not stand against the positive identification
made by AAA. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND
CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT
As regards the attendant circumstances, the Court of Appeals ruled TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
that the relationship of the accused-appellant to AAA was both alleged
in the informations and admitted by the accused-appellant. The III
appellate court, however, differed in appreciating against the accused-
appellant the qualifying circumstance of AAA’s minority. The lone THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE
testimony of AAA on the said circumstance was held to be an SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH.37
insufficient proof therefor. The aggravating circumstance of nighttime
was also ruled to be inapplicable as it was not shown that the same The accused-appellant insists that it was error on the part of the RTC
was purposely sought by the accused-appellant or that it facilitated to give weight to the incredible testimony of AAA. He alleges that AAA
the commission of the crimes of rape. In view of the presence of the could not state with consistency the exact date when she was first
qualifying circumstance of relationship, the Court of Appeals awarded supposedly raped, as well as her age at that time. The accused-
exemplary damages in favor of AAA. appellant also avers that AAA could not remember the dates of the
other incidents of rape charged, all of which were allegedly described
The accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal32 of the above decision in a uniform manner. Contrary to the judgment of the Court of
and the same was given due course by the Court of Appeals in a Appeals, the accused-appellant posits that the above inconsistencies
Resolution33 dated May 27, 2008. cannot merely be discounted as insignificant. He further insists that
the qualifying circumstances of AAA’s minority and her relationship to
On November 17, 2008, the Court resolved to accept the appeal and the accused-appellant were not duly proven by the prosecution. The
required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs, if they accused-appellant, thus, prays for a judgment of acquittal.
so desire, within 30 days from notice.34 Thereafter, in a Manifestation
and Motion35 filed on December 24, 2008, the plaintiff-appellee, The Ruling of the Court
through the Office of the Solicitor General, prayed that it be excused
from filing a supplemental brief. On February 3, 2009, the accused- After a careful examination of the records of this case, the Court
appellant submitted a Supplemental Brief.36 resolves to deny the appeal, but with a modification of the penalties
and the amount of indemnities awarded.
The Issues
To recall, the RTC and the Court of Appeals found the accused-
In the accused-appellant’s brief, the following issues were invoked: appellant guilty of one (1) count of statutory rape and seven (7) counts
of qualified rape.
I
Under the information in Criminal Case No. 2000-01-46, the first
incident of rape was alleged to have occurred in 1995 when AAA was
only eight years old. However, the accused-appellant points out that ART. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by
the prosecution failed to substantiate the said fact as AAA’s testimony having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
thereon was too inconsistent and incredible to be worthy of any belief. circumstances:
He explains that AAA initially claimed that she was raped for the first
time when she was eight years old. Nonetheless, during her testimony 1. By using force or intimidation;
regarding the incidents of rape that occurred in July 1999, she said
that the accused did the same thing that he did to her when she was 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
only seven years old. On her redirect examination, AAA then stated unconscious; and
that she was first raped in 1998 when she was eleven (11) years old.
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is
Presently, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime demented.
of rape by sexual intercourse as follows:
In People v. Macafe,42 we explained the concept of statutory rape
ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in this wise:
–
Rape under paragraph 3 of [Article 335] is termed statutory rape as it
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any departs from the usual modes of committing rape. What the law
of the following circumstances: punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman
below twelve years old. Hence, force and intimidation are
a. Through force, threat or intimidation; immaterial; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman
and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of
otherwise unconscious; her tender years; the child's consent is immaterial because of her
presumed incapacity to discern evil from good.43 (Emphasis ours.)
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; Manifestly, the elements of statutory rape in the above-mentioned
provisions of law are essentially the same. Thus, whether the first
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age incident of rape charged in this case did occur in 1995, i.e., before the
or is demented, even though none of the circumstances amendment of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, or in 1998,
mentioned above be present. after the effectivity of the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, the prosecution has
the burden to establish the fact of carnal knowledge and the age of
In particular, "Article 266-A(1)(d) spells out the definition of the crime AAA at the time of the commission of the rape.
of statutory rape, the elements of which are: (1) that the offender had
carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such a woman is under Contrary to the posturing of the accused-appellant, "the date of the
twelve (12) years of age or is demented."38 commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime of
rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a
The above provision came into existence by virtue of Republic Act No. woman."44 "Inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are
8353,39 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which took effect on October irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal."45
22, 1997.40 Prior to this date, the crime of rape was penalized under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code,41 which provides:
As regards the first incident of rape, the RTC credited with veracity the Q: How did he rape you?
substance of AAA’s testimony. On this matter, we reiterate our ruling
in People v. Condes46 that: A: He stripped me of my panty, shorts and shirts.

Time and again, the Court has held that when the decision hinges on Q: Do you remember what place did he rape you?
the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial
court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are A: Yes, sir in our house.
often accorded finality. The trial judge has the advantage of observing
the witness' deportment and manner of testifying. Her "furtive glance, Q: Who were the persons present then at that time?
blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone,
calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" are all useful A: My younger brother and I.
aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity.
The trial judge, therefore, can better determine if witnesses are telling
Q: About your mother and step father where were they?
the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies.
Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if
considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must A: In the ricefield.
be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were PROS. SABARRE:
lying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said
findings are sustained by the [Court of Appeals].47 May we make it of record that the witness is crying.

In the instant case, we have thoroughly scrutinized the testimony of COURT:

AAA and we found no cogent reason to disturb the finding of the RTC
that the accused-appellant indeed committed the first incident of rape Have it on record.
charged. AAA positively identified the accused-appellant as the
perpetrator of the dastardly crimes. With tears in her eyes, she clearly PROS. SABARRE:
and straightforwardly narrated the said incident of rape as follows:
Q: Do you still recall was it in the morning, in the afternoon or
[PROSECUTOR EDGAR SABARRE] evening?

Q: Do you recall of any unusual incident that happened when you A: In the afternoon.
were still 8 years old?
xxxx
[AAA]
Q: After your clothes and [panty] were taken off by accused what did
A: There was but I cannot anymore remember the exact month and he do to you next if any?
date.
A: He went on top of me.
Q: Just tell what happened to you when you were still 8 years old?
Q: Was he still with his clothes on or already naked?
A: I was raped by Tiyo Henry.
A: He has still clothes on, he did not take off his pants, he only pulled Q: Was it in different nights or on the same night?
down the zipper.
A: Different nights.
Q: And when he pulled down the zipper and went on top of you what
did he do next if any? Q: Who were present then at that time when he raped you five times?

A: He was pumping on me. A: My Kuya and other siblings.

Q: Did he pull out his organ? Q: You have companions why were you raped?

A: Yes, sir. A: Because they were sleeping.

Q: And where did he place his organ? Q: How did he rape you on that July night for five times, will you
please narrate to the court?
A: In my vagina.
A: Because they have been drinking, he came to our house, pulled
Q: When he kept on pumping what did you feel? out my panty and went on top of me.

A: Pain.48 Q: With whom was he drinking?

The above testimony of AAA was also corroborated by the Medico- A: With my step father.
Legal Report of Dr. Capungcol and Dr. Gagala, who found "old,
healed, incomplete" hymenal lacerations on the private part of AAA. Q: Where did they drink?
"[W]hen the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical
findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that there has been A: In our neighbor.
carnal knowledge."49
Q: When he took off your shorts and panty what was the accused
Anent the five incidents of rape that were alleged to have been wearing at that time?
committed in July 1999, the Court disagrees with the ruling of the trial
court that all five counts were proven with moral certainty. The A: I do not know because I could not see since it was night time.
testimony of AAA on the said incidents is as follows:
Q: When he was on top of [you] was he still wearing something?
Q: How many times did [the accused-appellant] rape you in July
1999? A: No, sir.
A: Five times. Q: What did he do with his penis?
Q: Was it in the daytime or night time? A: He made me hold it.
A: Night time. Q: Then after he made you hold it what did he do with it?
A: He left. COURT:

xxxx Why did you feel pain?

ATTY. SABARRE: A: He placed his penis inside my vagina, everytime I urinate I feel
pain.
Q: You said you were raped on that July evening for five nights how
did he rape you? ATTY. SABARRE;

A: (witness did not answer) How did you recognize that it was Henry Arpon when it was night
time?
PROS. SABARRE:
A: It was a moonlight night and our window was only covered by cloth
Make it of record that the witness is crying again. as cover.50

Q: Why are you crying? From the above testimony, AAA merely described a single incident of
rape. She made no reference whatsoever to the other four instances
A: I am angry and hurt. of rape that were likewise supposedly committed in the month of July
1999.
PROS. SABARRE:
The same is also true for the two (2) counts of rape allegedly
Your honor please may I be allowed to suspend the proceeding committed in August 1999. AAA narrated only one incident of rape in
considering that the witness is psychologically incapable of further this manner:
proceeding.
Q: How many times did [the accused-appellant] rape you in the month
xxxx of August 1999?

Q: I have asked you how did the accused rape you will you please A: Two times.
narrate the whole incident to this honorable court?
Q: Was it during day time or night time?
A: The same that he did when I was 8 years old, he went on top of
me. A: Nighttime.

Q: What was the same thing you are talking about? Q: How did he rape you again that August 1999?

A: He pulled down my panty and went on top of me and pump. A: He kissed me.

Q: When he pump what did you feel? Q: After kissing you what did he do next?

A: Pain. A: He took off his shirts.

Q: After he took off his shirts what happened? is the doctrine that a victim of a savage crime cannot be expected to
mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every lurid
A: He went on top of me and pump. detail of a frightening experience — a verity born[e] out of human
nature and experience."54
Q: When he made a pumping motion on top of you what did you feel?
We uphold the ruling of the RTC that the accused-appellant’s defense
A: My vagina was painful and also my chest because he was heavy. of alibi deserves scant consideration. "Alibi is an inherently weak
defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit
Q: Why did you feel pain in your vagina? approbation, the accused must adduce clear and convincing evidence
that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the
A: Because he was raping me. crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to
have been at the scene of the crime when it was
committed."55 "[S]ince alibi is a weak defense for being easily
Q: Did his penis penetrate your vagina?
fabricated, it cannot prevail over and is worthless in the face of the
positive identification by a credible witness that an accused
A: I do not know. perpetrated the crime."56

Q: If this Henry Arpon is present now in court could you recognize In the instant case, we quote with approval the findings of fact of the
him? trial court that:

A: Yes, sir. The distance of [XXX] to Tacloban City is just a few kilometers and
can be negotiated by passenger bus in less than one (1) hour, hence,
Q: Where is he? it is not impossible for the accused to be present in [XXX] at any time
of the day after working hours while working in Tacloban. Besides, the
A: That man (witness pointing a detention prisoner when asked his accused has his day off every Sunday, which according to him he
name answered Henry Arpon).51 spent in [XXX], Leyte.

"It is settled that each and every charge of rape is a separate and The accused was positively identified by the victim as the person who
distinct crime that the law requires to be proven beyond reasonable sexually molested her beginning that afternoon of 1995, and
doubt. The prosecution's evidence must pass the exacting test of subsequently thereafter in the coming years up to August 1999. She
moral certainty that the law demands to satisfy the burden of can not be mistaken on the identity of the accused, because the first
overcoming the appellant's presumption of innocence."52 Thus, sexual molestation happened during the daytime, besides, she is
including the first incident of rape, the testimony of AAA was only able familiar with him being her uncle, the brother of her mother.57
to establish three instances when the accused-appellant had carnal
knowledge of her. Furthermore, the Court rejects the contention of the accused-
appellant that AAA may have been prompted to falsely testify against
The allegation of the accused-appellant that the testimony of AAA him (accused-appellant) in view of the latter’s quarrel with AAA’s
described the incidents of rape in a uniform manner does not parents when he refused to work with them in the rice fields.58 Aside
convince this Court. To our mind, AAA’s narration of the sexual from being uncorroborated, we find the same specious and
abuses committed by the accused-appellant contained an adequate implausible. "Where the charges against the appellant involve a
recital of the evidentiary facts constituting the crime of rape, i.e., that heinous offense, a minor disagreement, even if true, does not amount
he placed his organ in her private part.53 "Etched in our jurisprudence
to a sufficient justification for dragging a young girl's honor to a c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age
merciless public scrutiny that a rape trial brings in its wake."591avvphi1 and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than
18 years old.
As to the accused-appellant’s objection that there was no proof of the
age of the victim, we affirm the trial court’s finding that the prosecution 4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic
sufficiently established the age of AAA when the incidents of rape document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives
were committed. The testimony of AAA that she was born on concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony
November 1, 1987,60 the voluntary stipulation of the accused, with will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly
assistance of counsel, regarding the minority of the victim during pre- admitted by the accused.
trial and his testimony regarding his recollection of the age of the
victim,61 his own niece, all militate against accused-appellant’s theory. 5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age
In People v. Pruna,62 the Court established the guidelines in of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to
appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken
circumstance, as follows: against him. (Emphases ours.)

1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is Notably, in its Decision, the trial court observed that at the time she
an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of took the witness stand (when she was 14 years old), the victim, as to
such party. her body and facial features, was indeed a minor.63

2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic That the carnal knowledge in this case was committed through force,
documents such as baptismal certificate and school records threat or intimidation need no longer be belabored upon. "[I]n rape
which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to committed by close kin, such as the victim’s father, step-father, uncle,
prove age. or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that
actual force or intimidation be employed. Moral influence or
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation."64
to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the
testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a Penalties
member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is
qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the On the penalties imposable in the instant case, the former Article 335
exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, punishes the crime of rape
Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be with reclusion perpetua. The sixth paragraph thereof also provides
sufficient under the following circumstances: that:

a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
7 years old;
1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
12 years old; common law-spouse of the parent of the victim. (Emphases ours.)
Similarly, the present Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code Nonetheless, a reduction of the above penalty is in order.
relevantly recites:
The RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider in favor of the
ART. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next accused-appellant the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Although this matter was not among the issues raised before the
Court, we still take cognizance of the same in accordance with the
xxxx settled rule that "[i]n a criminal case, an appeal throws open the entire
case wide open for review, and the appellate court can correct errors,
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is though unassigned, that may be found in the appealed judgment."68
committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances: Pertinently, the first paragraph of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9344,
otherwise known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006,"
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the provides for the rule on how to determine the age of a child in conflict
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by with the law,69 viz:
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common law spouse of the parent of the victim. (Emphases ours.) SEC. 7. Determination of Age. — The child in conflict with the law
shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the
The Court finds that the circumstances of minority and relationship rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be
qualify the three (3) counts of rape committed by the accused- eighteen (18) years of age or older. The age of a child may be
appellant. "As a special qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape, determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate or
the concurrence of the victim’s minority and her relationship to the any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents,
accused must be both alleged and proven beyond reasonable age may be based on information from the child himself/herself,
doubt."65 In the instant case, the informations alleged that AAA was testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and
less than eighteen (18) years of age when the incidents of rape other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it
occurred and the accused-appellant is her uncle, a relative by shall be resolved in his/her favor.
consanguinity within the third civil degree. The said circumstances
were also admitted by the accused-appellant during the pre-trial Furthermore, in Sierra v. People,70 we clarified that, in the past, the
conference of the case and again admitted by him during his Court deemed sufficient the testimonial evidence regarding the
testimony.66 minority and age of the accused provided the following conditions
concur, namely: "(1) the absence of any other satisfactory evidence
In People v. Pepito,67 the Court explained that "[t]he purpose of such as the birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or similar documents
entering into a stipulation or admission of facts is to expedite trial and that would prove the date of birth of the accused; (2) the presence of
to relieve the parties and the court, as well, of the costs of proving testimony from accused and/or a relative on the age and minority of
facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be the accused at the time of the complained incident without any
ascertained by reasonable inquiry. These admissions during the pre- objection on the part of the prosecution; and (3) lack of any contrary
trial conference are worthy of credit. Being mandatory in nature, the evidence showing that the accused's and/or his relatives' testimonies
admissions made by appellant therein must be given weight." are untrue."71
Consequently, for the first incident of rape, regardless of whether the
same occurred in 1995 or in 1998, the imposition of the death penalty In the instant case, the accused-appellant testified that he was born
is warranted. For the second and third counts of rape, the imposable on February 23, 1982 and that he was only 13 years old when the first
penalty is also death. incident of rape allegedly happened in 1995.72 Other than his
testimony, no other evidence was presented to prove the date of his
birth. However, the records of this case show neither any objection to The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not
the said testimony on the part of the prosecution, nor any contrary include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
evidence to dispute the same. Thus, the RTC and the Court of accordance with existing laws. (Emphases ours.)
Appeals should have appreciated the accused-appellant’s minority in
ascertaining the appropriate penalty. As held in Sierra, the above provision effectively modified the
minimum age limit of criminal irresponsibility in paragraphs 2 and 3 of
Although the acts of rape in this case were committed before Republic the Revised Penal Code, as amended,74 "i.e., from ‘under nine years
Act No. 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, the said law is still of age’ and ‘above nine years of age and under fifteen’ (who acted
applicable given that Section 68 thereof expressly states: without discernment) - to ‘fifteen years old or under’ and ‘above fifteen
but below 18’ (who acted without discernment) in determining
SEC. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving exemption from criminal liability."75
Sentences. — Persons who have been convicted and are serving
sentence at the time of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below Accordingly, for the first count of rape, which in the information in
the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the commission of the Criminal Case No. 2000-01-46 was allegedly committed in 1995, the
offense for which they were convicted and are serving sentence, shall testimony of the accused-appellant sufficiently established that he
likewise benefit from the retroactive application of this Act. They shall was only 13 years old at that time. In view of the failure of the
be entitled to appropriate dispositions provided under this Act and prosecution to prove the exact date and year of the first incident of
their sentences shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be rape, i.e., whether the same occurred in 1995 or in 1998 as previously
immediately released if they are so qualified under this Act or other discussed, any doubt therein "should be resolved in favor of the
applicable law. accused, it being more beneficial to the latter."76 The Court, thus,
exempts the accused-appellant from criminal liability for the first count
People v. Sarcia73 further stressed that "[w]ith more reason, the Act of rape pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act
should apply to [a] case wherein the conviction by the lower court is No. 9344. The accused-appellant, nevertheless, remains civilly liable
still under review." therefor.

Thus, in the matter of assigning criminal responsibility, Section 6 of For the second and third counts of rape that were committed in the
Republic Act No. 9344 is explicit in providing that: year 1999, the accused-appellant was already 17 years old. We
likewise find that in the said instances, the accused-appellant acted
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child fifteen with discernment. In Madali v. People,77 the Court had the occasion to
(15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the reiterate that "[d]iscernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully
offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. Such capacity may
be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of the be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all
Act. the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case."

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age In this case, the fact that the accused-appellant acted with
shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an discernment was satisfactorily established by the testimony of AAA,
intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which we had already found to be credible. Verily, AAA testified that
which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate she at first did not tell anybody about the sexual assault she suffered
proceedings in accordance with this Act. at the hands of the accused-appellant because the latter told her that
he would kill her mother if she did so. That the accused-appellant had
to threaten AAA in an effort to conceal his dastardly acts only proved
that he knew full well that what he did was wrong and that he was SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. — If the
aware of the consequences thereof. court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed
upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the
Accordant with the second paragraph of Article 68 of the Revised child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the
Penal Code, as amended, and in conformity with our ruling in Sarcia, conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in
when the offender is a minor under eighteen (18) years of age, "the conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of
penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but judgment.
always in the proper period. However, for purposes of determining the
proper penalty because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of
minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty to be reckoned with." age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine
Thus, for the second and third counts of rape, the proper penalty whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order
imposable upon the accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua for each execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a
count. certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of
twenty-one (21) years. (Emphasis ours.)
Had the trial court correctly appreciated in favor of the accused-
appellant the circumstance of his minority, the latter would have been Nonetheless, the disposition set forth under Section 51 of Republic
entitled to a suspension of sentence for the second and third counts of Act No. 9344 is warranted in the instant case, to wit:
rape under Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344, which reads:
SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. — Once the child who and Other Training Facilities. — A child in conflict with the law may
is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her
the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an
determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established,
from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the maintained, supervised and controlled by the [Bureau of Corrections],
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with in coordination with the [Department of Social Welfare and
the law under suspended sentence, without need of application. Development].
Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be supplied
even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at Additionally, the civil liability of the accused-appellant for the second
the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. and third incidents of rape shall not be affected by the above
disposition and the same shall be enforced in accordance with law
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various and the pronouncements in the prevailing jurisprudence.
circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate
disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Civil Liability
Juvenile in Conflict with the Law.1awphi1
The Court recently ruled in People v. Masagca, Jr.78 that "[c]ivil
Be that as it may, the suspension of sentence may no longer be indemnity is mandatory when rape is found to have been committed.
applied in the instant case given that the accused-appellant is now Based on prevailing jurisprudence, we affirm the award of ₱75,000.00
about 29 years of age and Section 40 of Republic Act No. 9344 puts a to the rape victim as civil indemnity for each count." We also
limit to the application of a suspended sentence, namely, when the explained in Sarcia that "[t]he litmus test x x x in the determination of
child reaches a maximum age of 21. The said provision states: the civil indemnity is the heinous character of the crime committed,
which would have warranted the imposition of the death penalty,
regardless of whether the penalty actually imposed is reduced
to reclusion perpetua."79 The trial court’s award of civil indemnity of (4) The case is hereby REMANDED to the court of origin for
₱50,000.00 for each count of rape is therefore increased to its appropriate action in accordance with Section 51 of
₱75,000.00 for each of the three (3) counts of rape committed in the Republic Act No. 9344.
instant case.
No costs.
Anent the award of moral damages, the same is justified "without
need of proof other than the fact of rape because it is assumed that SO ORDERED.
the victim has suffered moral injuries [from the experience she
underwent]."80 We also increase the trial court’s award of ₱50,000.00
to ₱75,000.00 for each of the three (3) counts of rape herein
established in keeping with the recent case law.81

Lastly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ award of exemplary damages.

As held in People v. Llanas, Jr.,82 "[t]he award of exemplary damages
is also proper not only to deter outrageous conduct, but also in view of
the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship
surrounding the commission of the offense, both of which were
alleged in the information and proved during the trial." The appellate
court’s award of ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages is raised to
₱30,000.00 for each of the three (3) counts of rape in keeping with the
current jurisprudence on the matter.83

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The

Decision dated February 8, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR.-H.C. No. 00560 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following
MODIFICATIONS:

(1) For the first count of rape herein established, the accused-
appellant Henry Arpon y Juntilla is hereby EXEMPTED from
criminal liability.

(2) For the second and third counts of rape, the accused-
appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2)
counts of QUALIFIED RAPE and is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.

(3) As to the civil liability, the accused-appellant

is ORDERED to pay AAA for each of the three (3) counts of
rape ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral
damages and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus legal
interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% from
the date of finality of this Decision.
 Republic of the Philippines During the arraignment on 31 May 2000, the three accused, with the
SUPREME COURT assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty.6
Manila
On trial, the prosecution presented eight witnesses, namely: (1)
THIRD DIVISION Jovencio Musa (Jovencio), 16 years old, the victim’s cousin and the
alleged lone eyewitness to the killing; (2) Senior Police Officer (SPO)
G.R. No. 180380               August 4, 2009 3 Rogelio Madali, the designated Deputy Chief of Police of the
Romblon Police Station; (3) Police Officer (PO) 3 Nicolas Molo, the
RAYMUND MADALI and RODEL MADALI, Petitioners,  police investigator assigned to the case; (4) BBB, the mother of the
vs. deceased victim; (5) Dr. Carmen Lita P. Calsado, Chief of the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Romblon District Hospital, the physician who issued the death
certificate of AAA; (6) Emerson de Asis, the alleged companion of
DECISION witness Jovencio on the night in question, who later became a hostile
witness; (7) Michael Manasan, also a companion of witness Jovencio
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: before the killing of the victim occurred; (8) Dr. Floresto Arizala, Jr., a
forensic expert from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
Manila, who conducted the examination of the corpse of the victim
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
after the same was exhumed.
Court, petitioners Raymund Madali (Raymund) and Rodel Madali
(Rodel) seek the reversal of the 29 August 2007 Decision1 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 27757; and its 23 October 2007 As documentary and object evidence, the prosecution offered the
Resolution,2 affirming with modifications the 28 July 2003 Decision3 of following: (1) Exhibit "A" – Affidavit of Jovencio executed on 22 April
the Romblon, Romblon, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 81, in 1999, detailing the circumstances prior to, during and after the killing
Criminal Case No. 2179, finding petitioners guilty of homicide. of the victim perpetrated by Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino; (2)
Exhibit "B" – Sinumpaang Salaysay of Jovencio dated 8 May 1999, a
recantation of the 22 April 1999 Affidavit; (3) Exhibit "C" – Amended
For the death of AAA,4 Raymund, Rodel and a certain Bernardino
Affidavit of Jovencio dated 28 May 1999, which was substantially the
"Jojo" Maestro (Bernardino) were charged before the RTC with the
same on material points as the 22 April 1999 Affidavit; (4) Exhibit "D"
crime of Murder. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
– Undated Reply Affidavit of Jovencio insisting that the death of the
victim was authored by Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino; (5) Exhibit
That on or about the 13th day of April 1999, at around 11:00 o’clock in "E" – Joint Affidavit of prosecution witnesses SPO3 Rogelio Madali
the evening, in the Barangay XXX, Municipality of Romblon, province and a certain SPO2 Teresito M. Sumadsad; (6) Exhibit "F" – the
of Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable coconut frond recovered by the police officers from the scene of the
Court, the said accused, with intent to kill, conspiring, confederating incident; (7) Exhibit "G" – a dog chain used as part of a strap that was
and mutually helping each other, did then and there by means of tied to the victim’s neck while he was hanging from a tree; (8) Exhibit
treachery and with evident premeditation, willfully, unlawfully and "H" – the handkerchief that was tied around the victim’s neck; (9)
feloniously attack, assault, strike with a coconut frond and "llave Exhibit "I" – empty bottles of gin; (10) Exhibit "J" – cellophanes with
inglesa" and strangle with a dog chain, one AAA, inflicting upon the rugby; (10) Exhibit "K" – pictures taken from the crime scene including
latter mortal wounds in different parts of his body which caused his the picture of the body of the victim tied to a tree; (11) Exhibit "L" –
untimely death.5 Letter of Request for the NBI to conduct an examination of the body of
the victim; (12) Exhibits "M" to "O" – NBI routing slips; (14) Exhibit "P"
– Death Certificate issued by Dr. Carmen Lita P. Calsado; (15) Exhibit
"Q" – Exhumation Report issued by Dr. Floresto P. Arizala, Jr.; (16) with it." Before leaving the scene, the three assailants warned
Exhibit "R" – the Autopsy Report submitted by Dr. Floresto P. Arizala, Jovencio not to reveal the incident to anyone, or he would be next.
Jr.; (17) Exhibit "S" – Sketch of the head of the victim showing the
injuries thereon; and (18) Exhibit "T" – handwritten draft of the Tormented and torn between the desire to come clean and the fear for
exhumation report. his life, Jovencio hardly slept that night. He did not divulge the incident
to anyone for the next few days. BBB, the victim’s mother, was
Taken together, the evidence offered by the prosecution shows that at worried when her son did not come home. She started asking
around 5:30 in the afternoon of 13 April 1999, BBB, who made a living relatives whether they had seen her son, but their reply was always in
by selling goods aboard ships docked at the Romblon Pier, and who the negative.
was constantly assisted by her 15-year-old son AAA, was on a ship
plying her wares. AAA, together with Jovencio and Raymund, was It was three days later that a certain Eugenio Murchanto reported to
there helping his mother.7 Sometime later, Raymund and AAA left the the police authorities about a dead man found in Barangay ZZZ near
ship. Jovencio stayed a little longer.8 the Romblon National High School. When the policemen went there,
they found the cadaver emitting a foul odor, with maggots crawling all
At about 9:00 p.m. of the same day, Jovencio and another friend over, hanging from a tree with a handkerchief tied around the neck
named Michael Manasan sat beside the Rizal monument in the and a dog chain fastened to the handkerchief. Also found in the area
Poblacion of Romblon, located between the Roman Catholic Church were paraphernalia for inhaling rugby, as well as empty bottles of gin
and Lover’s Inn. Michael had just left Jovencio when Raymund, and a coconut frond.
Rodel, Bernardino and the victim AAA arrived. After meandering
around, the group proceeded to climb the stairs, atop of which was The provincial hospital refused to conduct an autopsy, since AAA’s
the reservoir just beside the Romblon National High School. The corpse was already decomposing and stank so badly. It was through
victim, AAA, ascended first; behind him were Rodel, Raymund, the intercession of the NBI that the body was eventually exhumed and
Bernardino and witness Jovencio. As soon as they reached the examined by medico-legal experts. Dr. Floresto P. Arizala, Jr., who
reservoir, Bernardino blindfolded AAA with the handkerchief of conducted the examination, opined that the victim died due to head
Raymund. Bernardino at once blurted out, "Join the rugby boys." AAA injuries and not to asphyxiation by hanging. He declared that the
replied, "That’s enough." Bernardino then struck AAA thrice with a victim was already dead when he was tied to the tree, and that the
fresh and hard coconut frond. AAA lost his balance and was made to variety of injuries sustained by the victim could be attributed to more
stand up by Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino. Raymund took his turn than one assailant.
clobbering AAA at the back of his thighs with the same coconut frond.
AAA wobbled. Before he could recover, he received punches to his Upon investigation, Jovencio narrated the incident and pointed to
head and body from Rodel, who was wearing brass knuckles. The Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino as the perpetrators of the crime.
punishments proved too much, as AAA lost consciousness. Thereafter, Jovencio executed his first affidavit, which was dated 22
April 1999. Because of the threat made on him by a certain Wilson, an
Not satisfied, Raymund placed his handkerchief around the neck of uncle of Raymund and Rodel, Jovencio executed a second affidavit
AAA, with its ends tied to a dog chain. With the contraption, the three dated 8 May 1999, repudiating his first affidavit. On 28 May 1999,
malefactors pulled the body up a tree. Jovencio made his third sworn statement substantially reverting to his
first affidavit.
Stunned at the sight of his cousin being ill-treated, Jovencio could
only muster a faint voice saying "Enough" every single-time AAA The accused, on the other hand, advanced the defense of denial and
received the painful blows. Bernardino, who seemed to suggest alibi. They claimed they had nothing to do with the death of AAA, and
finishing off the victim, remarked, "Since we’re all here, let’s get on that they were nowhere near the locus criminis when the killing
occurred.
According to Rodel, 16 years old, he was with his father Rodolfo to six months and one day of prision correccional to eight years and
Madali in the house of a friend named Noel Mindoro, located more or one day of prision mayor, but the imposition of said penalty was
less 14 kilometers from the place where the victim was slain where suspended pursuant to Republic Act No. 9344. The judgment
they spent the whole evening until the following morning. Rodel’s provides:
testimony was corroborated by his father and Noel Mindoro.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 28, 2003, rendered by the
On their part, Raymund, 14 years of age, and Bernardino declared Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Romblon (Branch 81) is Criminal
that they were in their respective houses on the night in question. Case No. 2179, is affirmed with the following MODIFICATIONS:
Raymund’s place was allegedly five kilometers away from the scene
of the crime, while Bernardino’s was one kilometer away. Bernardino’s 1) Appellant Raymund Madali is declared EXEMPT from
testimony was supported by his father Bernardino Maestro, Sr. and by criminal liability and the case, insofar as he is concerned is
his neighbor Diana Mendez. Raymund’s friend, Pastor Mario Fajiculay hereby DISMISSED pursuant to R.A. No. 9344.
backed up the former’s alibi.
2) Appellant Rodel Madali is found guilty of homicide, the
Convinced by the version of the prosecution, the RTC rendered a proper penalty for which is fixed at six (6) months and one (1)
guilty verdict against the three accused. On account of the day of prision correccional to eight (8) years and one (1) day of
prosecution’s failure to prove the qualifying circumstances of prision mayor. Imposition of this penalty should, however, be
treachery and evident premeditation, they were only convicted of SUSPENDED, also pursuant to R.A. No. 9344.
homicide. The RTC observed that the incident was a sort of initiation,
in which the victim voluntarily went along with the perpetrators, not 3) In addition to the civil indemnity imposed by the trial court in
totally unaware that he would be beaten. The RTC also appreciated the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00), moral
the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority in favor of the three damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00)
accused. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads: is hereby awarded in favor of the heirs of the victim, AAA.

WHEREFORE, finding the accused BERNARDO (sic) Jojo 4) x x x x

MAESTRO, JR., RODEL MADALI AND RAYMUND MADALI GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, they are hereby 5) Finally, this case is referred to the Department of Social
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years, two Welfare and Development (DWSD) for further proceedings in
(2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years and to indemnify the heirs accordance with R.A. No. 9344.10
of AAA jointly and severally the amount of PhP 50,000.00.9
Hence, the instant case.
On 6 August 2003, Bernardino applied for probation. Thus, only
Raymund and Rodel elevated their convictions to the Court of Petitioners Raymund and Rodel assail both the RTC and the Court of
Appeals. Appeals’ findings, which gave weight and credence to the account of
the incident given by prosecution witness Jovencio, whose testimony
In a Decision dated 29 August 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the according to them was replete with patent and substantial
findings of the RTC that Rodel and Raymund killed the victim. inconsistencies. First, petitioners set their sights on the conflicting
However, pursuant to Section 64 of Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise affidavits executed by Jovencio. The first affidavit implicated the three
known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006," which accused in the death of AAA, which was controverted by the second
exempts from criminal liability a minor fifteen (15) years or below at affidavit where Jovencio denied having seen the three accused
the time of the commission of the offense, Raymund’s case was butcher the victim, while the third affidavit restated the material points
dismissed. Rodel’s conviction was sustained, and he was sentenced
in the first affidavit. Petitioners also pointed out the discrepancy Q: Mr. Witness, will you tell us where were you on April 13,
between the first and the third affidavits, as the former stated that 1999?
Jovencio was not seen by the three accused when they executed the
victim; whereas in the latter affidavit, Jovencio stated he was with the xxxx
three when the killing took place. Second, petitioners assert that the
testimony of Jovencio relating to the alleged fact that his companions, A: I was at the Rizal standing by.
Michael Manasan and Emerson de Asis, saw the three accused and
the deceased during the night in question was debunked by the very xxxx
testimonies of Michael Manasan and Emerson de Asis wherein they
declared otherwise. PROS. BENEDICTO continuing:
Moreover, petitioners contend that both the RTC and the Court of Q: While you were at Rizal on April 13, 1999 in the evening,
Appeals erred in disbelieving the defense of alibi they interposed, [who was your companion]?
considering that the prosecution failed to muster the required quantum
of proof, and that said defense was corroborated by testimonies of the
A: Only Michael.
other defense witnesses.
Q: And what were you doing with Michael?
The elemental question in this case is the credibility of the parties and
their witnesses.
A: Only standing by there.
Well-entrenched is the rule that the matter of assigning values to
declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently Q: Did anything happen while you were standing by with
performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can Michael?
weigh such testimonies in light of the declarant’s demeanor, conduct
and position to discriminate between truth and falsehood.11 This is A: None, sir.
especially true when the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by
the appellate court, because said findings are generally conclusive Q: Did anyone arrive while you were there?
and binding upon this Court, unless it be manifestly shown that the
lower courts had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and A: Yes, sir.
circumstances of significance in the case.12
Q: Who?
The RTC and the Court of Appeals did not overlook any significant
facts in the case. A: Jojo [Bernardino] followed by Raymund then AAA, then
Rodel.
This Court itself, in its effort to ferret out the truth based on the
evidence on records has diligently pored over the transcripts of Q: And what happened when they arrived?
stenographic notes of this case and, like the RTC, finds the testimony
of Jovencio credible. Subjected to the grueling examinations on the A: They were also standing by there.
witness stand, Jovencio steadfastly pointed to Raymund, Rodel and
Bernardino as the persons who slaughtered the victim. He testified as Q: How long did they stand by in that place?
follows:
A: I do not know how many hours? A: Raymund.

Q: Then, what happened next? Q: Then?

A: Around 10:30 o’clock we went there. A: [Bernardino].

Q: When you said we, to whom you are referring as your Q: [Bernardino] who?
companions?
A: Maestro.
A: Jojo [Bernardino], Rodel, Raymund and AAA.
Q: What is the relation of this Jojo Maestro to Bernardino
Q: What happened to Michael? Maestro you pointed a while ago?

A: He went home. A: That Jojo is his alias.

Q: When you said you went there, to which place are you Q: Did you reach the top of the stairs?
referring?
A: Yes, sir.
A: Near the high school at hagdan-hagdan.
Q: Upon reaching the top of the stairs, what did you do, if any?
Q: There are three (3) main streets in the Poblacion of
Romblon, which street did you take in going to hagdan-hagdan A: [Bernardino] blindfolded AAA.
near the high school?
Q: With what?
A: In the middle.
A: Handkerchief.
Q: Did you climb the stairs?
Q: Where did he get that handkerchief?
A: Yes, sir.
A: From Raymund.
Q: Who was ahead?
Q: After AAA, what is the family name of this AAA?
A: AAA.
A: AAA.
Q: And who came next?
Q: After AAA was blindfolded, what happened next?
A: Rodel.
A: Then [Bernardino] told him "Join the rugby boys!"
Q: Then, after Rodel, who?
Q: Did AAA make any reply?
A: AAA said "That’s enough." A: Of Rodel.

Q: What happened after Jojo Maestro said you join the rugby Q: Who was boxed by Rodel?
boys?
A: AAA.
A: AAA was struck by a coconut frond three (3) times.
Q: In Exhibit C you mentioned about llave inglesa, what is this
Q: Who struck him with the coconut frond? llave inglesa?

A: [Bernardino]. A: Lead llave inglesa.

Q: What happened to AAA when he was struck three (3) times Q: And how does it look like?
with the coconut fronds?
A: I forgot already but it was a brass knuckle.
A: He was made to stand.
Q: Did Exh. C mention that Rodel punched him in different
Q: After standing, what happened next? parts of his body with a llave inglesa causing him to fall to the
ground, how did Rodel use this llave inglesa?
A: AAA was again struck with the coconut frond byRaymund.
A: Worn in his hand (witness raising his right hand and
Q: Was AAA hit? motioning the left as if wearing something in his right hand),
then punched him.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When he was punched on different parts of his body by
Q: Where? Rodel using llave inglesa, what happened to AAA?

A: Here (witness is pointing to the posterior aspect of his right A: He lost consciousness.
thigh).
Q: When AAA lost consciousness, what did Bernardino
Q: What happened to AAA when he was hit by the coconut Maestro, Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali do, if any?
frond?
A: Raymund used his handkerchief in tying the neck of my
A: As if he became weak. cousin.

Q: How about Rodel, what did Rodel do, if any? Q: Who is this cousin of yours?

A: He boxed the body and the head. A: AAA.

Q: Of whom? Q: What is the family name?

A: AAA. A: Twice.

COURT: Q: How did the three (3) react to your saying "Tama na, tama
na!"?
How about Bernardino as part of the question?
A: "It is already here so we will proceed."
PROS. BENEDICTO continuing:
COURT:
Q: Bernardino, what did he do, if any?
Translate that.
A: The chain for the dog was tied to the handkerchief.
A: "Yari na ini, idiretso na."
COURT:
xxxx
How about Rodel?
Q: After tying the dog chain to the tree, what happened next?
A: They helped in lifting him and making him stand and
hooked the tie to the tree. A: I was told by the three (3) that if I would reveal I would be
the next to be killed.
Q: What is this tie which was hooked to the tree made of?
Q: After that, what happened?
A: The chain.
A: No more, we went home already.13
Q: Referring to the dog chain?
Jovencio saw at close range the incident as it was unfolding before
A: Yes, sir. his very eyes as he was there when it happened. He was in the
company of the perpetrators and the victim. Thus, the incident could
Q: While all these things were happening, what was Jovencio not have escaped his attention. The prosecution adequately
Musa doing who is a cousin of AAA? established in graphic detail, through the eyewitness, the
circumstances that transpired before, during and after the killing of
A: I got shock upon seeing it. AAA. At around 11:30 p.m. of 13 April 1999, Jovencio, together with
the victim, as well as with Rodel, Raymund and Bernardino, went to a
Q: Did Jovencio Musa utter anything or do something? place near the Romblon National High School. Jovencio’s earlier
companion, Michael Manasan, did not go with the group, as he had
already left a little earlier. As they reached their destination, the group
A: Everytime AAA was being struck I said "Enough!"
ascended the stairs leading to a reservoir near the said school. AAA
was ahead, followed by Rodel, Raymund, Bernardino and Jovencio.
(Tama na!). Upon reaching the top, Bernardino blindfolded the victim with a
handkerchief and told the latter, "Join the rugby boys!" The victim
Q: How many times did you say that is enough? responded, "That’s enough!" Bernardino then hit the victim thrice,
using a green and hard coconut frond. Unable to withstand the
beatings, the victim hit the ground and was lifted to his feet by Furthermore, for alibi to prosper, two elements must concur: (a) the
Bernardino, Raymund and Rodel. With the same coconut frond, accused was in another place at the time the crime was committed;
Raymund hit the victim on his right thigh. Rodel followed by punching and (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the
the body and the head of the victim with a brass knuckle (llave crime at the time it was committed. In the case under consideration,
inglesa) wrapped around the former’s right fist. Feeling for his cousin, Raymund was within a 5-kilometer distance from the scene, while
Jovencio shouted "Tama na! Tama na!" Bernardino responded, "Yari Rodel was within a 14-kilometer distance. Even assuming arguendo
na ini, ideretso na," (We have come this far, we have to finish it.) The that Raymund and Rodel’s defense were true, still, it was not
victim’s strength was no match to the injuries he received. He passed physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene and to be
out. Raymund then tied a handkerchief around the victim’s neck, participants in the gruesome crime. It was not difficult for them to
fastened a dog chain to the ends of the said handkerchief and, with travel from where they allegedly were and arrive at the scene during
the aid of Raymund and Rodel, hoisted the victim’s body to and the killing episode.
hanged it from a nearby tree. Shocked at what was happening,
Jovencio just watched the whole incident, failing to muster enough Petitioners made an issue of the affidavit of recantation repudiating
courage to help his dying cousin. the earlier one laying the blame on them. The affidavit of recantation
executed by a witness prior to the trial cannot prevail over the
The perpetrators warned Jovencio not to divulge to anyone what he testimony made during the trial.17 Jovencio effectively repudiated the
saw, or he would be the next victim. Then they all left the place, contents of the affidavit of recantation. The recantation would hardly
leaving the victim’s body hanging from a tree. suffice to overturn the trial court’s finding of guilt, which was based on
a clear and convincing testimony given during a full-blown trial. As
The testimony of Jovencio was substantiated by the medical findings held by this Court, an affidavit of recantation, being usually taken ex
indicating that the victim was hit in the head by hard blows, causing parte, would be considered inferior to the testimony given in open
his death. Other pieces of evidence such as the coconut frond, the court.18 A recantation is exceedingly unreliable, inasmuch as it is
dog chain and the handkerchief found in the scene also supported easily secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through
Jovencio’s account. intimidation or for monetary consideration.19 Considering the age, the
social standing and the economic status of witness Jovencio, it is not
Against the damning evidence adduced by the prosecution, far-fetched that the combination of these factors impelled him to affix
petitioners Raymund and Rodel could only muster mere denial. his signature to the recanting affidavit. Besides, Jovencio explained
Unfortunately for them, their defense was much too flaccid to stay firm why he executed the second affidavit or the affidavit of recantation,
against the weighty evidence for the prosecution. Denial, if which supposedly exonerated petitioners. He had been threatened by
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and a certain Wilson, who was a relative of petitioners. Jovencio testified:
self-serving evidence that deserves no weight in law. It cannot be
given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible Q: Alright, in Exh. C specifically C-1, you mentioned that, you
witness who testifies on affirmative matters.14 Between the self- said that somebody fetched me in the evening of May 7, 1999
serving testimonies of petitioners and the positive identification by the who told me that Rey Andrade wanted to talk to me regarding
eyewitness, the latter deserves greater credence.15 the incident, who was that somebody who fetched you in the
house?
Petitioners’ alibi, which was supported by the testimonies of close
relatives and friends, cannot overcome the convincing evidence A: I do not know but he is known as Andrade.
adduced by the prosecution. Such corroborative testimonies of
relatives and friends are viewed with suspicion and skepticism by the xxxx
Court.16
Q: What was the subject of your conversation with Andrade?
 A: About the Nephew of Wilson. Appeals correctly pointed out, Michael could not have seen the
malefactors in the company of the victim because according to
xxxx Jovencio, Michael had gone home earlier that evening.

Q: How about this Wilson you were referring to? In fine, this Court defers to the findings of the trial court, which were
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, there being no cogent reason to
A: Wilson all of a sudden arrived there. veer away from such findings.

Q: Did Wilson say anything? As to the criminal liability, Raymond is exempt. As correctly ruled by
the Court of Appeals, Raymund, who was only 14 years of age at the
A: Wilson said, if we will lose, all our expenses will be paid and time he committed the crime, should be exempt from criminal liability
if he wins I will be the next.20 and should be released to the custody of his parents or guardian
pursuant to Sections 6 and 20 of Republic Act No. 9344, to wit:
Petitioners also place much premium on the alleged contradiction
between Jovencio’s narrative -- which claimed that Emerson de Asis SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child fifteen
and Michael Manasan saw the victim in the company of the (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the
malefactors immediately prior to the killing -- and the testimonies of offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall
these two witnesses denying such allegation. be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this
Act.
Unfortunately, this is just a minor inconsistency. The common
narration of Emerson de Asis and Michael Manasan that they did not xxxx
see the perpetrators with the victim prior to the killing are too
insignificant, since their narration did not directly relate to the act of The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not
killing itself. Said inconsistency does not dilute the declarations of include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
Jovencio. Given the natural frailties of the human mind and its accordance with existing laws.
incapacity to assimilate all material details of a given incident, slight
inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a witness hardly SEC. 20. Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility. — If it
weaken their probative value. It is well settled that immaterial and has been determined that the child taken into custody is fifteen (15)
insignificant details do not discredit a testimony on the very material years old or below, the authority which will have an initial contact with
and significant point bearing on the very act of accused- the child has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody
appellants.21 As long as the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate of his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the child's
one another on material points, minor inconsistencies therein cannot nearest relative. Said authority shall give notice to the local social
destroy their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details do not welfare and development officer who will determine the appropriate
undermine the integrity of a prosecution witness.22 The minor programs in consultation with the child and to the person having
inconsistencies and contradictions only serve to attest to the custody over the child. If the parents, guardians or nearest relatives
truthfulness of the witnesses and the fact that they had not been cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be
coached or rehearsed.23 released to any of the following: a duly registered nongovernmental or
religious organization; a barangay official or a member of the
The declaration of Michael Manasan -- that he did not see the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC); a local social
petitioners together with Jovencio and the victim immediately prior the welfare and development officer; or, when and where appropriate, the
incident -- does not help a bit the cause of petitioners. As the Court of DSWD. If the child referred to herein has been found by the Local
Social Welfare and Development Office to be abandoned, neglected
or abused by his parents, or in the event that the parents will not The Court of Appeals could not have been more accurate when it
comply with the prevention program, the proper petition for involuntary opined that Rodel acted with discernment. Rodel, together with his
commitment shall be filed by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare cohorts, warned Jovencio not to reveal their hideous act to anyone;
and Development Office pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise, they would kill him. Rodel knew, therefore, that killing AAA
otherwise known as "The Child and Youth Welfare Code." was a condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy. He fully
appreciated the consequences of his unlawful act.
Although the crime was committed on 13 April 1999 and Republic Act
No. 9344 took effect only on 20 May 2006, the said law should be Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty to be
given retroactive effect in favor of Raymund who was not shown to be imposed upon a person under 18 but above 15 shall be the penalty
a habitual criminal. This is based on Article 22 of the Revised Penal next lower than that prescribed by law, but always in the proper
Code which provides: period.

Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal laws shall have a The penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, is reclusion temporal. Pursuant to Article 68, the maximum penalty
who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of should be within prision mayor, which is a degree lower than reclusion
Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such temporal. Absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the
laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving maximum penalty should be in the medium period of prision mayor or
the same. 8 years and 1 day to 10 years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the minimum should be anywhere within the penalty next lower
While Raymund is exempt from criminal liability, his civil liability is not in degree, that is, prision correccional. Therefore, the penalty imposed
extinguished pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 6, Republic by the Court of Appeals, which is 6 months and one day of prision
Act No. 9344. correccional to 8 years and one day of prision mayor, is in order.
However, the sentence to be imposed against Rodel should be
As to Rodel’s situation, it must be borne in mind that he was 16 years suspended pursuant to Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344, which
old at the time of the commission of the crime. A determination of states:
whether he acted with or without discernment is necessary pursuant
to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344, viz: SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. – Once the child who is
under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. – x x x. offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall
determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the
shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with
intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in the law under suspended sentence, without need of application.
which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied
proceedings in accordance with this Act. even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at
the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the
consequences of his unlawful act.24 Such capacity may be known and Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various
should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate
circumstances afforded by the records in each case. disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on
Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
The Court of Appeals awarded ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity and
another ₱50,000.00 as moral damages in favor of the heirs of the
victim. In addition, Rodel and Raymund are ordered to pay
₱25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the actual damages for
funeral expenses, which the prosecution claimed to have incurred but
failed to support by receipts.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of

Appeals dated 29 August 2007 in CA-G.R. No. 27757, exempting
Raymund Madali from criminal liability is hereby AFFIRMED. With
respect to Rodel Madali, being a child in conflict with the law, this
Court suspends the pronouncement of his sentence and REMANDS
his case to the court a quo for further proceedings in accordance with
Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344. However, with respect to the
civil liabilities, Rodel Madali and Raymund Madali are solidarily liable
to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of ₱50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱25,000.00 as
temperate damages.

SO ORDERED.
 SECOND DIVISION informant. Said unnamed informant was introduced to him by former
Narcom P/Senior Inspector Recomono. The information was that a big
[G.R. NO. 162052 : January 13, 2005] time group of drug pushers from Greenhills will deliver 100 grams
of shabu at Chowking Restaurant located at Brgy. Real, Calamba,
ALVIN JOSE, Petitioner, v.PEOPLE OF THE Laguna.
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
Acting on such report, SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra was assigned to act
DECISION as the poseur-buyer. SPO2 William Manglo and SPO2 Wilfredo Luna
were the other members of the team. SPO1 Guevarra was provided
CALLEJO, SR., J.: with marked money consisting of a P1,000.00 bill on top of a bundle of
make-believe "money bills" supposedly amounting to P100,000.00.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court P/Supt. Joseph R. Castro, SPO2 William Manglo and Wilfredo Luna
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 22289 affirming with modification went to the place on a Mitsubishi Lancer while SPO1 Guevarra and
the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch the informant boarded an L-300 van. They arrived at the Chowking
36, convicting the accused therein of violation of Section 21(b), Article Restaurant at about 11:00 in the morning. They positioned their cars
IV in relation to Section 29, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as at the parking area where they had a commanding view of people
amended. going in and out (TSN, October 3, 1996, pp. 2-8 and TSN, July 11,
1996, pp. 4-7).
The records show that Alvin Jose and Sonny Zarraga were charged
with the said crime in an Information, the accusatory portion of which It was about 4 o'clock in the afternoon when a Toyota Corolla with
reads: Plate No. UBV-389 arrived. Sonny Zarraga was the driver with Alvin
Jose. The unnamed informant approached and talked to Sonny
Zarraga. Then, the informant called SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra and
That on or about November 14, 1995, in the municipality of Calamba,
informed the latter that Sonny Zarraga had with him 100 grams
Province of Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
of shabu. SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra offered to buy the shabu. Sonny
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
Zarraga asked SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra if he had the money to buy
mutually helping one another, not being licensed or authorized by law,
100 grams of shabu. Guevarra responded in the affirmative. He
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver
showed the aforecited bundle of "money bills." Sonny Zarraga then
to other person METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (or shabu)
asked Alvin Jose to bring out the shabu and handover (sic) to
weighing 98.40 grams, a regulated drug, and in violation of the
Bonifacio Guevarra. SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra, in turn, handed the
aforestated law.
bundle of "money bills."
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
Guevarra scratched his head, the pre-arranged signal to signify that
the transaction was consummated (TSN, July 30, 1996, pp. 3-8).
The accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge. Immediately thereafter, William Manglo and Wilfredo Luna
approached and introduced themselves as Narcom Operatives. They
As culled by the trial court, the evidence of the prosecution arrested Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose. The buy-bust bundle of
established the following: "money bills" and the shabu were recovered. The two were brought to
Camp Vicente Lim for investigation. Edgar Groyon conducted the
'[O]n November 14, 1995, P/Supt. Joseph R. Castro of the Fourth investigation. The shabu was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory
Regional Narcotics Unit received an information from an unnamed for examination (TSN, July 30, 1996, pp. 9-10 and TSN, October 3,
1996, pp. 9-13). P/Senior Inspector Mary Jean Geronimo examined The defense claimed that SPO3 Noel Seno got Sonny Zarraga's
the shabu. She reported and testified that the specimen, indeed, was jewelry, P85,000.00 in cash and Sonny Zarraga's car spare tire, jack
a second or low grade methamphetamine hydrochloride (TSN, July and accessories. Noel Seno was even able to withdraw the P2,000.00
30, 1996, pp. 31-36).4 using Sonny Zarraga's ATM card.5

On the other hand, the accused therein were able to establish the On June 10, 1998, the trial court rendered judgment convicting both
following facts: accused of the crime charged and sentencing each of them to an
indeterminate penalty. The fallo of the decision reads:
Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose claimed that, on November 13, 1995,
they were at SM Mega Mall (sic), Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, to WHEREFORE, this Court finds both the accused Sonny Zarraga and
change money. Suddenly, a person with a hand bag appeared and Alvin Jose guilty beyond reasonable doubt, for violation of R.A. 6425,
ordered them to handcuff themselves. They were later able to identify as amended, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
three of these people as Police Supt. Joseph Roxas Castro, SPO3 imprisonment of, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, six
Noel Seno and a certain Corpuz. They were all in civilian clothes. (6) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years.

They proceeded to where Sonny Zarraga's car was parked. Sonny Both accused are hereby ordered to pay the fine of P2 million each
Zarraga was forced to board another car while another person drove and to pay the cost of suit.
Sonny Zarraga's car with Alvin Jose as passenger. They drove
towards Greenhills. They were eventually blindfolded. On the way to In the service of sentence, the preventive imprisonment undergone
Greenhills, one of the men opened the gloves compartment of Sonny both by the accused shall be credited in their favor.
Zarraga's car. One of the men saw a substance inside the said
compartment. He tasted it. Said person asked Sonny Zarraga if he Atty. Christopher R. Serrano, Branch Clerk of Court, is hereby ordered
could come up with P1.5 Million peso (sic). Col. Castro even showed to deliver and surrender the confiscated Methamphetamine
the picture of Sonny Zarraga's mother-in-law who was supposed to be Hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board.
a rich drug pusher.
SO ORDERED.6
They ended up inside a room with a lavatory. While inside the said
room, Sonny Zarraga's cellular phone rung. It was a call from Sonny On appeal to the CA, the accused-appellants averred that the trial
Zarraga's wife. Col. Castro talked to Pinky Zarraga and asked her if court erred as follows:
she could pay P1.5 Million as ransom for the release of Sonny
Zarraga. Sonny Zarraga instead offered to withdraw money from the I
bank in the amount of P75,000.00. The agreement was that in the
bank, Pinky Zarraga would withdraw the money and deliver it to Col.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL
Castro in exchange for Sonny Zarraga's release. The agreement did
CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE
not materialize. Col. Castro and Pinky Zarraga met inside the bank
PROSECUTION.
but Pinky Zarraga refused to withdraw the money as Sonny Zarraga
was nowhere to be seen. There was a commotion inside the bank
which prompted the bank manager to call the police. II

Col. Castro left the bank in a hurry, passed by for Alvin Jose who was THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING
left at the room and brought them to Camp Vicente Lim. There, they THAT THE MERE PRESENTATION OF THE SHABU IN COURT IS
were investigated.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ NOT SUFFICIENT TO FIND, WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, THAT
THE APPELLANTS COMMITTED THE CRIME OF SELLING PURSUANT TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED
PROHIBITED DRUGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE PENAL CODE AND THE ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE.8
DRUG WAS NOT PARTICULARLY SET OUT IN THE TESTIMONY
OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES. The petitioner asserts that, under paragraph 3, Article 12 of the
Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine (9) and under fifteen (15)
III years of age at the time of the commission of the crime is exempt
from criminal liability unless he acted with discernment, in which case
EVEN GRANTING THAT THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY FOUND he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Article 192 of
THE APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED AGAINST Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 603, as amended by P.D. No. 1179, as
THEM: provided for in Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code. He avers that
the prosecution was burdened to allege in the Information and prove
(a) THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT IMPOSE THE PROPER PENALTY beyond reasonable doubt that he acted with discernment, but that the
AGAINST THEM. prosecution failed to do so. The petitioner insists that the court is
mandated to make a finding that he acted with discernment under
(b) EACH OF THE APPELLANTS CANNOT BE MADE TO PAY A paragraph 1, Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code and since the CA
FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF P2 MILLION PESOS (SIC) AND THE made no such finding, he is entitled to an acquittal.
COST OF THE SUIT.7
For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserts that the
The CA rendered judgment affirming the decision appealed from with allegation in the Information that the petitioner and his co-accused
modification. The appellate court reduced the penalty imposed on conspired and confederated to sell the shabusubject of the
appellant Alvin Jose, on its finding that he was only thirteen (13) years Information sufficiently avers that the petitioner acted with
old when he committed the crime; hence, he was entitled to the discernment; hence, there was no need for the public prosecutor to
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and to a reduction of the allege specifically in the Information that the petitioner so acted. It
penalty by two degrees. The appellant filed a motion for contends that it is not necessary for the trial and appellate courts to
reconsideration, alleging that since the Information failed to allege that make an express finding that the petitioner acted with discernment. It
he acted with discernment when the crime was committed and that is enough that the very acts of the petitioner show that he acted
the prosecution failed to prove the same, he should be acquitted. The knowingly and was sufficiently possessed with judgment to know that
appellate court denied the motion. the acts he committed were wrong.

Appellant Jose, now the petitioner, filed his Petition for Review The petition is meritorious.
on Certiorari, alleging that -
Under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT years of age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability if
ACQUITTING PETITIONER DESPITE (1) THE FAILURE OF THE charged with a felony. The law applies even if such minor is charged
PROSECUTION TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT with a crime defined and penalized by a special penal law. In such
PETITIONER, WHO WAS ONLY 13 YEARS OLD WHEN THE CRIME case, it is the burden of the minor to prove his age in order for him to
WAS ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY HIM IN CONSPIRACY WITH be exempt from criminal liability. The reason for the exemption is that
CO-ACCUSED SONNY ZARRAGA, ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT, a minor of such age is presumed lacking the mental element of a
AND (2) THE ABSENCE OF A DECLARATION BY THE TRIAL crime - the capacity to know what is wrong as distinguished from what
COURT THAT PETITIONER SO ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT, is right or to determine the morality of human acts; wrong in the sense
in which the term is used in moral wrong.9However, such presumption
is rebuttable.10 For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable, the
prosecution is burdened11 to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by direct Q Now, tell us when you said they reply (sic) in the affirmative
or circumstantial evidence, that he acted with discernment, meaning specifically'. I withdraw that.
that he knew what he was doing and that it was wrong.12 Such
circumstantial evidence may include the utterances of the minor; his Q When you said they asked you whether you can afford to buy 100
overt acts before, during and after the commission of the crime grams tell us who asked you that question?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
relative thereto; the nature of the weapon used in the commission of
the crime; his attempt to silence a witness; his disposal of evidence or A Sonny Zarraga, Sir.
his hiding the corpus delicti.
Q And after you answer (sic) in the affirmative, what was his
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond response?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
reasonable doubt that the petitioner, who was thirteen (13) years of
age when the crime charged was committed, acted with discernment A He let his companion to (sic) bring out the shabu, Sir.
relative to the sale of shabu to the poseur-buyer. The only evidence of
the prosecution against the petitioner is that he was in a car with his Q Did his companion bring out the shabu?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
cousin, co-accused Sonny Zarraga, when the latter inquired from the
poseur-buyer, SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra, if he could afford to
A Yes, Sir.
buy shabu. SPO1 Guevarra replied in the affirmative, after which the
accused Zarraga called the petitioner to bring out and hand over
the shabu wrapped in plastic and white soft paper. The petitioner Q What happened to the shabu?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
handed over the plastic containing the shabu to accused Zarraga,
who handed the same to the poseur-buyer: A Alvin Jose handed the shabu to his companion Sonny Zarraga.

Q Whom did you approach to buy the shabu? Q After that, what did Sonny Zarraga do with the shabu?
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A The two of them, Sir. A He handed it to me, Sir.

Q While the two of them was (sic) sitting inside the car, what did you Q After this shabu was handed to you, what happened next?
tell them?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A They asked me if I can afford to buy the 100 grams, Sir. A After examining the shabu, I put it in my pocket and then I handed
to him the money, Sir.
Q And what was your response?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q When you say money, which money are you referring to?
A I answer in (sic)affirmative, Sir. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Q And what happened next?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary A The P1,000.00 bill with the bundle of boodle money, Sir.

A After that I showed my money, Sir. Q Now, after you handed the money to the accused, what happened
next?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A I made signs to my companions, Sir. Q Who made the request for its examination?
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q What signs did you give?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A SPO3 Edgar Groyon, Sir.
A I acted upon our agreement by scratching my head, Sir.
Q Earlier, you said that the shabu was handed to you. What did you
Q And how did your companions respond to your signal? do with the shabu?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A While we were at the area, I handed it to SPO1 William Manglo, Sir.
A After scratching my head, my companions approached us and
arrested them. Q Tell us, when this shabuwas handed to you by the accused, in what
container was it contained?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q Now, tell us, do you know, in particular, who arrested Sonny
Zarraga?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary A When it was handed to me by Sonny Zarraga it was wrapped in a
plastic and white soft paper, Sir.14
A Yes, Sir.
It was accused Zarraga who drove the car and transacted with the
Q Tell us. poseur-buyer relative to the sale of shabu. It was also accused
Zarraga who received the buy-money from the poseur-buyer. Aside
A SPO1 William Manglo and PO3 Wilfredo Luna, Sir. from bringing out and handing over the plastic bag to accused
Zarraga, the petitioner merely sat inside the car and had no other
Q Can you describe to us the manner by which Sonny Zarraga was participation whatsoever in the transaction between the accused
arrested by these police officers?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary Zarraga and the poseur-buyer. There is no evidence that the
petitioner knew what was inside the plastic and soft white paper
A Yes, Sir. before and at the time he handed over the same to his cousin. Indeed,
the poseur-buyer did not bother to ask the petitioner his age because
he knew that pushers used young boys in their transactions for illegal
Q Please tell us.
drugs. We quote the testimony of the poseur-buyer:
A They introduced themselves as NARCOM operatives, Sir.
ATTY. VERANO:
Q And after that, what happened?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q Did you try to find out if they were friends of your informant?
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A They recovered the money from Sonny Zarraga, Sir.13
A No, Sir.
Q What happened to the shabu which was handed to you by the
accused?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q Did you find out also the age of this Mr. Alvin Yamson?
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A It was brought by our office to the crime laboratory, Sir.
A I don't know the exact age, what I know is that he is a minor, Sir.
Q Eventually, you find (sic) out how old he is (sic)? COURT:
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Please proceed.
A I don't know, Sir.
FISCAL:
Q Mr. Guevarra, may I remind you that, in your affidavit, you stated
the age of the boy?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary Q Mr. Witness, you started your narration that it started on November
13, 1995 and did I hear it right that you went to Manuela at 5 o'clock in
A I cannot recall anymore, Sir. the afternoon?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Q Were you not surprised from just looking at the boy at his age, were WITNESS:
you not surprised that a young boy like that would be in a group
selling drugs?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary A Yes, Sir.

FISCAL: Q Now, when you went to Manuela, you came from Filinvest, Quezon
City? You left Filinvest, Quezon City, at 12 o'clock?
It calls for an opinion, Your Honor. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

ATTY. VERANO: A No, Sir.

May I ask, Your Honor, if he did not further interrogate why or how this Q What time did you leave?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
very young boy (sic)selling 100 grams of shabu.
A After lunch, Sir.
COURT:
Q Now, on the second day which you claimed that you were in the
The witness may answer. custody of the police, you said that at one occasion on that day, you
have (sic) a chance to be with your cousin in a [L]ancer car and it was
WITNESS: inside that [L]ancer car when your cousin saw his own cellular phone
on one of the seats of the car, is that correct?
A No more, Sir, because I know that young boys are being used by chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
pushers.15
A Yes, Sir.
Even on cross-examination, the public prosecutor failed to elicit from
the petitioner facts and circumstances showing his capacity to discern Q Did your cousin tell you that that was his first opportunity to make a
right from wrong. We quote the questions of the public prosecutor on call to anybody since the day that you were arrested?
cross-examination and the petitioner's answers thereto: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

FISCAL: A He did not say anything, he just get (sic)the cellular

phone.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
Cross, Your Honor. May I proceed.
Q Did you come to know the reason how that cellular phone appeared Q And this group were the policemen who are the companions of the
inside that [L]ancer car?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary male person who arrested you?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A No, Sir. A Yes, Sir.

Q Now, going back to the first day of your arrest. You said that you Q Do you know the reason why they were there at that time?
were accosted by a male person at the workshop and then you went chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
out of Megamall and when you went outside, this man saw the key of
the car dangling at the waist. At whose waist? A No, Sir.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q These people do not know your car?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A From my cousin.
A No, Sir.
Q And at that time, that person did not have any knowledge where
your car was?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary FISCAL:

A No, Sir. No further question, Your Honor.

Q And your cousin told him that your car was parked at the third level ATTY. VERANO:
parking area of SM Megamall, is that correct?
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary No re-direct, Your Honor.

A Yes, Sir. COURT:

Q And at that time, that man did not make any radio call to anybody? Q Mr. Witness, earlier you stated that you are not a drug user nor
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary have you seen any shabu. In support of your claim, are you willing to
submit yourself to an examination?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A No, Sir.
WITNESS:
Q Until the time that you reached the third level parking of Megamall,
he had not made any call?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary A Yes, Your Honor.

A No, Sir. Q Are you willing to submit a sample of your urine to this Court?
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q And yet when you reach (sic) the third level parking of the
Megamall, you claimed that there was already this group which met A Yes, Sir.
you?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
COURT:
A Yes, Sir.
The witness is discharged.16
The claim of the OSG that the prosecution was able to prove that the
petitioner conspired with his co-accused to sell shabu to the poseur-
buyer, and thereby proved the capacity of the petitioner to discern
right from wrong, is untenable. Conspiracy is defined as an agreement
between two or more persons to commit a crime and decide to
commit it. Conspiracy presupposes capacity of the parties to such
conspiracy to discern what is right from what is wrong. Since the
prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner acted with discernment,
it cannot thereby be concluded that he conspired with his co-accused.
Indeed, in People v. Estepano, 17 we held that:

Clearly, the prosecution did not endeavor to establish Rene's mental

capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.
Moreover, its cross-examination of Rene did not, in any way, attempt
to show his discernment. He was merely asked about what he knew
of the incident that transpired on 16 April 1991 and whether he
participated therein. Accordingly, even if he was, indeed, a co-
conspirator, he would still be exempt from criminal liability as the
prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of non-discernment on his
part by virtue of his age. The cross-examination of Rene could have
provided the prosecution a good occasion to extract from him positive
indicators of his capacity to discern. But, in this regard, the
government miserably squandered the opportunity to incriminate
him.18 ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 22289 which
affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna,
Branch 36, is SET ASIDE. The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime
charged for insufficiency of evidence.19

No costs.

SO ORDERED.
 FIRST DIVISION Domingo eked out a living as a jeepney driver, while Marilou sold
quail eggs at a nearby church.8 Adjacent to their house was that of
G.R. No. 166040               April 26, 2006 Teofisto Bucud, a barbecue vendor who would usually start selling at
6:30 p.m.9 Next to Teofisto’s residence was a vacant house.10
NIEL F. LLAVE, Petitioner, 
vs. Debbielyn testified that on September 24, 2002, she arrived home at
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. past 6:00 p.m. She changed her clothes and proceeded to her
mother’s store. Marilou asked her daughter to bring home the
DECISION container with the unsold quail eggs.11 Debbielyn did as told and went
on her way. As she neared the vacant house, she saw petitioner, who
CALLEJO, SR., J.: suddenly pulled her behind a pile of hollow blocks which was in front
of the vacant house. There was a little light from the lamp post.12 She
Before the Court is a Petition for Review of the Decision1 of the Court resisted to no avail.13 Petitioner ordered her to lie down on the
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 26962 affirming, with cement. Petrified, she complied. He removed her shorts and
modification, the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay underwear then removed his own. He got on top of her.14 She felt his
City, Branch 109, in Criminal Case No. 02-1779 convicting Petitioner penis being inserted into her vagina. He kissed her.15 She felt pain
Neil F. Llave of rape. and cried.16 She was sure there were passersby on the street near the
vacant house at the time.
On September 27, 2002, an Information charging petitioner (then only
12 years old) with rape was filed with the RTC of Pasay City. The It was then that Teofisto came out of their house and heard the girl’s
inculpatory portion of the Information reads: cries. He rushed to the place and saw petitioner on top of Debbielyn,
naked from the waist down. Teofisto shouted at petitioner, and the
latter fled from the scene. Teofisto told Debbielyn to inform her
That on or about the 24th day of September 2002, in Pasay City,
parents about what happened.17 She told her father about the
Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
incident.18 Her parents later reported what happened to the police
Court, the above-named accused, NEIL LLAVE Y FLORES, aka NIEL
authorities.19 Debbielyn told the police that petitioner was a bad boy
F. LLAVE, a minor over nine (9) years of age and under fifteen (15)
because he was a rapist.20
but acting with discernment, by means of force threat and intimidation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously have carnal
knowledge of the complainant, DEBBIELYN SANTOS y QUITALES, a Teofisto testified that at about 6:25 p.m. on September 24, 2002, he
minor, seven (7) years of age, against her will and consent. went out of their house to get his barbecue grill. He heard someone
moaning from within the adjacent vacant house.21 He rushed to the
place and saw petitioner, naked from waist down, on top of Debbielyn,
Contrary to law.3
making pumping motions on her anus.22 The girl was crying. He
shouted at petitioner, "Hoy, bakit ginawa mo ’yan?"23 Petitioner
The Case for the Prosecution hurriedly put his shorts on and fled.24 Neighbors who had heard
Teofisto shouting arrived.25 Later, Teofisto gave a written statement to
The spouses Domingo and Marilou Santos were residents of Pasay the police investigator regarding the incident.26
City.4 One of their children, Debbielyn, was born on December 8,
1994.5 In 2002, she was a Grade II student at the Villamor Air Base Domingo Santos testified that at about 6:30 p.m. that day, he was
Elementary School in Pasay City6 and attended classes from 12:00 inside their house. His daughter, Kimberly Rose, suddenly told him
noon to 6:00 p.m.7 that Debbielyn had been raped near the vacant house by
petitioner.27 He rushed to the place and found her daughter crying. 2.5 to 3 centimeters.40 The abrasion was located at ¼ of an inch from
When he asked her what happened, she replied that she had been the anal orifice.
abused. He brought Debbielyn to their house and then left.28 He then
looked for petitioner and found him at his grandmother’s house. A Petitioner testified and declared that he was a freshman at the Pasay
barangay tanod brought petitioner to the barangay hall.29 On City South High School.41 He had been one of the three outstanding
September 25, 2002, he brought her daughter to the Philippine students in grade school and received awards such as Best in
General Hospital Child Protection Unit at Taft Avenue, Manila where Mathematics.42 He also finished a computer course and received a
she was examined by Dr. Mariella S. Castillo. Certificate of Completion from the Philippine Air Force Management
Information Center.43 He denied having raped the private complainant.
Dr. Castillo declared on the witness stand that she was a physician at He declared that at 6:30 p.m. on September 24, 2002, he was outside
the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine General Hospital. On of their house to buy rice in the carinderia44 and he saw her on his way
September 25, 2002, she interviewed the victim who told her "Masakit back.45 He also met his father, who asked him what he had done to
ang pepe ko," "Ni-rape ako."30 Dr. Castillo also conducted a genital their neighbor. He was also told that the victim’s father was so angry
examination on the child, and found no injury on the hymen and that the latter wanted to kill him.46 He did not ask his father for the
perineum, but found scanty yellowish discharge between the labia name of the angry neighbor. He was also told to pass by Cadena de
minora.31 There was also a fresh abrasion of the perineal skin at 1 Amor Street in going to his aunt’s house. Petitioner also declared that
o’clock position near the anal opening.32 She declared that the his mother prodded him to go to his aunt’s house.47 Later, Domingo
findings support the theory that blunt force or penetrating trauma and Barangay Tanod Jorge Dominguez arrived at his aunt’s house
(such as an erect penis, finger, or any other foreign body33) was and brought him to the barangay hall. He did not know of any reason
applied to the perineal area34 not more than six or seven days why Debbielyn and her parents would charge him with rape.48
before.35 The abrasion could have been caused on September 24,
2002. She found no spermatozoa in the vaginal area or injury at the Petitioner also declared that he played cards with Debbielyn.49 While
external genitalia;36 neither did she find any other injury or abrasion on confined at the Pasay City Youth Home during trial, he had a crush on
the other parts of the victim’s body.37 She concluded that her findings "Issa," a young female inmate. Using a piece of broken glass (bubog)
were consistent with the victim’s claim that she was sexually abused about half-an-inch long, he inscribed her name on his right thigh, left
by petitioner. leg and left arm.50

Barangay Tanod Jorge Dominguez, for his part, testified that on Nida Llave testified and identified her son’s Certificate of Live Birth, in
September 24, 2002, Marilou Santos arrived at the barangay hall and which it appears that he was born on March 6, 1990.51 She declared
reported that her daughter had been raped by petitioner who was then that at about 6:30 p.m. on September 24, 2000, Marilou Santos and
in his aunt’s house at Cadena de Amor Street. Barangay Captain Marilyn Bucud arrived in their house looking for her son. According to
Greg Florante ordered him and Barangay Tanod Efren Gonzales to Marilyn, her son had raped the private complainant. She went to their
proceed to Cadena de Amor Street and take the boy into custody, and house to look for her son and came across Domingo Santos who
they did as they were told.38 threatened to kill her son. She and her husband proceeded to the
house of his sister Josefina at Cadena de Amor Street where
The Case for the Accused petitioner had hidden for a while.52

Petitioner, through counsel, presented Dr. Castillo as witness. She At the conclusion of the trial, the court rendered judgment convicting
declared that the abrasions in the perineal area could have been Neil of the crime charged. The decretal portion of the decision reads:
caused while the offender was on top of the victim.39 She explained
that the distance between the anus and the genital area is between FROM ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court opines that the prosecution
has proven the guilt of the xxx Niel Llave y Flores beyond reasonable
doubt when he forcibly pulled the complainant towards the vacant lot, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE THEORY
laid on top of her and had carnal knowledge with the [complainant] OF THE PROSECUTION OF RAPE BY HAVING CARNAL
against her will and consent who is only seven (7) years old (sic). KNOWLEDGE, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PHYSICAL
Moreover, he being a minor, he cannot be meted with the Death EVIDENCE.55
penalty.
The CA rendered judgment affirming the decision with modification as
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the CICL [Child in Conflict with the to the penalty meted on him.
Law] Niel Llave y Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and crediting
him with the special mitigating circumstance of minority, this Court WHEREFORE, the decision subject of the instant appeal is hereby
hereby sentences him to prision mayor minimum, Six (6) years and MODIFIED in that the accused-appellant is sentenced to an
One (1) day to Eight (8) years, and pay civil indemnity of Fifty indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision
Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00).53 correccional medium as the minimum to eight (8) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor medium as the maximum. Additionally, the
The trial court declared that based on the evidence of the prosecution accused-appellant is ordered to pay the complaining witness the
that petitioner pushed the victim towards the vacant house and amount of ₱50,000 by way of moral damages and ₱20,000 by way of
sexually abused her, petitioner acted with discernment. It also exemplary damages.
considered petitioner’s declaration that he had been a consistent
honor student.54 SO ORDERED.56

Petitioner appealed the decision to the CA, where he averred the Petitioner filed a Motion for the Reconsideration,57contending that the
following in his Brief as appellant therein: prosecution failed to adduce proof that he acted with discernment;
hence, he should be acquitted. The appellate court denied the motion
I in a Resolution58dated November 12, 2004 on the following finding:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISREGARDED As regards the issue of whether the accused-appellant acted with
THE MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES OF THE TESTIMONY discernment, his conduct during and after the "crime" betrays the
OF COMPLAINING WITNESS WITH THAT OF THE theory that as a minor, the accused-appellant does not have the
MEDICAL REPORT ON THE FACTUAL ALLEGATION OF mental faculty to grasp the propriety and consequences of the act he
BLEEDING. made. As correctly pointed out by the prosecution, the fact that
forthrightly upon discovery, the accused-appellant fled the scene and
II hid in his grandmother’s house intimates that he knew that he did
something that merits punishment.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT GAVE CREDENCE
TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS Contrary to the urgings of the defense, the fact that the accused-
TEOFISTO BUCUD WHO HAS REASON TO FABRICATE A appellant is a recipient of several academic awards and is an honor
SCENARIO AGAINST ACCUSED-APPELLANT BECAUSE student further reinforces the finding that he [is] possessed [of]
HE HAS PERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST THE LATTER’S intelligence well beyond his years and is thus poised to distinguish,
FAMILY/RELATIVES. better at least than other minors his age could, which conduct is right
and which is morally reprehensible.59
III
Petitioner now raises the following issues and arguments in the THE TESTIMONY RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION
instant petition before this Court: IS HEARSAY.

ISSUES V

I THE COMPLAINT IS FABRICATED.

WHETHER OR NOT EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO VI

CONVICT PETITIONER BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW.60
II
The issues raised by the petitioner in this case may be summarized
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER, WHO WAS A MINOR as follows: (1) whether he was deprived of his right to a preliminary
ABOVE 9 YEARS BUT BELOW 15 YEARS OF AGE AT THE investigation; (2) whether he had carnal knowledge of the private
TIME OF THE CRIME, ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT. complainant, and if in the affirmative, whether he acted with
discernment in perpetrating the crime; (3) whether the penalty
III imposed by the appellate court is correct; and (4) whether he is liable
to pay moral damages to the private complainant.
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE
PROCESS OF LAW. On the first issue, petitioner avers that he was deprived of his right to
a preliminary investigation before the Information against him was
ARGUMENTS filed.

I On the second issue, petitioner claims that the prosecution failed to

prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had carnal knowledge of
THE MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE Debbielyn. He insists that her testimony is inconsistent on material
TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINING WITNESS WITH THE points. He points out that she claimed to have felt pain in her vagina
MEDICAL REPORT BELIE THE FINDING OF RAPE. when petitioner inserted his penis to the point that she cried; this,
however, is negated by Dr. Castillo’s report stating that there was no
II evidence of injury on the victim’s external genitalia. Petitioner
maintains that as against the victim’s testimony and that of Dr.
Castillo’s report, the latter should prevail.
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IS NOT A CREDIBLE WITNESS.
According to petitioner, mere touching of the female organ will not
III
suffice as factual basis of conviction for consummated rape.
Moreover, the victim’s testimony lacks credibility in view of her
PETITIONER ACTED WITHOUT DISCERNMENT. admission that, while she was being allegedly ravished by him, there
were passersby along the street. Besides, petitioner avers, an
IV abrasion may be caused by an invasion of the body through the
protective covering of the skin. Petitioner insists that the prosecution
failed to prove the cause of the abrasion.
Petitioner also claims that the victim was tutored or coached by her he acted with discernment. Hence, he should be exempt from criminal
parents on her testimony before the trial court. Dr. Castillo testified liability.
that when she interviewed Debbielyn, the latter admitted to her that
she did not understand the meaning of the word "rape" and its Filipino Petitioner’s arguments are bereft of merit.
translation, "hinalay," and that the genital examination of the girl was
at the insistence of the latter’s parents. Discernment, as used in Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code is
defined as follows: "the discernment that constitutes an exception to
Petitioner avers that Teofisto Bucud’s testimony has no probative the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen (15) years
weight because and had an ill-motive to testify against him. Petitioner of age but over nine (9), who commits an act prohibited by law, is his
stated, on cross-examination, that his uncle, Boy, had the house mental capacity to understand the difference between right and
rented by Teofisto demolished. Petitioner avers that the witness wrong" (People v. Doquena, 68 Phil. 580 [1939]). For a minor above
persuaded the victim’s parents to complain against him, as gleaned nine but below fifteen years of age, he must discern the rightness or
from the testimony of Police Investigator Milagros Carroso. wrongness of the effects of his act (Guevarra v. Almodova, G.R. No.
75256, January 26, 1989).
For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) avers that
petitioner was subjected to an inquest investigation under Section 7, Professor Ambrocio Padilla, in his annotation of Criminal Law (p. 375,
Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as gleaned 1998 Ed.), writes that "discernment is more than the mere
from the Certification of the City Prosecutor incorporated in the understanding between right and wrong. Rather, it means the mental
Information. It avers that the absence of external injuries does not capacity of a minor between 9 and 15 years of age to fully appreciate
negate rape; neither is it necessary that lacerations be found on the the consequences of his unlawful act" (People v. Navarro, [CA] [51
hymen of a victim. Rape is consummated if there is some degree of O.G. 4062]). Hence, in judging whether a minor accused acted with
penetration within the vaginal surface. Corroborative evidence is not discernment, his mental capacity to understand the difference
necessary to prove rape. As long as the testimony of the victim is between right and wrong, which may be known and should be
credible, such testimony will suffice for conviction of consummated determined by considering all the circumstances disclosed by the
rape. When the victim testified that she was raped, she was, in effect, record of the case, his appearance, his attitude and his behavior and
saying all that is necessary to prove that rape was consummated. conduct, not only before and during the commission of the act, but
Petitioner’s evidence to prove ill-motive on the part of Teofisto Bucud also after and even during the trial should be taken into consideration
in testifying against him is at best flimsy. Moreover, it is incredible that (People v. Doquena, supra).
the victim and her parents would charge petitioner with rape solely on
Teofisto’s proddings. In the instant case, petitioner’s actuations during and after the rape
incident, as well as his behavior during the trial showed that he acted
The OSG insists that the petitioner acted with discernment before, with discernment.
during, and after the rape based on the undisputed facts. The
submission of the OSG follows: The fact appears undisputed that immediately after being discovered
by the prosecution’s witness, Teofisto Bucud, petitioner immediately
Petitioner argues that since he was only 12 years old at the time of stood up and ran away. Shortly thereafter, when his parents became
the alleged rape incident, he is presumed to have acted without aware of the charges against him and that private complainant’s
discernment under paragraph 3 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal father was looking for him, petitioner went into hiding. It was not until
Code. Under said provision, the prosecution has the burden of proving the Barangay Tanod came to arrest him in his grandmother’s house
that he acted with discernment. In the instant case, petitioner insists that petitioner came out in the open to face the charges against him.
that there was no evidence presented by the prosecution to show that His flight as well as his act of going into hiding clearly conveys the
idea that he was fully aware of the moral depravity of his act and that
he knew he committed something wrong. Otherwise, if he was indeed to prove that the accused acted with discernment but failed. The mere
innocent or if he was not least aware of the moral consequences of fact that he was an honor student is not enough evidence to prove
his acts, he would have immediately confronted private complainant that he acted with discernment.
and her parents and denied having sexually abused their daughter.
The petition is not meritorious.
During the trial, petitioner submitted documentary evidence to show
that he was a consistent honor student and has, in fact, garnered On the first issue, petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of his
several academic awards. This allegation further bolstered that he right to a regular preliminary investigation is barren of factual and
acted with discernment, with full knowledge and intelligence. The fact legal basis. The record shows that petitioner was lawfully arrested
that petitioner was a recipient of several academic awards and was an without a warrant. Section 7, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
honor student further reinforces the finding that he was possessed of Criminal Procedure provides:
intelligence well beyond his years and thus was able to distinguish,
better than other minors of his age could, which conduct is right and SEC. 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. – When a
which is morally reprehensible. Hence, although appellant was still a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense
minor of twelve years of age, he possessed intelligence far beyond his which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or
age. It cannot then be denied that he had the mental capacity to information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such
understand the difference between right and wrong. This is important investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance
in cases where the accused is minor. It is worthy to note that the basic with existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest
reason behind the enactment of the exempting circumstances under prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code is the complete absence of peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit
intelligence, freedom of action, or intent on the part of the accused. In of the offended party or arresting officer or person.
expounding on intelligence as the second element of dolus, the
Supreme Court has stated: "The second element of dolus is Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may
intelligence; without this power, necessary to determine the morality of ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he
human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act, no crime can exist, must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised
and because … the infant has no intelligence, the law exempts (him) Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel.
from criminal liability" (Guevarra v. Aldomovar, 169 SCRA 476 [1989], Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the
at page 482). investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its
inception.
The foregoing circumstances, from the time the incident up to the time
the petitioner was being held for trial, sufficiently satisfied the trial After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a
court that petitioner acted with discernment before, during and after preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from
the rape incident. For a boy wanting in discernment would simply be the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with
gripped with fear or keep mum. In this case, petitioner was fully aware the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided for in
of the nature and illegality of his wrongful act. He should not, this Rule.
therefore, be exempted from criminal liability. The prosecution has
sufficiently proved that petitioner acted with discernment.61 As gleaned from the Certification62 of the City Prosecutor which was
incorporated in the Information, petitioner did not execute any waiver
In reply, petitioner asserts that the only abrasion found by Dr. Castillo of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code before the
was on the peri-anal skin and not in the labia of the hymen. He further Information was filed. He was arraigned with the assistance of
insists that there can be no consummated rape absent a slight counsel on October 10, 2002, and thereafter filed a petition for
penetration on the female organ. It was incumbent on the prosecution bail.63Petitioner’s failure to file a motion for a preliminary investigation
within five days from finding out that an Information had been filed A: Yes, Sir.
against him effectively operates as a waiver of his right to such
preliminary investigation.64 Q: And what did you do after you went home?

On the second issue, a careful review of the records shows that the A: I changed my clothes and then I proceeded to the store of my
prosecution adduced evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that mother.
petitioner had carnal knowledge of the private complainant as charged
in the Information. In People v. Morata65 the Court ruled that Q: And where is that store of your mother where you went?
penetration, no matter how slight, or the mere introduction of the male
organ into the labia of the pudendum, constitutes carnal knowledge. A: It is near our house, walking distance.
Hence, even if the penetration is only slight, the fact that the private
complainant felt pains, points to the conclusion that the rape was Q: What is your mother selling in that store?
consummated.66
A: She sells quail eggs.
From the victim’s testimony, it can be logically concluded that
petitioner’s penis touched the middle part of her vagina and
Q: And were you able to immediately go to the store of your mother
penetrated the labia of the pudendum. She may not have had
where she was selling quail eggs?
knowledge of the extent of the penetration; however, her
straightforward testimony shows that the rape passed the stage of
consummation.67 She testified that petitioner dragged her behind a A: Yes, sir.
pile of hollow blocks near the vacant house and ordered her to lie
down. He then removed her shorts and panty and spread her legs. He Q: And that was past 6:00 p.m. already?
then mounted her and inserted his penis into her vagina:
A: Yes, sir.
Fiscal Barrera:
Q: And what happened when you went to the store where your mother
Q: From what time up to what time? is selling quail eggs past 6:00 p.m.?

A: From 12:00 o’clock noon up to 6:00 p.m. A: My mother asked me to bring home something.

Q: September 24, 2002 and going over the calendar, it was Tuesday. Q: What were these things you were asked by your mother to bring
Did you go to school from 12:00 o’clock noon up to 6:00 p.m.? home?

A: Yes, Sir, on the same date I went to school. A: The things she used in selling.

Q: At about 6:00 p.m., Sept. 24, 2002, where were you? Q: And did you obey what your mother told you to bring home
something?
A: I went home.
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And by whom you are referring to your house at 1-C Carnation St.,
R. Higgins, Maricaban, Pasay City? Q: And what happened to you in going to your house?
A: Totoy pulled me. A: Kuya Teofe, Sir.

Q: Pulled you where? Q: What happened after you cried and when somebody heard you
crying?
A: Totoy pulled me towards an uninhabited house.
A: Totoy ran away.
Q: What happened after Totoy pulled you in an uninhabited house?
Q: After Totoy ran away, what happened next?
A: He told me to lie down on the cement.
A: When Totoy ran away, I was left and Kuya Teofe told me to tell the
Q: What happened after he laid you down on the cement? matter to my parents.

A: He removed my shorts and panty. He also removed his shorts. Q: Did you tell your parents what Totoy did to you?

Q: After Totoy removed your shorts and panty and he also removed A: Yes, Sir.68
his shorts, what happened next?
On cross-examination, the victim was steadfast in her declarations:
A: He inserted his penis inside my vagina.
ATTY. BALIAD:
Q: What did you feel when Totoy inserted his penis inside your
vagina? Q: Again, in what particular position were you placed by Totoy when
he inserted his penis inside your vagina?
A: It was painful.
A: I was lying down.
Q: Aside from inserting his penis inside your vagina, what else did you
do to you? Q: Aside from lying down, how was your body positioned at that time?

A: He kissed me on my lips. A: He placed on top of me.

Q: After Totoy inserted his penis inside your vagina and kissed you on Q: After he placed on top of you, what else did he do to you, if any?
your lips, what did you do?
A: He started to kiss me and then he inserted his penis inside my
A: I cried. vagina.

Q: What happened when you were crying when he inserted his penis Q: Did you feel his penis coming in into your vagina?
inside your vagina and kissed you on your lips. What happened next?
A: Yes, Sir.
A: Somebody heard me crying.
Q: Are you sure that his penis was inserted inside your vagina?
Q: Who heard you crying?
A: Yes, Sir.69 A: He did not insert anything on my anus, Sir.70

When questioned on cross-examination whether she could distinguish While it is true that Dr. Castillo did not find any abrasion or laceration
a vagina from an anus, the victim declared that she could and in the private complainant’s genitalia, such fact does not negate the
proceeded to demonstrate. She reiterated that the penis of petitioner latter’s testimony the petitioner had carnal knowledge of her. The
penetrated her vagina, thus, consummating the crime charged: absence of abrasions and lacerations does not disprove sexual
abuses, especially when the victim is a young girl as in this
Atty. Baliad: case.71 According to Dr. Castillo, the hymen is elastic and is capable
of stretching and reverting to its original form.72 The doctor testified
Q: Do you recall having stated during the last hearing that the that her report is compatible with the victim’s testimony that she was
accused, Neil Llave or "Totoy" inserted his penis in your vagina, do sexually assaulted by petitioner:
you recall that?
Atty. Baliad:
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Do you recall having stated during the last hearing that the
Q: And likewise, you testified that you feel that the penis of Neil accused, Neil Llave or "Totoy" inserted his penis in your vagina, do
entered your vagina? you recall that?

A: Yes, Sir. A: Yes, Sir.

Q: Could you distinguish vagina from your anus? Q: And likewise, you testified that you feel (sic) that the penis of Neil
entered your vagina?
A: Yes, Sir.
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Where is your "pepe"?
Q: Could you distinguish vagina from your anus?
A: (Witness pointing to her vagina.)
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Where is your anus?
Q: Where is your "pepe"?
A: (Witness pointing at her back, at the anus.)
A: (Witness pointing to her vagina.)
Q: In your statement, am I correct to say that Neil, the accused in this
case penetrated only in your vagina and not in your anus? Q: Where is your anus?

A: Yes, Sir. A: (Witness pointing at her back, at the anus.)

Q: So that, your anus was not even touched by the accused neither Q: In your statement, am I correct to say that Neil, the accused in this
by his penis touched any part of your anus? case penetrated only in your vagina and not in your anus?

A: Yes, Sir.
Q: So that, your anus was not even touched by the accused neither Witness:
by his penis touched any part of your anus?
A It is compatible with the allegation of the minor.
A: He did not insert anything on my anus, Sir.
Fiscal Barrera:
xxxx
Confronting you again with your two (2) medico-genital documents,
Fiscal Barrera: the Provincial and Final Report mark[ed] in evidence as Exhs. B and
C, at the lower portion of these two exhibits there appears to be a
Q: Based on your testimony doctor, and the medico genital signature above the typewritten word, Mariella Castillo, M.D., whose
examination propounded on the report that the victim here, Debbielyn signature is that doctor?
Santos is complaining that around 6:00 in the evening of September
24, 2002, she was sexually abused and that on the following day, A Both are my signatures, Sir.73
September 25, you interviewed her and stated to you that her
genitalia was hurting and in binocular (sic) "masakit ang pepe ko, ni- Dr. Castillo even testified that the abrasion near the private
rape ako," would your findings as contained in this Exh. B and C be complainant’s anal orifice could have been caused by petitioner while
compatible with the allegation if the minor victim that she was sexually consummating the crime charged:
abused on September 24. 2002 at around 6:00 p.m.?
Fiscal Barrera:
Atty. Baliad:
Q: With your answer, would it be possible doctor that in the process of
Objection, Your Honor. The one who narrated the incident is the the male person inserting his erect penis inside the vagina, in the
mother. process, would it be possible that this abrasion could have been
caused while in the process of inserting the penis into the vagina
Court: touch the portion of the anus where you find the abrasion?

What is your objection? A: It is possible, Sir.

Atty. Baliad: Q: Now, are you aware, in the course of your examination, that the
alleged perpetrator is a 12-year-old minor?
The objection, Your Honor, is the question propounded is that it was
the minor who made the complaint regarding the allegation. A: I only fount it out, Sir, when I testified.

Fiscal Barrera: Q: Do you still recall your answer that a 12-year-old boy could cause
an erection of his penis?
The answer were provided…..
A: Yes, sir.
Court:
Q: To enlight[en] us doctor, we, not being a physician, at what age
The doctor is being asked whether or not her findings is compatible could a male person can have erection?
with the complaint of the minor. Overruled. Answer.
A: Even infants have an erection.74 Q: You also testified that you do not have any quarrel or
misunderstanding with Lyn-lyn’s parents, spouses Domingo Santos,
Petitioner’s contention that the private complainant was coached by Jr. and Marilou Santos, do you think of any reason as to why they
her parents into testifying is barren of merit. It bears stressing that the would file a complaint against you for molesting their 7-year-old
private complainant testified in a straightforward and spontaneous daughter?
manner and remained steadfast despite rigorous and intensive cross-
examination by the indefatigable counsel of the petitioner. She A: I do not know of any reason why they filed a complaint against me,
spontaneously pointed to and identified the petitioner as the Sir.
perpetrator.
Fiscal Barrera:
It is inconceivable that the private complainant, then only a seven-
year old Grade II pupil, could have woven an intricate story of That would be all, Your Honor.77
defloration unless her plaint was true.75 The Presiding Judge of the
trial court observed and monitored the private complainant at close There is no evidence that the parents of the offended party coached
range as she testified and found her testimony credible. Case law is their daughter before she testified. No mother or father would stoop
that the calibration by the trial court of the evidence on record and its so low as to subject their daughter to the tribulations and the
assessment of the credibility of witnesses, as well as its findings of embarrassment of a public trial knowing that such a traumatic
facts and the conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded experience would damage their daughter’s psyche and mar her life if
conclusive effect by this Court unless facts and circumstances of the charge is not true.78
substance were overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted, which, if
considered would merit a nullification or reversal of the decision. We On the other hand, when the parents learned that their daughter had
have held that when the offended party is young and immature, from been assaulted by petitioner, Domingo tried to locate the offender and
the age of thirteen to sixteen, courts are inclined to give credence to when he failed, he and his wife reported the matter to the barangay
their account of what transpired, considering not only their relative authorities. This manifested their ardent desire to have petitioner
vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they indicted and punished for his delictual acts.
would be exposed if the matter to which they testified is not true.76
That petitioner ravished the victim not far from the street where
Neither do we lend credence to petitioner’s claim that the charge residents passed by does not negate the act of rape committed by
against him is but a fabrication and concoction of the private petitioner. Rape is not a respecter of time and place. The crime may
complainant’s parents. Indeed, petitioner admitted in no uncertain be committed by the roadside and even in occupied premises.79 The
terms that the spouses had no ill-motive against him. Thus, Neil presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing the
testified as follows: odious act.80 In this case, petitioner was so daring that he ravished the
private complainant near the house of Teofisto even as commuters
Fiscal Barrera: passed by, impervious to the fact that a crime was being committed in
their midst.
Q: As you testified earlier that you have played post cards with
Debbielyn Santos alias Lyn-lyn and you have no quarrel or Case law has it that in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only
misunderstanding with Lyn-lyn. Do you know of any reason why Lyn- evidence that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the
lyn complaint (sic) against you for sexual abuse? testimony of the offended party. Even absent a medical certificate, her
testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of conviction if such
A: I don’t know of any reason, Sir. testimony is credible. Corroborative testimony is not essential to
warrant a conviction of the perpetrator.81 Thus, even without the grandmother’s house to avoid being arrested by policemen and
testimony of Teofisto Bucud, the testimonies of the offended party and remained thereat until barangay tanods arrived and took him into
Dr. Castillo constitute evidence beyond reasonable doubt warranting custody.
the conviction of petitioner.
The petitioner also testified that he had been an outstanding grade
Teofisto’s testimony cannot be discredited by petitioner simply school student and even received awards. While in Grade I, he was
because his uncle caused the demolition of the house where Teofisto the best in his class in his academic subjects. He represented his
and his family were residing. It bears stressing that Teofisto gave a class in a quiz bee contest.86At his the age of 12, he finished a
sworn statement to the police investigator on the very day that the computer course.
petitioner raped Debbielyn and narrated how he witnessed the crime
being committed by the petitioner.82 In the absence of proof of In People v. Doqueña,87 the Court held that the accused-appellant
improper motive, the presumption is that Teofisto had no ill-motive to therein acted with discernment in raping the victim under the following
so testify, hence, his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.83 facts:

The trial court correctly ruled that the petitioner acted with Taking into account the fact that when the accused Valentin Doqueña
discernment when he had carnal knowledge of the offended party; committed the crime in question, he was a 7th grade pupil in the
hence, the CA cannot be faulted for affirming the trial court’s intermediate school of the municipality of Sual, Pangasinan, and as
ruling.1âwphi1 such pupil, he was one of the brightest in said school and was a
captain of a company of the cadet corps thereof, and during the time
Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a he was studying therein he always obtain excellent marks, this court is
person over nine years of age and under fifteen is exempt from convinced that the accused, in committing the crime, acted with
criminal liability, unless he acted with discernment. The basic reason discernment and was conscious of the nature and consequences of
behind the exempting circumstance is complete absence of his act, and so also has this court observed at the time said accused
intelligence, freedom of action of the offender which is an essential was testifying in his behalf during the trial of this case.88
element of a felony either by dolus or by culpa. Intelligence is the
power necessary to determine the morality of human acts to The CA ordered petitioner to pay ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and
distinguish a licit from an illicit act.84 On the other hand, discernment is ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages. There is no factual basis for the
the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and award of exemplary damages. Under Article 2231, of the New Civil
wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the accused acted Code, exemplary damages may be awarded if the crime was
with discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude or committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. In this case,
deportment not only before and during the commission of the act, but no aggravating circumstance was alleged in the Information and
also after and during the trial.85 The surrounding circumstances must proved by the People; hence, the award must be deleted.
demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was
wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack
and the minor’s cunning and shrewdness. of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
26962 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that the award of
In the present case, the petitioner, with methodical fashion, dragged exemplary damages is DELETED.
the resisting victim behind the pile of hollow blocks near the vacant
house to insure that passersby would not be able to discover his SO ORDERED.
dastardly acts. When he was discovered by Teofisto Bucud who
shouted at him, the petitioner hastily fled from the scene to escape
arrest. Upon the prodding of his father and her mother, he hid in his
 THIRD DIVISION accused wife Nur-in Ladjaalam and Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajaraini, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, maintain said house
G.R. Nos. 136149-51               September 19, 2000 as a den, where regulated drug [was] used in any form."5

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,  The second Information6 charged appellant with illegal possession of
vs. firearms and ammunition. We quote it below:
WALPAN LADJAALAM y MIHAJIL alias "WARPAN," appellant.
"That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga,
DECISION Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together,
PANGANIBAN, J.: mutually aiding and assisting with one another, without any justifiable
reason or purpose other than to use it in the commission of crime, did
Republic Act No. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in their
provided that the person arrested committed "no other crime." possession and under their custody and control, the following
Furthermore, if the person is held liable for murder or homicide, illegal weapons, to wit: one (1) M14 rifle with SN 1555225 with magazines
possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance, but not a and seven (7) rounds of live ammunition; two (2) magazines with
separate offense. Hence, where an accused was convicted of direct twenty (20) and twenty[-one] (21) rounds of live [ammunition]; one (1)
assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an unlicensed M-14 homemade caliber .38 revolver with five (5) live ammunition; one (1)
rifle at several policemen who were about to serve a search warrant, M-79 (single) rifle with pouch and with five (5) empty shell[s]; one (1)
he cannot be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession home made caliber .38 with SN-311092 with five live ammunition and
of firearms. Neither can such unlawful act be considered to have one empty shell of [a] cal. 38 x x x Smith and Wesson; two (2) .38
aggravated the direct assault. Caliber paltik revolver with Serial Number 311092 and one defaced
M79 grenade launcher paltik, without first having obtained the
The Case necessary license and or permit therefor from authorities concerned,
in flagrant violation of the aforementioned law."7
Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil, also known as "Warpan," appeals before
us the September 17, 1998 Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court The third Information,8 for multiple attempted murder with direct
(RTC) of Zamboanga City (Branch 16), which found him guilty of three assault, was worded thus:
out of the four charges lodged against him.
"That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga,
2 
Filed against appellant were four Informations, all signed by Assistant Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
Regional State Prosecutor Ricardo G. Cabaron and dated September above-named accused being then armed with M-14 Armalite Rifles,
25, 1997. The first Information3 was for maintaining a den for the use M-16 Armalite Rifles and other assorted firearms and explosives,
of regulated drugs. It reads as follows: conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting x
x x one another and with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously try and attempt to kill SPO1 WILLIAM B.
"That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga,
JONES, JR., PO3 ENRIQUE C. RIVERA[,] SPO1 AMADO A.
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
MIRASOL, JR., and SPO1 RICARDO J. LACASTESANTOS, in the
above-named accused, Walpan Ladjaalam being then the owner of a
following manner, to wit: by then and there firing their M-14 x x x
residential house located at Rio Hondo,4 this City, conspiring and
Armalite Rifles, M-16 Armalite Rifles and other assorted firearms and
confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting x x x his co-
explosives, aimed and directed at the fatal parts of the bodies of the
above-named police officers, well known to the accused as members PERPETUA and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED
of the Philippine National Police, Zamboanga City Police Office, and THOUSAND (₱500,000.00) and to pay the costs;
as such, agents of a person in authority, who at the time of the attack
were engaged in the performance of their duties, that is, on the "2. In Criminal Case No. 14637, NOT GUILTY of Violation of
occasion when said officers were about to serve the Search Warrant Section 16, Article III, in relation to Section 21, Article IV, of
legally issued by the Regional Trial Court, this City, to the person of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
the accused thus commencing the commission of crime of multiple Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, and ACQUITS him of said
murder directly by overt acts, and if the accused did not accomplish crime with costs de oficio;
their unlawful purpose, that is, to kill the above-named Police Officers,
it was not by reason of their own voluntary desistance but rather "3. in Criminal Case No. 14638, GUILTY BEYOND
because of the fact that all the above-named police officers were able REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Illegal Possession of
to seek cover during the firing and were not hit by the bullets and Firearm and Ammunition penalized under Presidential Decree
explosives fired by the accused and also by the fact said police No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act. No. 8294,
officers were able to wrestle with two (2) of the accused namely: and SENTENCES said accused to suffer an indeterminate
Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil a.k.a. ‘Warpan’ and Ahmad Sailabbi y penalty of SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional as minimum
Hajairani, who were subdued and subsequently placed under arrest; to EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor as maximum and to pay
whereas accused PO2 Nurhakim T. Hadjula was able to make good a fine [of] THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) and pay the
his escape and has remained at-large."9 costs;

In the fourth Information, appellant was charged with illegal "4. in Criminal Case No. 14639, GUILTY BEYOND
possession of drugs.10 REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Direct Assault with
Multiple Attempted Homicide and SENTENCES said accused
On December 21, 1997, the cases against Nur-in Ladjaalam and to an indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS and FOUR (4)
Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajaraini were dismissed upon motion of the Office MONTHS of prision correccional as minimum to SIX (6)
of the City Prosecutor, which had conducted a reinvestigation of the YEARS of prision correccional as maximum and to pay a fine
cases as ordered by the lower court. The accused were consequently of ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) and to pay the costs."
released from jail. (emphasis in the original)

The arraignment of appellant on all four (4) charges took place on Hence, this appeal.12
January 6, 1998, during which he entered a plea of not guilty.11 After
pretrial, the assailed Decision was rendered, the dispositive part of The Facts
which reads:
Prosecution’s Version
"WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused WALPAN LADJAALAM y
MIHAJIL a.k.a. ‘WARPAN’ - In its Brief,13 the Office of the Solicitor General presents the facts in
this wise:
"1. in Criminal Case No. 14636, GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 15-A, Article "At 1:45 p.m. of September 24, 1997, PO3 Allan Marcos Obut filed an
III, of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the application for the issuance of a search warrant against appellant, his
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, and wife and some John Does (Exh. C). After the search warrant was
SENTENCES said accused to the penalty of RECLUSION issued about 2:30 p.m. of the same day, a briefing was conducted
inside the office of the Anti-Vice/Narcotics Unit of the Zamboanga City While they were going upstairs, appellant noticed their presence. He
Police Office in connection with the service of the search warrant. The went inside the bedroom and, after breaking and removing the
briefing was conducted by SPO2 Felipe Gaganting, Chief of the Anti- jalousies, jumped from the window to the roof of a neighboring house.
Vice/Narcotics Unit. During the briefing, PO3 Renato Dela Peña was Seeing this, Mirasol rushed downstairs and asked help from the other
assigned as presentor of the warrant. SPO1 Ricardo Lacastesantos members of the raiding team to arrest appellant. Lacastesantos went
and PO3 Enrique Rivera were designated to conduct the search. to the second floor and shouted to the policemen outside not to fire in
Other policemen were assigned as perimeter guards (TSN, March 3, the direction of the second floor because there were children. Mirasol
1998, pp. 33-36). and SPO1 Cesar Rabuya arrested appellant at the back of his house
after a brief chase (Ibid., pp. 21-23).
"After the briefing, more than thirty (30) policemen headed by Police
Superintendent Edwin Soledad proceeded to the house of appellant "At the second floor, Lacastesantos saw an M14 rifle (Exh. B-3) with
and his wife at Rio Hondo on board several police vehicles (TSN, magazine on top of the sofa at the sala on the second floor (Ibid., P.
March 4, 1998, p. 32; April 22, 1998, p. 54). Before they could reach 27). The rifle bore Serial No. 1555225. He removed the magazine
appellant’s house, three (3) persons sitting at a nearby store ran from the rifle and the bullet inside the chamber of the rifle. He counted
towards the house shouting, ‘[P]olice, raid, raid’ (Ibid., March 3, 1998, seventeen (17) live ammunition inside the magazine. He saw two (2)
pp. 41, 43-44; April 23, 1998, p. 4). When the policemen were about more M14 rifle magazines on the sofa, one with twenty (20) live
ten (10) meters from the main gate of the house, they were met by a ammunition (Exh. G-3) and another with twenty-one (21) live
rapid burst of gunfire coming from the second floor of the house. ammunition (Exh. G-4). He likewise saw three (3) M16 rifle magazines
There was also gunfire at the back of the house (Ibid., March 5, 1998, (Exh. G-2) in a corner at the second floor (TSN, March 5, 1998, pp.
pp. 14-16). 23-32, 53-57).

"SPO1 Mirasol, SPO2 Lacastesantos, PO3 Rivera, and PO3 Dela "After Lacastesantos and Mirasol entered appellant’s house, Rivera,
Peña who were with the first group of policemen saw appellant fire an Dela Peña, Gregorio and Obut followed and entered the house. After
M14 rifle towards them. They all knew appellant. When they were identifying themselves as members of the PNP Anti-Vice/Narcotics
fired upon, the group, together with SPO2 Gaganting, PO3 Obut and Unit, Obut presented to the old women a copy of the search warrant.
Superintendent Soledad, sought cover at the concrete fence to Dela Peña and Rivera then searched appellant’s room on the ground
observe the movements at the second floor of the house while other floor in the presence of Punong Barangay Elhano (TSN, March 3,
policemen surrounded the house (Ibid., March 4, 1998, pp. 50-51). 1998, pp. 41-43). On top of a table was a pencil case (Exh. J) with fifty
(50) folded aluminum foils inside (Exhs. J-1 to J-50), each containing
"In front of the house was an extension building connected to the methamphetamine hydrochloride or ‘shabu’.
concrete fence (Ibid., pp. 45-46, 57-59, 73-76). Gaganting, Mirasol,
Lacastesantos, Gregorio, and Obut entered the door of the extension "Other items were found during the search, namely, assorted coins in
building. Gaganting opened the main (steel) gate of the house. The different denominations (Exh. W; TSN, April 28, 1998, pp. 23-25), one
other members of the team then entered. Lacastesantos and Mirasol (1) homemade .38 caliber revolver (Exh. B-2) with five (5) live
entered the house through the main door and went inside the sala of [ammunition], one (1) M79 single rifle with [a] pouch containing five (5)
the ground floor while other policemen surrounded the house. Two (2) empty shells of an M79 rifle (Exh. B-4), and one (1) empty shell of an
old women were in the sala together with a young girl and three (3) M14 rifle (TSN, April 23, 1998, pp. 30-32).
children. One of the old women took the children to the second floor
while the young girl remained seated at the corner (Ibid., pp. 19-21). "Rino Bartolome Locson was an informer of the Anti-Vice/Narcotics
Unit of the Zamboanga Police. [O]n the morning of September 24,
"Lacastesantos and Mirasol proceeded to the second floor where they 1997, he was instructed by SPO2 Gaganting to go to appellant’s
earlier saw appellant firing an M14 rifle at them through the window. house to buy ‘shabu.’ Locson knew appellant as a seller of ‘shabu’
(TSN, April 22, 1998, p. 5) and had been to appellant’s house about 1555225 (Exh. B-3), and an M79 rifle without a serial number (Exh. B-
fifteen (15) times before. He went to Rio Hondo and arrived at 4). They were fired within five (5) days prior to the examination (TSN,
appellant’s house at 3:20 p.m. He bought P300.00 worth of ‘shabu’ March 3, 1998, pp. 16-21).
from appellant. The latter got three (3) decks of shabu from his waist
bag. Appellant instructed Locson to go behind the curtain where there "With respect to the crystalline substances, an examination conducted
was a table. There were six (6) persons already smoking. There was by Police Inspector Susan M. Cayabyab, likewise a Forensic Chemist
a lighted kerosene lamp made of a medicine bottle placed on the of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service Office 9, on the fifty (50) pieces
table. They asked Locson to smoke ‘shabu’ and Locson obliged. He of folded aluminum foils each containing white crystalline granules
placed the three (3) decks of ‘shabu’ he bought on the table (Ibid., pp. with a total weight of 1.7426 grams (Exh. J-1 to J-50) yielded positive
8-15). results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu)
(Exh. L). However, the examination of one (1) crystalline stone
"While they were smoking ‘shabu,’ Locson heard gunfire coming from weighing 83.2674 grams (Exh. K) yielded negative results for the
appellant’s house. They all stood and entered appellant’s compound presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (Exh. L).
but were instructed to pass [through] the other side. They met
appellant at the back of his house. Appellant told them to escape "The records of the Regional Operation and Plans Division of the PNP
‘because the police are already here.’ They scampered and ‘ran away Firearm and Explosive Section show that appellant ‘had not
because there were already shots.’ Locson jumped over the fence applied/filed any application for license to possess firearm and
and ran towards the seashore. Upon reaching a place near the ammunition or x x x been given authority to carry [a] firearm outside of
Fisheries School, he took a tricycle and went home (Ibid., pp. 17-19). his residence’ (Exh. X)"14

"The following day, September 25, 1997, he went to the police station Defense’s Version
and executed an affidavit (Exh. M) narrating what transpired at
appellant’s house [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997. Appellant Ladjaalam agrees with the narration of facts given by the
lower court.15 Hence, we quote the pertinent parts of the assailed
"After the search and before returning to the police station, P03 Dela Decision:
Peña prepared a ‘Receipt for Property Seized’ (Exh. P & 3) listing the
properties seized during the search. The receipt was signed by Dela "Accused Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil a.k.a. ‘Warpan’, 30 years old,
Peña as the seizure officer, and by Punong Barangay Hadji Hussin married, gave his occupation as ‘smuggling’ (tsn, p. 2, May 4, 1998).
Elhano and radio reporter Jun Cayona as witnesses. A copy of the He used to go to Labuan in Malaysia and bring cigarettes to the
receipt was given to appellant but he refused to acknowledge the Philippines without paying taxes (tsn, pp. 40-41, id). He said that his
properties seized (TSN, April 23, 1998, pp. 11-12). true name [was] Abdul Nasser Abdurakman and that Warpan or
Walpan Ladjaalam [was] only his ‘alias’. However, he admitted that
"An examination conducted by Police Inspector Mercedes D. Diestro, more people kn[e]w him as Walpan Ladjaalam rather than Abdul
Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service Office 9, on Nasser Abdurakman (tsn. pp. 39-40; 46-47, id). He testified that [o]n
the paraffin casts taken from both hands of appellant yielded positive the afternoon of September 24, 1997, when he was arrested by the
for gunpowder nitrates (Exh. A-3), giving rise to the possibility that police, he was sleeping in the house of Dandao, a relative of his wife.
appellant had fired a gun before the examination (TSN, March 3, He was alone. He slept in Dandao’s house and not in his house
1998, p. 11). Gunpowder residue examinations conducted on because they ha[d] ‘a sort of a conference’ as Dandao’s daughter was
September 26, 1997 showed that the following firearms ‘were fired’ leaving for Saudi Arabia. He noticed the presence of policemen in his
(Exh. B-5): a .38 caliber revolver (homemade) with Serial No. 311092 neighborhood at Aplaya, Rio Hondo when he heard shots. He woke
(Exh. B-1), another .38 caliber revolver (homemade) without a serial up and went out of the house and that was the time that he was
number (Exh. B-2), a Cal. 7.62 mm M14 U.S. rifle with Serial No. arrested. He said he was arrested ‘xxx [at] the other side of my house;
at the other side of the fence where I was sleeping. xxx. At the back of "After his arrest Walpan Ladjaalam was brought to the police station
my house’ (tsn, p. 7, id.). He does not know who arrested him where he stayed for one day and one night before he was transferred
‘considering that the one who arrested me does not have nameplate.’ to the City jail. While at the police station, he was not able to take a
He was arrested by four (4) persons. Not one of those who arrested bath. He smokes two packs of cigarette a day. While he was at the
him testified in Court. He was handcuffed and placed inside a jeep police station, he smoked [a] cigarette given to him by his younger
parked at Rio Hondo Elementary School. According to him, he did not sister. He lighted the cigarettes with [a] match. From the police
fire a gun at the policemen from [t]he second floor of his house. He station, he was brought to the PNP Regional Office at R.T. Lim
said the ‘policemen’ [were] ‘the one[s] who fire[d] at us’ (tsn, p. 5, id.). Boulevard where he was subject to paraffin examination (tsn, pp. 24-
If he fired a gun at the policemen for sure they [would] die ‘[b]ecause 26, May 4, 1998).
the door is very near x x x the vicinity of my house’. He does not own
the M14 rifle (Exh. ‘B-3’) which according to policemen, he used in "During the raid conducted on his house, his cousin Boy Ladjaalam,
firing at them. The gun does not belong to him. He does not have a Ating Sapadi, and Jecar (Sikkal) Usman, the younger brother of his
gun like that (tsn, p. 15, id.). A policeman also owns an M14 rifle but wife were killed. Walpan Ladjaalam said that he saw that ‘it was the
he does not know the policeman (tsn, pp. 16-17, id). He said that the policeman who shot them[,] only I do not know his name." They were
M79 rifle (Exh. ‘B-4’), the three (3) empty M16 rifle magazines (Exh. killed at the back of his house. He said that no charges were filed
‘G’; ‘G-1’ to ‘G-2’), the two (2) M14 magazines with live ammunition against the one responsible for their death (tsn, pp. 30-33- May 4,
(Exh. ‘G-3’; ‘G-4’); the two (2) caliber .38 revolvers (Exhs. ‘B-1’; ‘B-2’), 1998).
the fifty (50) aluminum foils each containing shabu (Exhs. ‘J-1’ to ‘J-
50’) placed inside a pencil case (Exh. ‘J’, the assorted coins placed "Anilhawa Ahamad, more or less 80 years old, a widow was in the
inside a blue bag (Exh. ‘W’) and the white crystalline stone (Exh. ‘K’) house of Walpan Ladjaalam whom he calls ‘Hadji Id’ at the time the
all do not belong to him. He said that the policemen just produced police raided the house. She is the mother of Ahma Sailabbi. She was
those things as their evidence. The firearms do not belong to him. together with Babo Dandan, two small children and a helper when
They were brought by the policemen (tsn, p. 43, May 4, 1998). ‘soldiers’ entered the house. ‘(W)hen they arrived, they kept on firing
Regarding the blue bag containing assorted coins, he said: ‘that is not (their guns) even inside the house’ (tsn, p.5, May 5, 1998). They were
ours, I think this (is) theirs, xxx they just brought that as their armed with short and long firearms. They searched the house and
evidence’ (tsn, pp. 15-24, id.) scattered things and got what they wanted. They entered the room of
Walpan Ladjaalam. They tried to open a bag containing jewelry. When
"Walpan Ladjaalam declared there were occupants who were renting Anilhawa tried to bring the bag outside the room, they grabbed the
his extension house. He affirmed that he owns that house. Four (4) bag from her and poked a gun at her. At that time Walpan Ladjaalam
persons were staying in the extension house. He could only recognize was not in the house. Ahamad Sailabbi was also not in the house. A
the husband whose name is Momoy. They are from Jolo. They left the Search Warrant was shown to Anilhawa after the search was
place already because they were afraid when the police raided the conducted and just before the policemen left the place. Anilhawa
place. (tsn, pp. 8-10, May 4, 1998). He does not know prosecution Ahamad said that ‘it was already late in the afternoon[;] before they
witness Rino Locson y Bartolome. Although Locson recognized him, left that was the time the Search Warrant (was) given to us by xxx
in his case he does not know Locson and he does not recognize him Barangay Captain Hussin Elhano’ (tsn, pp.6-8, May 5, 1998).
(tsn, p.11, id). He did not sell anything to Locson and did not entertain Barangay Chairman Elhano arrived ‘already late in the afternoon,
him. He is not selling shabu but he knows ‘for a fact that there are almost sundown’ (tsn, p. 9, id). Anilhaw declared that aside from a
plenty of person who are engaged in selling shabu in that place’, in bag containing jewelry and a bag full of money, she had not seen
that area known as Aplaya, Rio Hondo. One of them is Hadji Agbi anything else that was taken from Walpan Ladjaalam’s house (tsn, pp.
(tsn, pp.11-14, id). 9-12, id).
"Akmad (Ahmad) Sailabbi, 37 years old, married testified that about inside the house. Upon entering the gate, he saw Walpan at the gate
4:00 o’clock [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997, ha was already handcuffed. Walpan called him but the police advised him not
standing in front of his house when policemen arrived and to approach Walpan. The search was already over and things were
immediately arrested him. He was about to go to the City Proper to already taken inside the house. When he went inside the house, he
buy articles he was intending to bring to Sabah. He had ‘around saw ‘the things that they (policemen) searched, the firearms and the
P50,000.00’ placed inside a waist bag tied around his waist. The shabu‘ (tsn, p. 17. May 8, 1998). He did not see the Search Warrant.
policemen told him to lie down in prone position and a policeman What was shown to him were the things recovered during the search
searched his back. They pulled his waist bag and took his DiaStar which were being listed. They were being counted and placed on a
wrist watch. He was shot three times and was hit on the forehead table. ‘Upon seeing the things that were recovered during the search,
leaving a scar. His injury was not treated. He was taken to the police I just signed the receipt (Exh. "P"; "P-1") of the things x x x taken
station where he was detained for one day and one night. He was during the search" (tsn, pp. 17-18. May 8, 1998). He saw three dead
detained at the City Jail for three months and five days after which he bodies at the side of the fence when he went to the other side of the
was released (tsn, pp. 25-29, May 5, 1998). house. The three persons were killed outside the fence of Walpan
Ladjaalam (tsn, p. 18, id)."16
"Melba Usma, 20 years old, a widow, testified that [o]n the afternoon
of September 24, 1997, she was in the house of her parents lying The Trial Court’s Ruling
together with her husband Sikkal Usma. There is only one house
between her parents’ house and the house of Walpan Ladjaalam. Her The trial court observed that the house of appellant was raided on
husband Sikkal Usman is the brother of Nur-in Ladjaalam, Walpan’s September 24, 1997 by virtue of Search Warrant No. 20 issued on the
wife. When Melba heard shots, she went downstairs. A policeman same day. However, the lower court nullified the said Warrant
was looking for her husband. The policeman called her husband. because it had been issued for more than one specific offense,17 in
When her husband went down, he was instructed by the policeman to violation of Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.18 The court a
lie down in prone position. Then the policeman shot her husband. The quo ruled:
policeman had two other companions who also shot her husband
while he was lying down in prone position (tsn, pp.2-7, May 5, 1998). "It should be stated at the outset that Search Warrant No. 20 is totally
‘null and void’ because it was issued for more than one specific
"Murkisa Usman, 30 years old, married, declared that [o]n the offense x x x contrary to Section 3, Rule 1[2]6 of the Rules of Court
afternoon of September 24, 1997, she was sitting at the door of her which provides that ‘A search warrant shall not issue but upon
house watching her children playing when a motorcyle, driven by a probable cause in connection with one specific offense xxx’. In
person, stopped near her house. The driver was Gaganting whom she Tambasan vs. People, 246 SCRA 184 (1995), the Supreme Court
called a soldier. He went down from his motorcycle, pulled a gun and ruled that a search warrant for more than one offense - a ‘scatter shot
poked it at Murkisa. Murkisa stood up and raised her hands. She got warrant’ - violates Section 3, Rule 126 of the [R]evised Rules of Court
her children and when she was about to enter the room of her house, and is ‘totally null and void.’"19 (emphasis in the original)
Gaganting again poked a gun at her and ‘there was a shot.’ As a
result of firing, three persons died, namely, Sikkal Usman, Boy Nevertheless, the trial court deemed appellant’s arrest as valid. It
Ladjaalam and Atip Sapali Sali (tsn, pp. 8-10, May 5, 1998). emphasized that he had shot at the officers who were trying to serve
the void search warrant. This fact was established by the testimonies
"Barangay Captain Hadji Hussin Elhano, 51 years old, testified that of several police officers,20 who were participants in the raid, and
about 4:00 o ‘clock [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997, he was confirmed by the laboratory report on the paraffin tests conducted on
fetched by two policemen at Catabangan where he was attending a the firearms and appellant.21 Additionally, the judge noted that
seminar. Because of traffic along the way, they arrived at the Rio Appellant Ladjaalam, based on his statements in his Counter Affidavit,
Hondo already late in the afternoon. He saw policemen were already impliedly contradicted his assertions in open court that there had been
no exchange of gunfire during the raid.22 The trial court concluded that when they were accompanied by the barangay chairman and a radio
the testimonies of these officers must prevail over appellant’s reporter who might testify against them. It then dismissed these
narration that he was not in his house when the raid was conducted. allegations, saying that frame-up, like alibi, was an inherently weak
defense.28
Prescinding from this point, the court a quo validated the arrest of
appellant, reasoning thus: The trial court also convicted the accused of the crime of maintaining
a drug den. It reasoned as follows:
"Under the circumstances, the policemen ‘had authority to pursue and
arrest Walpan Ladjaalam and confiscate the firearm he used in "The testimony of Rino Bartolome Locson, corroborated by SPO1
shooting at the policemen and to enter his house to effect said arrest Ricardo Lacastesantos and SPO1 Amado Mirasol, Jr. clearly
and confiscation of the firearm.’ Under Rule 113, Section 5 (a), of the established that Walpan Ladjaalam operated and maintained a drug
Rules of Court, ‘A peace officer or a private person may, without a den in his extension house where shabu or methamphetamine
warrant, arrest a person xxx (w)hen in his presence, the person to be hydrochloride, a regulated drug, was sold, and where persons or
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to customers bought and used shabu or methamphetamine
commit an offense.’ An offense is committed in the presence or within hydrochloride by burning the said regulated drug and sniffing its
the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an smoke with the use of an aluminum foil tooter. A drug den is a lair or
arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any form or
at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds are found. Its existence [may be] proved not only by direct evidence
at once to the scene thereof. At the time the policemen entered the but may also be established by proof of facts and circumstances,
house of accused Walpan Ladjaalam after he had fired shots at the including evidence of the general reputation of the house, or its
policemen who intended to serve the Search Warrant to him, the general reputation among police officers. The uncorroborated
accused was engaged in the commission of a crime, and was pursued testimony of accused Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. Warpan’ that he did
and arrested after he committed the crime of shooting at the not maintain an extension house or a room where drug users who
policemen who were about to serve the Search Warrant."23 allegedly buy shabu from him inhales or smokes shabu cannot prevail
over the testimonies of Locson, SPO1 Lacastesantos, and SPO1
As a consequence of the legal arrest, the seizure of the following was Mirasol. He admitted that he is the owner of the extension house but
also deemed valid: the M14 rifle (with a magazine containing he alleged that there were four (4) occupants who rented that
seventeen live ammunition)24 used by appellant against the police extension house. He knew the name of only one of the four occupants
elements, two M14 magazines, and three other M16 rifle who are allegedly from Jolo, a certain Momoy, the husband. Aside
magazines.25 The trial court observed that these items were in "plain from being uncorroborated, Walpan’s testimony was not elaborated by
view" of the pursuing police officers. Moreover, it added that these evidence as to when or for how long was the extension house rented,
same items were "evidence [of] the commission of a crime and/or the amount of rental paid, or by any other document showing that the
contraband and therefore, subject to seizure"26 since appellant "had extension house was in fact rented. The defense of denial put up by
not applied for a license to possess firearm and had not been given accused Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. 'Warpan’ is a weak defense. Denial
authority to carry firearm outside his residence."27 is the weakest defense and cannot prevail over the positive and
categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Denials, if
For being incredible and unsupported by evidence, appellant’s claim unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and
that the items that were seized by the police officers had been planted self-serving evidence which deserve no weight in law and cannot be
was disbelieved by the trial court. It ruled that if the police officers given evidentiary weight over the testimony of credible witnesses who
wanted to plant evidence to incriminate him, they could have done so testify on affirmative matters. As between the positive declaration of
during the previous raids or those conducted after his arrest. To its the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the
mind, it was unbelievable that they would choose to plant evidence, accused, the former deserve more credence."29
In conclusion, the trial court explained appellant’s liability in this his house to serve a search warrant upon him which led to an
manner: exchange of fire between Ladjaalam and the police officer.

"x x x. The act of the accused in firing an M14 rifle to the policemen II
who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant
constitutes the crime of direct assault with multiple attempted "The trial court erred when it denied the appellant the right and
homicide[,] not multiple attempted murder with direct assault[,] opportunity for an ocular inspection of the scene of the firefight and
considering that no policeman was hit and injured by the accused and where the house of the appellant [was] located.
no circumstance was proved to qualify the attempted killing to
attempted murder. III

"The accused Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. ‘Warpan’ cannot be held liable "The trial court erred when it ruled that the presumption of regularity in
[for] the crime of Violation of Section 16, Article III, in relation to the performance of their duties [excluded] the claim of the appellant
Section 21, Article IV, of Republic Act 6425 otherwise known as the that the firearms and methamphetamine hydrochloride (i.e. shabu)
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1992, as amended, because the fifty (50) were planted by the police."31
pieces of folded aluminum foils having a total weight of 1.7426 grams
all containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu allegedly In the interest of simplicity, we shall take up these issues seriatim: (a)
found in his house are inadmissible as evidence against him denial of the request for ocular inspection, (b) credibility of the
considering that they were seized after [a] search conducted by virtue prosecution witnesses, and (c) the defense of frame-up. In addition,
of Search Warrant No. 20 which is totally null and void as it was we shall also discuss the proper crimes and penalties to be imposed
issued for more than one offense, and were not found in ‘plain view’ of on appellant.
the police officers who seized them. Neither could the accused be
held liable for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition except The Court’s Ruling
for the (1) M14 rifle with Serial Number 1555225 and with magazine
containing fifteen (15) live ammunition and two more M14 rifle
The appeal has no merit.
magazines with twenty (20) and twenty-one (21) live ammunition
respectively considering that the policemen who recovered or seized
the other firearms and ammunition did not testify in court. The blue First Issue: Denial of Request for Ocular Inspection
bag containing assorted coins cannot be returned to the accused
Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. ‘Warpan’ because according to the accused Appellant insists that the trial court erred in denying his request for an
the blue bag and assorted coins do not belong to him[;] instead the ocular inspection of the Ladjaalam residence. He argues that an
said assorted coins should be turned over to the National Treasury."30 ocular inspection would have afforded the lower court "a better
perspective and an idea with respect to the scene of the crime."32 We
The Issues do not agree.

In his Brief, appellant submits the following Assignment of Errors: We fail to see the need for an ocular inspection in this case, especially
in the light of the clear testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.33 We
note in particular that the defense had even requested SPO1 Amado
I
Mirasol Jr. to sketch the subject premises to give the lower court a
fairly good idea of appellant’s house.34 Viewing the site of the raid
"The trial court erred when it concluded that appellant Walpan would have only delayed the proceedings.35 Moreover, the question
Ladjaalam y Mihajil [had] fired first at the police officers who went to whether to view the setting of a relevant event has long been
recognized to be within the discretion of the trial judge.36 Here, there is A: SPO2 Felipe Gaganting, Efren Gregorio and Allan Marcos Obut.
no reason to disturb the exercise of that discretion.37
Q: And, at that time you were hiding at the concrete fence?
Second Issue: Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses
A: Yes.
Appellant, in essence, questions the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses.38 Suffice it to state that the trial court’s assessment of their Q: Now, when this gate was opened, you said you went inside the
credibility is generally accorded respect, even finality.39 After carefully house, right?
examining the records and finding no material inconsistencies to
support appellant’s claim, we cannot exempt this case from the A: Yes.
general rule.40 Quite the contrary, the testimonies of these witnesses
positively showed that appellant had fired upon the approaching Q: What did you see inside the house?
police elements, and that he had subsequently attempted to escape.
SPO1 Amado Mirasol Jr.41testified thus: A: I, together with SPO1 Ricardo Lacastesantos, entered the main
door of the house of Walfran [sic] Ladjaalam at the ground floor. We
"PROSECUTOR NUVAL: went inside the sala on the ground floor of his house[;] I saw two old
woman.
Q: And, this trail is towards the front of the house of the accused?
x x x           x x x          x x x
A: Yes.
PROSECUTOR NUVAL:
Q: And it’s there where you were met by a volley of fire?
Q: Now, what did you do with these two old women?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
A: I did not mind those two old women because those two women
COURT: were sitting on the ground floor. I was concentrating on the second
floor because Ladjaalam was firing towards our group so, I, together
Q: How far were you from the concrete fen[c]e when you were met by with Ricardo Lacastesantos, went upstairs to the second floor of the
a volley of fire? ... You said you were fired upon? house.

A: More or less, five (5) meters. Q: Were you able to go to the second floor of the house?

x x x           x x x          x x x A: Yes.

PROSECUTOR NUVAL: Q: What happened when you were already on the second floor?

Q: Now, you said you were able to enter the house after the gate was A: While we were proceeding to the second floor, Walfan [sic]
opened by your colleague Felipe Gaganting ... I will reform that Ladjaalam, noticed our presence and immediately went inside the
question. bedroom [o]n the second floor and he went immediately and jumped
from the window of his house x x x leading to the roof of the
Q: Who opened the gate Mr. Witness? neighbor’s house.
 x x x           x x x          x x x Q: This sala set where is this located?

COURT: A: Located [on] the second floor of the house.

Reform. That is leading Q: Is there a sala [o]n the second floor?

Q: What happened when you entered and he jumped to the roofing of A: Yes.
the neighbor’s house?
Q: Can you still identify that M14 rifle which you said you recovered
A: Immediately, I myself, we immediately went downstairs and asked from the sale set?
the assistance of the members of the raiding team to arrest Walfan
Ladjaalam. A: Yes.

x x x           x x x          x x x Q: Why can you identify that?

PROSECUTOR NUVAL: A: The Serial No. of M14 is 1555225 and I marked it with my initial.

Q: Were you able to go down? Q: Now, I have here M14 rifle[;] will you please tell us where is the
Serial No. of this?
A: Yes.
A: 1555225 and I put my initial, RJL.
Q: What happened when you were there?
FISCAL NUVAL:
A: We immediately went out and I asked the assistance of the
members of the raiding team and the investigator of the unit especially This is already marked as our Exhibit ‘B-3’ with magazine, one
SPO1 Cesar Rabuya. I was able to manage to arrest Walfan magazine and seven round [ammunition].
Ladjaalam."42
Q: After recovering this, what did you do with this firearm?
What happened thereafter was narrated by Senior Police Officer
Ricardo Lacastesantos,43 as follows: A: When I recovered it I removed the bullets inside the chamber[.] I
removed the magazine and I turned it over to the investigator.
"Q: What did you notice [o]n the second floor?
Q: Where did you turn it over?
A: I went where the firing came from, so, I saw [an] M14 rifle and I
shouted from the outside, ‘do not fire at the second floor because A: At the crime scene.
there [are] a lot of children here.’
Q: Now, that magazine, can you still identify this?
Q: Now, that rifle you said [was an] M14, where did you find this?
A: Yes.
A: At the sala set.
Q: Why? Q: RJL?

A: I put x x x markings. A: RJL."44

x x x           x x x          x x x These were confirmed by the results of the paraffin tests conducted

on appellant and on the weapons seized during the raid. Both of his
COURT: hands as well as the weapons, particularly the M-14 which he had
used, were positive for gunpowder nitrate. Police Inspector Mercedes
So, a[si]de from the magazine attached to the M14 rifle you found six Delfin-Diestro explained in open court:
more magazines?
"Q: Okay. Now, what was the result of your examination, Madam
A: Yes, so, all in all six magazines, three empty M16 rifle magazines Witness?
and three M14.
A: The result of the examination [was] that both hands of the subject
Q: The M16 magazines [were] empty? person, ha[d] presence of gun powder nitrates.

A: Empty. Q: What do you mean Madam Witness, what does that indicate?

Q: How about the M14? A: It indicates there is presence of powder nitrates.

A: Found with [ammunition]. Q: Can we conclude that he fired a gun?

x x x           x x x          x x x A: I cannot conclude that he fired a gun because there are so many

circumstances [why] a person [would be] positive on his hands for gun
Q: So, where are the three M16 magazines? powder nitrates.

A: In the corner. Q: But, most likely, he fired a gun?

Q: What did you do with [these] three magazines of M16? A: Yes.

A: I turned [them] over to the investigator. x x x           x x x          x x x

Q: Can you identify them? PROSECUTOR NUVAL:

A: Yes, because of my initials[.] Q: What about, Madam Witness this Exhibit ‘B-3’, which is the M14
rifle. What did you do with this?
Q: Where are your initials?
A: SPO3 Abu did the swabbing both in the chamber and the barrel
A: On the magazines. wherein I observed there [were] black and traces of brown residue on
the bolt, chamber and in the barrel.
Q: And, that indicates Madam Witness...? Duly proven from the foregoing were the two elements46 of the crime
of illegal possession of firearms. Undoubtedly, the established fact
A: It indicates that the gun was fired. that appellant had fired an M-14 rifle upon the approaching police
officers clearly showed the existence of the firearm or weapon and his
Q: Recently? possession thereof. Sufficing to satisfy the second element was the
prosecution’s Certification47 stating that he had not filed any
A: Because of the traces of brown residue, it could be possible that application for license to possess a firearm, and that he had not been
the gun was fired before the incident x x x. given authority to carry any outside his residence.48 Further, it should
be pointed out that his possession and use of an M-14 rifle were
COURT: obviously unauthorized because this weapon could not be licensed in
favor of, or carried by, a private individual.49
Q: There is also black residue?
Third Issue: Defense of Frame-up
A: Yes.
From the convoluted arguments strewn before us by appellant, we
gather that the main defense he raises is frame-up. He claims that the
Q: What does it indicate?
items seized from his house were "planted," and that the entire
Zamboanga police force was out to get him at all cost.
A: It indicates that the firearm was recently fired.
This Court has invariably held that the defense of frame-up is
Q: And, where is this swab used at the time of the swabbing of this inherently weak, since it is easy to fabricate, but terribly difficult to
Exhibit? disprove.50 Absent any showing of an improper motive on the part of
the police officers,51 coupled with the presumption of regularity in the
A: This one. performance of their duty, such defense cannot be given much
credence.52Indeed, after examining the records of this case, we
PROSECUTOR NUVAL: conclude that appellant has failed to substantiate his claim. On the
contrary, his statements in his Counter Affidavit are inconsistent with
May we ask that this be marked as Exhibit ‘B-3-A’. his testimony during the trial.53 He testified thus:

COURT: "Q Now, Mr. Witness, do you remember having executed an Affidavit/
a Counter-Affidavit?
Q: The firing there indicates that the gun was recently fired, during the
incident? A I could not remember.

A: Yes. Q I have here a Counter-Affidavit and it was signed before this

representation on the 8th day of December 1997[;] tell us whose
Q: And also before the incident it was fired because of the brown signature is this appearing above the typewritten name
residue?
FISCAL NUVAL:
A: Yes, Your Honor."45 (emphasis supplied)
Q . . . . Walpan Ladjaalam, whose signature is this?
(Showing) The trial court convicted appellant of three crimes: (1) maintenance of
a drug den, (2) direct assault with attempted homicide, and (3) illegal
A Yes, Sir. This is mine. possession of firearms. We will discuss each of these.

Q Now, in paragraph[s] 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8; you stated in this Maintenance of a Drug Den
Counter-Affidavit which I quote: ‘that I was resting and sleeping when
I heard the gunshots and I noticed that the shots were directed We agree with the trial court that appellant was guilty of maintenance
towards our house.. and I inspected and x x x we were attacked by of a drug den, an offense for which he was correctly sentenced
armed persons.. and I was apprehended by the persons who attacked to reclusion perpetua. His guilt was clearly established by the
x x x our house’; [the] house you are referring to [in] this paragraph, testimony of Prosecution Witness Rino Bartolome Locson, who
whose house [are you] referring to, is this [what] you are referring to himself had used the extension house of appellant as a drug den on
[as] your house or the house of your neighbors [from] which you said several occasions, including the time of the raid. The former’s
you heard gunshots? testimony was corroborated by all the raiding police officers who
testified before the court. That appellant did not deny ownership of the
A Our house. house and its extension lent credence to the prosecution’s story.

Q Now, in paragraph 6 of your Counter-Affidavit you stated and I Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide
quote: ‘that [o]n that afternoon of September 24, 1997, I was at home
in my house Aplaya, Riohondo, Bo. Campo Muslim, my companions The trial court was also correct in convicting appellant of direct
in my house [were] the two old women and my children, is this assault55 with multiple counts of attempted homicide. It found that
correct? "[t]he act of the accused [of] firing an M14 rifle [at] the policemen[,]
who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant x x x"
A They were not there. constituted such complex crime.56

Q Now, in that statement Mr. Witness, you said that you were at home We note that direct assault with the use of a weapon carries the
in [your] house at Aplaya, Riohondo, Bo. Campo Muslim[;] which is penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods,
which now, you were in your house or you were in your neighbors[‘] while attempted homicide carries the penalty of prision
house at that time when you heard gunshots? correccional.57 Hence, for the present complex crime, the penalty for
direct assault, which constitutes the "most serious crime," should be
A I was in the house near my house. imposed and applied in its maximum period.58

Q So, your statement particularly paragraph 6 of your Counter- Illegal Possession of Firearms
Affidavit that you were at home in [your] house at Aplaya Riohondo
Bo. Campo Muslim, is x x x not correct? Aside from finding appellant guilty of direct assault with multiple
attempted homicide, the trial court convicted him also of the separate
A Yes, Sir. This is not correct."54 offense of illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866, as amended
by RA 8294, and sentenced him to 6 years of prision correccional to 8
Crime and Punishment years of prision mayor.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) disagrees, on the ground

that the trial court should not have applied the new law. It contends
that under the facts of the case, the applicable law should have been "The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president,
PD 1866, as worded prior to its amendment by RA 8294. manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or private
firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly
The trial court’s ruling and the OSG’s submission exemplify the legal allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or
community’s difficulty in grappling with the changes brought about by entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the
RA 8294. Hence, before us now are opposing views on how to provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or knowingly allow
interpret Section 1 of the new law, which provides as follows: any of them to use unlicensed firearms or firearms without any legal
authority to be carried outside of their residence in the course of their
"SECTION 1. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as employment.
amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who
"Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal
Possession of Firearms or Ammunition Instruments Used or Intended authority therefor."
to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. -- The
penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not Citing People v. Jayson,59 the OSG argues that the foregoing provision
less than Fifteen thousand pesos (₱15,000) shall be imposed upon does not cover the specific facts of this case. Since another crime --
any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, direct assault with multiple unlawful homicide -- was committed,
dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as rimfire appellant cannot be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms
handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of under the second paragraph of the aforecited provision. Furthermore,
firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or since there was no killing in this case, illegal possession cannot be
intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or deemed as an aggravating circumstance under the third paragraph of
ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was committed. the provision. Based on these premises, the OSG concludes that the
applicable law is not RA 8294, but PD 1866 which, as worded prior
"The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of the new law, penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms even if
Thirty thousand pesos (₱30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is another crime is committed at the same time.60
classified as high powered firearm which includes those with bores
bigger in diameter than .30 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber . Applying a different interpretation, the trial court posits that appellant
40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but considered should be convicted of illegal possession of firearms, in addition to
powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 centerfire magnum and direct assault with multiple attempted homicide. It did not explain its
other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of ruling, however. Considering that it could not have been ignorant of
two or three: Provided, however, That no other crime was committed the proviso61 in the second paragraph, it seemed to have construed
by the person arrested. "no other crime" as referring only to homicide and murder, in both of
which illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance.
"If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed In other words, if a crime other than murder or homicide is committed,
firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an a person may still be convicted of illegal possession of firearms. In
aggravating circumstance. this case, the other crime committed was direct assault with multiple
attempted homicide; hence, the trial court found appellant guilty of
"If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of or incident to, or in illegal possession of firearms.
connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or
attempted coup d’etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element We cannot accept either of these interpretations because they ignore
of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup the plain language of the statute. A simple reading thereof shows that
d’etat. if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there
can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. should have expressly said so, as it did in the third paragraph. Verily,
Hence, if the "other crime" is murder or homicide, illegal possession of where the law does not distinguish, neither should we.
firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a
separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple attempted The Court is aware that this ruling effectively exonerates appellant of
homicide was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held illegal possession of an M-14 rifle, an offense which normally carries a
liable for illegal possession of firearms. penalty heavier than that for direct assault. While the penalty for the
first is prision mayor, for the second it is only prision correccional.
Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the Indeed, the accused may evade conviction for illegal possession of
accused.62 In this case, the plain meaning of RA 8294’s simple firearms by using such weapons in committing an even lighter
language is most favorable to herein appellant. Verily, no other offense,66 like alarm and scandal67 or slight physical injuries,68 both of
interpretation is justified, for the language of the new law which are punishable by arresto menor.69 This consequence, however,
demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the accused.63 Accordingly, necessarily arises from the language of RA 8294, whose wisdom is
appellant cannot be convicted of two separate offenses of illegal not subject to the Court’s review. Any perception that the result
possession of firearms and direct assault with attempted homicide. reached here appears unwise should be addressed to Congress.
Moreover, since the crime committed was direct assault and not Indeed, the Court has no discretion to give statutes a new meaning
homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed detached from the manifest intendment and language of the
an aggravating circumstance. legislature. Our task is constitutionally confined only to applying the
law and jurisprudence70 to the proven facts, and we have done so in
We reject the OSG’s contention that PD 1866, as worded prior to its this case.
amendment by RA 8294, should be applied in this
case.1âwphi1 When the crime was committed on September 24, WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with
1997, the original language of PD 1866 had already been expressly the MODIFICATION that appellant is found guilty only of two offenses:
superseded by RA 8294 which took effect on July 6, 1997.64 In other (1) direct assault and multiple attempted homicide with the use of a
words, no longer in existence was the earlier provision of PD 1866, weapon, for which he is sentenced to 2 years and 4 months to 6 years
which justified a conviction for illegal possession of firearms separate of prision correccional; and (2) maintaining a drug den, for which he
from any other crime. It was replaced by RA 8294 which, among other was correctly sentenced by the trial court to reclusion perpetua. Costs
amendments to PD 1866, contained the specific proviso that "no other against appellant.
crime was committed."
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Congress of the
Furthermore, the OSG’s reliance on People v. Jayson65 is misplaced. Philippines for a possible review, at its sound discretion, of RA 8294.
True, this Court sustained the conviction of appellant for illegal
possession of firearms, although he had also committed homicide. We SO ORDERED.
explained, however, that "the criminal case for homicide [was] not
before us for consideration." Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Just as unacceptable is the interpretation of the trial court. We find no

justification for limiting the proviso in the second paragraph to murder
and homicide. The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of
simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that "no other crime
was committed by the person arrested." If the intention of the law in
the second paragraph were to refer only to homicide and murder, it
 EN BANC ammunitions without the authority and permit to possess or
carry the same.
G.R. No. 131592-93           February 15, 2000
CONTRARY TO LAW.2
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
vs. The scene of the crime was the then on-going construction site of
JULIAN CASTILLO y LUMAYRO, accused-appellant. Gaisano Building in Lapaz, Iloilo City. On November 14, 1995, at
about 8 a.m., ROBERTO LUSTICA, a construction worker, was on the
PUNO, J.: last rung of the stairs on the third floor of the Gaisano building when
he saw his co-worker ROGELIO ABAWAG being closely pursued by
With the passage of Republic Act No. 8294 on June 6, 1997, the use accused JULIAN CASTIILLO, a lead man in the same construction
of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered, not site. During the chase, the accused pointed a gun at Abawag and shot
as a separate crime, but merely a special aggravating circumstance. him. Abawag, then about a half meter away from the accused, fell on
his knees beside a pile of hollow blocks.3
In the case at bar, appellant JULIAN CASTILLO y LUMAYRO was
charged with Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms in two (2) FRANKLIN ACASO, a mason working on the third floor of the
separate Informations, thus: Gaisano building, heard the first shot. Initially, he did not pay attention
to it as he thought that the sound came from one of their construction
Criminal Case No. 45708: equipments. Seconds later, he heard a second shot and a person
screaming: "Ouch, that is enough!" When he looked towards the
That on or about the 14th day of November, 1995 in the City of direction of the sound, he saw the accused in front of Abawag, about
Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Court, a meter away, pointing a .38 caliber revolver at the latter. Abawag
armed with a handgun, with deliberate intent and without was then leaning on a pile of hollow blocks, pleading for mercy. The
justifiable motive, with evident premeditation, by means of accused shot Abawag a third time despite the latter's imploration. The
treachery and with a decided purpose to kill, did then and accused then fled, leaving Abawag lifeless.4
there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally shoot, hit and wound
Rogelio Abawag with the said gun, with which herein accused The management of Gaisano reported the shooting incident to the
was then provided at the time, thereby causing upon said police authorities who immediately rushed to the scene of the
Rogelio Abawag bullet wounds on vital parts of his body, crime. JUN LIM, alias "Akoy," brother-in-law of the victim and also a
which caused his instantaneous death. construction worker at the Gaisano, volunteered to go with the police
and assist them in locating the accused.
CONTRARY TO LAW.1
The police, accompanied by Akoy, proceeded to Port San Pedro
Criminal Case No. 45709: where they saw the accused on board a vessel bound for Cebu.
When they boarded the vessel, Akoy positively identified the accused
to the police as the assailant. The accused attempted to escape when
That on or about the 14th day of November, 1995 in the City of
the police identified themselves but the police caught up with him.
Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Court, said
Upon inquiry, the accused denied complicity in the killing of Abawag.
accused, with deliberate intent and without justifiable motive,
The police found in his possession a .38 caliber handmade revolver,
have in his possession and control one (1) Homemade .38
three (3) empty shells and (3) live ammunitions. Further inquiry
caliber revolver without serial number (and) three (3) live
revealed that the accused owned the gun but had no license to
possess it. The police then took the accused into custody and homicide, based on the settled principle that an appeal in criminal
charged him for the murder of Abawag and for illegal possession of cases opens the entire case for review. Our evaluation leads us to
firearm.5 conclude that the trial court's ruling on the homicide aspect is clearly
supported by the records. Thus, we shall concentrate on the
The self-defense theory hoisted by the accused who testified solely appellant's lone assignment of error with respect to his conviction for
for the defense was not given credence by the trial court. Thus, he the crime of illegal possession of firearm.1âwphi1.nêt
was convicted of Homicide, as the prosecution failed to prove the
alleged qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and P.D. 1866, which codified the laws on illegal possession of firearms,
treachery, and of Illegal Possession of Firearm, aggravated by was amended on June 6, 1997 by Republic Act 8294. Aside from
homicide. The trial court disposed as follows: lowering the penalty for said crime, R.A. 8294 also provided that if
homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding the accused firearm, such use shall be considered as a special aggravating
guilty of the crimes of homicide and illegal possession of circumstance.7 This amendment has two (2) implications: first, the use
firearm aggravated by homicide beyond the shadow of the of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder
doubt, he is hereby sentenced as follows: shall not be treated as a separate offense, but merely as a special
aggravating circumstance; second, as only a single crime (homicide
1) For the crime of homicide, he is sentenced to an or murder with the aggravating circumstance of illegal possession of
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12) firearm) is committed under the law, only one penalty shall be
years of prision mayor, as minimum, to Seventeen (17) imposed on the accused.8
years and Four (4) months reclusion temporal, as
maximum; Prescinding therefrom, and considering that the provisions of the
amendatory law favorable to herein appellant, the new law should be
2) For illegal possession of firearm which is aggravated retroactively applied in the case at bar.9 It was thus error for the trial
by homicide, he is sentenced to a penalty of death; court to convict the appellant of two (2) separate offenses, i.e.,
Homicide and Illegal Possession of Firearms, and punish him
3) To pay the family of his victim P50,000.00 as separately for each crime. Based on the facts of the case, the crime
indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages; for which the appellant may be charged is homicide, aggravated by
and illegal possession of firearm, the correct denomination for the crime,
and not illegal possession of firearm, aggravated by homicide as ruled
4) To pay the cost. by the trial court, as it is the former offense which aggravates the
crime of homicide under the amendatory law.
SO ORDERED.6 (emphasis supplied)
The appellant anchors his present appeal on the assertion that his
conviction was unwarranted as no proof was adduced by the
On automatic review by this Court, appellant impugns solely his
prosecution that he was not licensed to possess the subject firearm.
conviction for illegal possession of firearm for which he was
In their Manifestation and Motion in lieu of Appellee's Brief, the
sentenced to the supreme penalty of death.
Solicitor General joined cause with the appellant.10
Prefatorily, we stress that although the appellant himself does not
We agree.
refute the findings of the trial court regarding the homicide aspect of
the case, the Court nevertheless made a thorough examination of the
entire records of the case, including the appellant's conviction for Two (2) requisites are necessary to establish illegal possession of
firearms: first, the existence of the subject firearm, and second, the
fact that the accused who owned or possessed the gun did not have "statement by defendant of fact or facts pertinent to issues
the corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence. pending, in connection with proof of other facts or
The onus probandi of establishing these elements as alleged in the circumstances, to prove guilt, but which is, of itself, insufficient
Information lies with the prosecution.11 to authorize conviction." From the above principles, this Court
can infer that an admission in criminal cases is insufficient to
The first element — the existence of the firearm — was indubitably prove beyond doubt the commission of the crime charged.
established by the prosecution. Prosecution eyewitness Acaso saw
appellant shoot the victim thrice with a .38 caliber revolver.12 Appellant Moreover, said admission is extrajudicial in nature. As such, it
himself admitted that he did not turn over the gun to the security does not fall under Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules
guards in the building after the shooting.13 The same gun was of Court which states:
recovered from the appellant and offered in evidence by the
prosecution. However, no proof was adduced by the prosecution to An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the
establish the second element of the crime, i.e., that the appellant was course of the trial or other proceedings in the same
not licensed to possess the firearm. This negative fact constitutes an case does not require proof.
essential element of the crime as mere possession, by itself, is not an
offense. The lack of a license or permit should have been proved Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused-
either by the testimony or certification of a representative of the PNP appellant does not prove beyond reasonable doubt the second
Firearms and Explosives Unit that the accused was not a licensee of element of illegal possession of firearm. It does not even
the subject firearm14 or that the type of firearm involved can be lawfully establish a prima facie case. It merely bolsters the case for the
possessed only by certain military personnel.15 Indeed, if the means of prosecution but does not stand as proof of the fact of absence
proving a negative fact is equally within the control of each party, the or lack of a license. (emphasis supplied).
burden of proof is on the party averring said negative fact. As the
Information alleged that the appellant possessed an unlicensed gun, Additionally, as pointed out by both the appellant and the Solicitor
the prosecution is duty-bound to prove this allegation. It is the General, the extrajudicial admission was made without the benefit of
prosecution who has the burden of establishing beyond reasonable counsel. Thus, we hold that the appellant may only be held liable for
doubt all the elements of the crime charged, consistent with the basic the crime of simple homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal
principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven Code.
guilty.16 Thus, if the non-existence of some fact is a constituent
element of the crime, the onus is upon the State to prove this negative We come now to the penalty. The crime of homicide is penalized
allegation of non-existence.17 by reclusion temporal.19 There being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime, the penalty
Hence, in the case at bar, although the appellant himself admitted that of reclusion temporalshall be imposed in its medium period, i.e., from
he had no license for the gun recovered from his possession, his fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen
admission will not relieve the prosecution of its duty to establish (17) years and four (4) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's lack of license or permit to Law, the imposable penalty shall be within the range of prision
possess the gun. In People vs. Solayao,18 we expounded on this mayor, i.e., from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, as
doctrine, thus: minimum, to reclusion temporal in its medium period of from fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years
. . . (b)y its very nature, an "admission is the mere and four (4) months, as maximum.
acknowledgment of a fact or of circumstances from which guilt
may be inferred, tending to incriminate the speaker, but not IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the assailed Decision is MODIFIED.
sufficient of itself to establish his guilt." In other words, it is a Appellant Julian Castillo y Lumayro is found guilty of Homicide. He is
sentenced to imprisonment of from nine (9) years and four (4) months
of prision mayor as minimum to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months
and nine (9) days of reclusion temporal as maximum. However, the
civil indemnity and moral damages awarded by the trial court to the
heirs of the victim in the total amount of one hundred thousand
(P100,000.00) pesos are affirmed.1âwphi1.nêt

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,

Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes,
Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., concur.
 THIRD DIVISION  and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession
and under his custody and control one (1) Peter Stahl .45 caliber
[G.R. No. 187229 : February 22, 2012]  pistol with Serial Number A414 with five (5) ammunitions, without first
having secured the necessary license/permit issued by the proper
ARNEL SISON Y ESCUADRO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE authorities.[4]
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner pleaded not guilty[5] to both charges.
D E C I S I O N 
Trial thereafter ensued. During the trial, two different versions were
PERALTA, J.: presented.

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of The evidence for the prosecution, as aptly summarized by the RTC
the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1] dated March 17, 2009, which and adopted by the CA, are as follows:
affirmed with modification the Joint Decision[2] dated December 14, Private complainant [AAA] was, at the time of subject incident, a
2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 81, resident of x x x and was working on a 10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m. shift as a
finding petitioner Arnel Sison guilty of the crimes of rape and violation Product Support Representative with x x x.  Since her residence is
of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act quite far from her place of work and considering her working hours,
(R.A.) No. 8294.cralaw  her aunt would usually bring her to the Bocaue toll gate and from
there, she would ride either a Tamaraw FX or bus going to Cubao
On April 21, 2003, two (2) separate Informations were filed with the bound to her office.
RTC against petitioner for Kidnapping with Rape and violation of P.D.
1866, as amended by R.A. 8294 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and At around 8:00 p.m. of April 16, 2003, [AAA] boarded accused’s
Ammunitions). The accusatory portions of the two (2) Informations passenger van, a black Mitsubishi Adventure with plate number CSV-
respectively state: 606, at the Bocaue toll gate. She sat at the front passenger seat as it
Criminal Case No. Q-03-116710 was the only vacant seat at that time since there were already nine
passengers on board. When they reached Quezon City, the
That on or about the 16th day of April 2003, in Quezon City, passengers alighted one by one, the last of whom alighted in New
Philippines, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence York Street, Cubao, Quezon City. [AAA] was supposed to alight in
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and Aurora Blvd.  When they were already in front of Nepa Q-Mart and
feloniously, armed with firearm, kidnap and rape one [AAA] in the [AAA] was the only passenger left in the van, accused told her that he
following manner, to wit: said [AAA] boarded the Mitsubishi Adventure would change first the P100.00 bill that she paid. Her fare was only
with plate no. CSV-606, driven by the accused who was then plying P30.00, so she still had a change of P70.00. Accused made a few
his route at Bocaue Toll Gate going to Cubao, Quezon City, and upon turns until they reached an alley, with nobody passing through. [AAA]
reaching EDSA corner New York Street, Cubao, this City, accused felt uneasy so she told the accused that she would alight, but then she
suddenly poked his gun at her, kidnap and detain her and forcibly heard cocking of a gun.  Accused suddenly put his right arm over her
brought her at the Town and Country, Sta. Mesa, Manila, where right shoulder, drew her nearer to him, pointed a gun at her chest with
accused had carnal knowledge of her by force and intimidation his right hand, while [he] continued driving with his left hand.  Accused
against her will and without her consent.[3] kept driving for about ten to twenty minutes until such time that they
Criminal Case No. Q-03-116711 entered a drive-thru. [AAA] saw the logo of the Town and Country
Motel. She also noticed the signage of the AMA Computer College so
That on or about the 17th day of April 2003, in Quezon City, she presumed that they were in Sta. Mesa, Quezon City.  A boy
Philippines, the said accused, without any authority of law, did then approached the van and the accused slightly opened the window
beside him. The boy pointed to a garage room to which the accused Baliwag Bus Terminal, Cubao, Quezon City. Recovered from him was
entered.  When they were already inside the garage, the accused a .45 caliber Peter Stahl pistol with serial number A414 and five (5)
pushed [AAA] out of the van. With the gun pointed at her, accused ammunitions (Exhibits E and E-1 to E-5).  The police officers likewise
dragged her upstairs and again pushed her inside a room.  [AAA] sat brought the black Mitsubishi Adventure with plate number CSV 606
on the lone chair inside the room. Accused approached her, pulled (Exhibit F) to the police station for proper disposition.
her from the chair and pushed her into the bed.  [AAA] got up and ran
to the door but the accused grabbed her before she could reach it and The investigation conducted by PO2 Regundina Sosa disclosed that
pushed her again to the bed. [AAA] pleaded to the accused, telling accused’s Permit to Carry Firearm No. 1-B149052 has already
him: “Pakawalan mo na ako. Ayoko na dito. Meron pa akong pamilya. expired on January 11, 2003 (Exhibit H).
Sana maintindihan mo na hindi ako ganun klaseng babae, meron pa
naman iba pang babae dyan.” However, the accused did not heed her Medico-Legal Report No. M-1231-03, dated April 24, 2003, submitted
plea but instead, pinned her to the bed, grabbed her pants destroying by Dr. Pierre Paul Carpio states that “Subject is in non-virgin state
the zipper in the process, stripped her of her panty and pants. physically. There are no external signs of application of any form of
Accused then removed his t-shirt, shorts and underwear and rubbed trauma.” (Exhibit K)[6]
his penis against her vagina, inserted it into her vagina and made
pumping motions a couple of times. [AAA] felt pain. She kept on Petitioner denied the accusation and claimed that what happened
pleading to the accused to stop abusing her, but the accused told her. between him and AAA was a consensual sex.  The RTC summarized
“Ang sarap-sarap mo. Pasensya ka na [AAA] nakagamit ako ng the evidence for the defense as follows:
drugs.”  After a while, [AAA] felt that something sticky was released At around 8:00 p.m. of April 16, 2006 (sic), which was a Holy
from the accused. He then wore his t-shirt, underwear and shorts. Tuesday, [AAA] boarded his van in Bocaue, taking the front
[AAA]  could no longer move as she was still in the state of shock and passenger seat. Aside from her, he has other four (4) passengers, two
at the time, feeling sorry for herself for what had happened to her. were seated at the middle passenger seat and the other two (2) were
at the back passenger seat.  While he was driving, he had a
After the accused had sexual intercourse with [AAA], accused conversation with [AAA], such as she was a graduate of AMA
directed her to dress up to which she complied. Before they went out Computer School, that she works in a computer company, that she
of the room, accused told her not to make any scene, otherwise, he sends her siblings to school, that her father is in a rehabilitation center
would not hesitate to shoot her. When he dropped her off somewhere and her parents are separated, that she has many rich suitors, that
in Cubao, Quezon City, he again threatened her not to report the she has a hard time sending her siblings to school and she needs
incident to the police as he would kill her.  He even got her cell phone money at that time. In return, accused told [AAA] that he owns the van
number. When the accused was gone, [AAA] boarded a taxi and and that his wife works abroad. He made “bola” to her and offered to
proceeded to the office where she narrated to her supervisor and give her P4,000.00 and some signature clothes. [AAA] did not
officemates what happened to her. Her officemates accompanied her respond, so he just continue[d] driving. When they reached Aurora
to Police Station 7, Camp Panopio, P. Tuazon corner EDSA, Quezon Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City, the other four (4) passengers alighted. 
City where she reported the incident and executed a sworn statement From there, he made a U-turn, proceeded to their terminal and told
(Exhibit A). the dispatcher to include him in his list so he could ply back to
Cabanatuan. Considering that [AAA] did not make any attempt to
At around 12:20 a.m. of April 17, 2003, while PO2 Mario Palic was on alight from the van, he made a right turn to New York Street, Cubao,
duty at Police Station 7, victim [AAA] arrived and reported her ordeal Quezon City, right turn again at the back of the terminal and
in the hands of the accused. Officer Palic, together with fellow police proceeded to Aurora Blvd.  He then asked [AAA] “ano?”  When [AAA]
officers, namely, Police Inspector Gatos, PO3 Nacional, PO1 did not respond again, he drove going to Sta. Mesa, Manila and
Sapulaan and PO2 Lanaso immediately conducted follow-up proceeded to Gardenia Hotel. They waited for about two (2) minutes
operations which led to the arrest of the accused in front of the inside the premises of the hotel, as there were no vacant rooms at
that time. Thereafter, a bellboy carrying a pail, approached them and at 1:00 p.m. and reaching Cubao at 4:00 p.m.  It was then that he was
pointed to a room. However, accused wanted a garage room so he arrested. While they were on board the police vehicle, one of the
opened the door of his van about a foot wide as his window had been policemen showed him a picture which he recognized as [AAA]. The
damaged and told the bellboy what he wanted. The bellboy acceded policemen brought him to Police Station 7 where he was told that a
to his request and directed them to a garage room. Accused grave offense was filed against him. They demanded the amount of
maneuvered the van inside the garage. They went out of the van and P150,000.00 for his release. The next day, his mother and sister
proceeded upstairs where the room was located. When they entered, arrived and talked to the policemen. His mother and sister agreed to
the bellboy, who was cleaning the room, left. [AAA] entered the pay the amount of P150,000.00 but when they came back, they were
comfort room, while accused watched T.V.  After coming out of the already accompanied by his lawyer, Atty. Hernani Barrios, who
comfort room, [AAA] sat on the bed. Accused started kissing her on advised them not to yield to the demand which they did.  He was
the neck and removed her tube blouse and transparent strapless bra presented to the inquest fiscal and transferred to the Quezon City Jail
and kissed her breasts, while [AAA] held his private part. When he where he is detained up to now.
reached out for the zipper of her pants and began unzipping it, [AAA]
stood up and willingly removed her pants. Accused also removed his Accused further testified that he, being a civilian agent of the MICO,
pants. He touched her private part and inserted his fingers on it.  Philippine Army, Fort Magsaysay, Palayan City, was carrying a caliber
[AAA] embraced him, held his penis and she herself inserted it on her .45 Peter Stahl pistol (Exhibit E) with five (5) ammunitions (Exhibits A1
vagina. They made pumping motions. The sexual congress lasted for to A-5). However, the policemen took his Permit to Carry Firearm,
quite sometime because [AAA] even went on top of him, during which Memorandum Receipt (MR) and Mission Order (MO) when they
time, he held her breast. After [AAA] reached her climax, he went on arrested him.
top of her and afterwards, he ejaculated so he withdrew his penis from
her vagina.  Thereafter, they dressed up.  Accused was about to pay Nova Tabbu, accused’s sister, merely corroborated his testimony that
[AAA] P800.00, but he changed his mind and instead, gave her the policemen demanded the amount of P150,000.00 for his release.
P600.00 only and pocketed the remaining P200.00. [AAA] did not x x x  x x x  x x x
anymore [count] the money.  He summoned the bellboy, paid their bill,
went out of the room and boarded the van.  While they were waiting Erwin Ocampo, a technical sergeant of the 46th Military Intelligence
for the bellboy to open the garage door, he checked his gun which he Company, Fort Magsaysay, Palayan City, testified that the accused is
placed under the driver’s seat.  He even showed it to [AAA].  When a presidential agent for which reason he has on file an Agent
the garage door was opened, they left the hotel premises and Recruitment Report, Agent Agreement, Application for I.D. card, Oath
proceeded to Cubao.  They passed by the SM Department Store but of Loyalty, Pseudonym Agreement, Profile Penetration Agent and
since it was already 11:00 p.m., it was already closed so he was not Human Resource Report.
able to buy her the blouse and wallet that he promised her. He also
told her that he had no more money.  That irritated [AAA] who Geronimo Ebrogar testified that he noticed the accused leaving the
suddenly grabbed his wallet lying on the [dashboard]. Accused bus terminal at around 8:00 p.m. on April 16, 2003 with a female
stopped the van, got back the wallet from [AAA] and even pulled her companion; that when the accused returned at 10:30 p.m. of the same
hair (“Sinabunutan ko po siya”).  [AAA] got angry and called him night, he was alone.[7]
“hayop.”  He then dropped her off somewhere in Cubao, while he
went back to their terminal.  At about 11:00 p.m., he plied the van to On December 14, 2007, the RTC issued a Joint Decision, the
San Carlos, Pangasinan, reaching the place at about 4:00 a.m. the dispositive portion of which reads:
following day, April 17, 2003. From there, he went back to WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
Cabanatuan terminal, arriving there at 5:30 a.m. After talking to the
dispatcher, he went home to Bangad and slept. He woke up about In Criminal Case No. Q-03-116710, the Court finds accused ARNEL
lunchtime, took a bath, and plied again his van, leaving Cabanatuan SISON y ESCUADRO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Kidnapping with Rape and is hereby sentenced  to suffer the  penalty 1.    Regarding Criminal Case No. Q-03-116710, the Court finds
of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties provided accused ARNEL SISON y ESCUADRO guilty beyond reasonable
by law, and to pay private complainant (AAA)  the amounts of doubt of the crime of RAPE qualified by the use of a deadly weapon,
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P100,000.00 as moral damages. and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties provided by law, and to
In Criminal Case No. Q-03-116711, the Court finds ARNEL SISON y pay private complainant the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity
ESCUADRO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of and P100,000.00 as moral damages.
Violation of P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294, and is hereby
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and 2.    Anent Criminal Case No. Q-03-116711, the Court finds accused
one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months, and to pay a fine of ARNEL SISON y ESCUADRO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00).[8] offense of Violation of P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294, and is
hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of thirty (30)
The RTC found AAA's testimony, narrating how petitioner raped her, days to four (4) months.
to be candid and straightforward, thus reflective of her honesty and
credibility. It found nothing on record that would show that AAA was SO ORDERED.[9]
actuated by ill motive in filing the charges against petitioner. The RTC
also noted that AAA even cried when she testified in court. It did not In so ruling, the CA pointed out that the crime committed was not
believe petitioner's claim that AAA was a small time prostitute, kidnapping with rape, but only rape qualified with the use of a deadly
considering that she was a college graduate who was already working weapon.  Applying jurisprudence, it said that if the offender is only to
at the time of the incident and the fact that she immediately reported rape the victim and in the process, the latter had to be illegally
the rape incident to the police despite threat to her life. detained, only the crime of rape is committed since illegal detention is
deemed absorbed in rape.  The CA upheld the RTC's assessment of
As to the charge of illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions, the AAA's credibility, because of its unique position to observe the
RTC found the elements of the crime to be duly proven.  AAA testified deportment of the witness while testifying.  It also found that while the
that petitioner pointed a gun at her and because of such threat prosecution was able to prove that petitioner's license to carry said
submitted herself to his bestial desire; the gun, as well as the firearm outside residence already expired at the time he was
ammunitions, was offered in evidence and even the accused admitted apprehended with it, however, there was no showing that the firearm
that he had a gun at the time of the incident. It was established he carried on April 17, 2003 was not licensed or its license had
through the testimony of police investigator Regundina Sosa that expired, thus petitioner could only be liable for carrying a licensed
based on petitioner's permit to carry firearm outside residence, the firearm outside his residence under the last paragraph of Section 1,
same had already expired on January 11, 2003, few months before P.D. 1866, as amended.
his apprehension.
Hence, this petition for review on the following assignment of errors:
Petitioner filed his appeal with the CA. The Office of the Solicitor A. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
General filed its Comment and petitioner his Reply thereto. DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT,  GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO
THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT , WHICH IS
On March 17, 2009, the CA issued its assailed Decision affirming PUNCTURED WITH MATERIAL INCONSISTENCY, UNCERTAINTY,
petitioner's conviction.  The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: UNRELIABILTY AND WHOSE TESTIMONIES WERE INHERENTLY
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed WEAK, FLAWED AND CONTRARY TO NORMAL HUMAN
Decision dated December 14, 2007 is hereby AFFIRMED with BEHAVIOR THEREBY CASTING GRAVE DOUBT ON THE
MODIFICATION as follows: CRIMINAL CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED- APPELLANT. IT
LIKEWISE TOOK THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT AS
GOSPEL TRUTH SANS ANY CRITICAL SCRUTINY AND witness' honesty and sincerity. The trial judge, therefore, can better
ACCEPTED THE SAME WITH PRECIPITATE CREDULITY. determine if such witnesses were telling the truth, being in the ideal
position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Unless certain facts of
B. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might
DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT BY FAILING TO APPRECIATE affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it
NUMEROUS VITAL EVIDENCE, WHICH IF CONSIDERED, WOULD had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the
OTHERWISE RESULT IN THE ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED- witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds
APPELLANT. an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained
by the Court of Appeals.[12]
C. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED- We find no reason to disregard the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by
APPELLANT USED A DEADLY WEAPON AGAINST COMPLAINANT the CA, that AAA was raped by petitioner on April 16, 2003, since
IN THE PERPETUATION OF THE ALLEGED INCIDENT IN their findings were supported by the evidence on record.  AAA
QUESTION. testified in a straightforward manner, declaring that petitioner, with the
use of a gun poked at her chest, drove her to a motel and brought her
D. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE to the motel parking garage, dragged her to the second floor, then
DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN CONVICTING THE pushed her to the room and then to the bed.  She tried to run and
ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHEN THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE reach for the door, but petitioner grabbed her and pushed her back to
PROSECUTION FAILED TO MEET THE STANDARD OF MORAL the bed.  She was stripped of her pants and panty and, thereafter,
CERTAINTY.[10] petitioner took off his shorts and underwear and despite her plea,
forced himself to her and had sex with her.  Afterwards, with the gun
Petitioner faults the CA for affirming his conviction on the basis of in his hand, petitioner threatened to kill her if she would report the
AAA’s inconsistent and incredible testimony. He argues that he and matter to the police.[13]
AAA had given two conflicting testimonies and the RTC erred in giving
more weight to the unsubstantiated testimony of AAA. In rape cases, the essential element that the prosecution must prove
is the absence of the victim’s consent to the sexual congress.[14]  The
Petitioner’s assignment of errors hinges on AAA’s credibility and the gravamen of the crime of rape is sexual congress with a woman by
sufficiency of the prosecution evidence to convict him of the crimes force or intimidation and without consent.[15]  Force in rape is relative,
charged. depending on the age, size and strength of the parties.  In the same
manner, intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim’s
In People v. Espino, Jr.,[11] we said: perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime
Time and again, we have held that when the decision hinges on the and not by any hard and fast rule.[16]
credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial
court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are Petitioner’s act of holding a gun and threatening AAA with the same
often accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact showed force or at least intimidation which was sufficient for her to
or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, submit to petitioner’s bestial desire for fear of her life.
misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered,
would alter the result of the case. The trial judge enjoys the advantage Petitioner denies having raped AAA and claims that what transpired
of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her between him and AAA was a consensual sex.  In his desire to be
"furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or acquitted of the crime of rape, petitioner insists that AAA’s testimony
sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an was replete with incredibilities and inconsistencies, thus not worthy of
oath" - all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a credence.
 was able to read the landmarks and logos in the places that they
First, petitioner claims that while AAA testified during her direct passed by which included the name of the motel.
examination that his right arm was on her shoulder with a gun pointed
at her chest, she also testified during her cross-examination that she Third, petitioner contends that AAA had several opportunities to ask
was texting her officemates, thus under such a circumstance, it would for help or escape while they were in the motel, i.e., when petitioner
be insane for him to allow her to text her officemates if he has plans of was negotiating with the motel roomboy for a room with a parking
raping her. garage, and after the roomboy had left the garage and petitioner
pushed her outside of the vehicle.
We do not agree.
We are not persuaded.
A reading of AAA’s testimony during her cross-examination shows
that she never said that she was texting her officemates at the time AAA testified that when petitioner slightly opened the window of the
that a gun was already pointed at her.  She testified that she was the driver's side to talk to the roomboy, only a part of petitioner's head
last passenger in the vehicle driven by petitioner and the latter told her could be seen and since the vehicle was heavily tinted, the roomboy
that he had no change for the 100-peso bill fare she paid him;[17]  that could not see her.[23] Also, she could not also say a thing because the
petitioner continued driving, but   when he did not stop in a store they gun was poked at her.[24]  And after she was pushed out of the vehicle,
passed by to have the 100-peso bill changed, it was then that she she tried to escape but petitioner who was still holding the gun went
texted her officemates.[18]  She decided to go down the vehicle, but it out of the vehicle and got hold of her.[25]  These circumstances present
was moving fast[19] and, thereafter, petitioner pulled her nearer to him no opportunity for her to escape.  Moreover, people react differently
by putting his right hand on her shoulder and pointed a gun at her under emotional stress.[26] There is no standard form of behavior when
chest.[20]  Hence, the texting of officemates happened before the gun one is confronted by a shocking incident, especially if the assailant is
was poked at her. physically near. The workings of the human mind when placed under
emotional stress are unpredictable.[27] In a given situation, some may
The fact that not one of AAA's textmates was presented as witness shout, others may faint, and still others may be frozen into silence.
would not detract from her credibility. Jurisprudence has steadfastly Consequently, the failure of complainant to run away or shout for help
been already repetitious that the accused may be convicted on the at the very first opportunity cannot be construed consent to the sexual
sole testimony of the victim in a rape case, provided that such intercourse.[28]
testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things.[21] AAA repeatedly stated that Fourth, petitioner avers that to strip an unwilling person of her clothes
petitioner sexually abused her against her will. The straightforward will result in a serious struggle.  However, the medical report did not
narration by AAA of what transpired, accompanied by her categorical show any indication of contusion or hematoma on AAA's legs or
identification of petitioner as the malefactor, sealed the case for the abdomen.
prosecution.[22]
Even assuming that AAA failed to put up a strong resistance to repel
Second, petitioner assails AAA's vivid remembrance of the places petitioner's physical aggression, such failure does not mean that she
they passed by, which shows her relaxed condition in petitioner’s was not raped.  Petitioner had a gun which was sufficient to intimidate
company. her and to submit to his lustful desire.  It is well settled that physical
resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is
Such contention is devoid of merit. exercised upon a victim and the latter submits herself, against her will,
to the rapist’s advances because of fear for her life and personal
AAA was a 21-year-old working woman and was not blindfolded when safety.[29]
they were traversing the roads on the way to the motel.  Thus, she
Fifth, petitioner points out the impossibility of AAA's account that   his Product Support Representative with x x x  would stoop so low to
right arm was around her right shoulder poking a gun at her chest subject herself to the shame and scandal of having undergone such a
while his left hand was at the wheels, because such position would debasing defilement of her chastity if the charge filed were not true. [33]
not allow him to change gear while making turns.
In fact, while petitioner, in his direct testimony, was portraying AAA as
Such contention remained unsubstantiated and, therefore, self- a prostitute, the latter cried.[34]  AAA's crying shows how she might
serving. As the Solicitor General correctly argued, petitioner neglected have felt after being raped by the petitioner and yet be accused of a
to prove such impossibility by actual demonstration which is fatal to woman of loose morals.  The victim's moral character in rape is
his cause. immaterial where it is shown that intimidation was used for the victim
to have sex with the accused.[35]
Sixth, petitioner insists that he and AAA had a getting-to-know
conversation during the trip, which explained why AAA even testified The truthfulness of AAA’s charge for rape was further bolstered by her
that he uttered her name during the sexual act; that she even got his conduct immediately after the rape incident.  After petitioner dropped
cell phone number and it was through her text message that she her off in Cubao, AAA immediately went to her office and narrated her
arranged a tip for his arrest. ordeal to her officemates.  Accompanied by them, she went to the
police station to report the incident and submitted herself to medical
Such contention fails to persuade. examination.

Granting that they had a conversation during the trip since AAA was However, as to petitioner's conviction for illegal possession of
seated in the front seat, such circumstance did not establish that she firearms, such judgment must be set aside. We find that he can no
agreed to the sexual act.  In fact, there is no evidence to prove longer be held liable for such offense since another crime was
petitioner’s claim that after the incident, AAA texted him and arranged committed, i.e., rape.
for them to meet and was then apprehended by the police. The
prosecution established that it was through the efforts of the police P.D. 1866, as amended by RA 8294, the law governing Illegal
that petitioner was apprehended. Police Officer Mario Palic testified Possession of Firearms provides:
that based on the complaint for rape lodged by AAA in their station, he SECTION 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or
and the other police officers made a follow-up.[30] After which,  they Possession of Firearms or Ammunition Instruments Used or intended
received an information that the vehicle used in the rape incident was to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. - The
parked along Edsa, New York, Quezon City, in front of the Baliwag penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not
Terminal.[31]  Together with AAA, they proceeded to the place where less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed upon
the vehicle was parked and when AAA saw petitioner standing near any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire,
the parked vehicle, she identified him as her rapist.[32] dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as rimfire
handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of
Seventh, petitioner claims that his failure to give AAA the amount of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or
P4,000.00 and the things he had promised to buy for her was the intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or
reason why AAA charged him with the crime of rape. ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was committed.

Such argument deserves scant consideration. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty
thousand pesos (P30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is classified
We find apropos what the RTC said in the issue, thus: as high-powered firearm which includes those with bores bigger in
x x x  Even in these very hard times, the court could not believe that diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter, such as caliber .40, .41, .
AAA, a college graduate of x x x Computer College and working as a 44, .45 and also lesser-calibered firearms but considered powerful,
such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and other favorable to herein appellant. Verily, no other interpretation is justified,
firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of two or for the language of the new law demonstrates the legislative intent to
three: Provided, however, That no other crime was committed by the favor the accused.  Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of two
person arrested. separate offenses of illegal possession of firearms and direct assault
with attempted homicide. Moreover, since the crime committed was
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of
firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance.
aggravating circumstance.
xxxx
If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of or incident to, or in
connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or x x x   The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal
attempted coup d’etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element possession of firearms, provided that “no other crime was committed
of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup by the person arrested.” If the intention of the law in the second
d’etat. paragraph were to refer only to homicide and murder, it should have
expressly said so, as it did in the third paragraph. Verily, where the
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, law does not distinguish, neither should we.[37]
manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or private
firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly All told, we affirm petitioner's conviction for the crime of rape.
allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or However, petitioner's conviction of illegal possession of firearms is set
entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the aside.
provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or knowingly allow
any of them to use, unlicensed firearms or firearms without any legal Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code,  whenever the crime
authority to be carried outside of their residence in the course of their of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or
employment. more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. The
prosecution was able to sufficiently allege in the Information, and
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who establish during trial, that a gun was used in the commission of rape. 
shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstance was established in
authority therefor. the commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be imposed.[38] 
Thus, we affirm the penalty of reclusion perpetua meted by the courts
In People v. Ladjaalam,[36] we laid down the correct interpretation of below.
the law and ruled:
x x x  A simple reading thereof shows that if an unlicensed firearm is As to the damages awarded for the crime of qualified rape, however,
used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate modifications are in order.  Considering that the penalty imposable
offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the “other is reclusion perpetua, the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity must
crime” is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes be reduced to P50,000.00.[39]  Also the award of P100,000.00 as moral
merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. Since damages should be reduced to P50,000.00 based on prevailing
direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this jurisprudence.[40]  Exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00
case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of should be awarded by reason of the established presence of the
firearms. qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon.[41]

Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused. In addition, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be
In this case, the plain meaning of RA 8294’s simple language is most imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this
judgment until fully paid, likewise pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.
[42]
cralaw 

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 17, 2009 of the Court of

Appeals, sentencing petitioner Arnel Sison y Escuadro to reclusion
perpetua for the crime of qualified rape, is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that he is ORDERED to pay
AAA the reduced amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and
P50,000.00 as moral damages.  Petitioner is also ORDERED to pay
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages and interest at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all the damages awarded from
the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

Petitioner's conviction of Illegal Possession of Firearms is

hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.
 Republic of the Philippines transaction has been completed. Police officers Pajo and Simon rushed
SUPREME COURT to the place and handcuffed the appellant as he was leaving the place.
Manila
The police officers, still in the area of operation and in the presence of
THIRD DIVISION barangay officials Richard S. Tandoy and Gresilda B. Tumala, searched
the appellant and found a big sachet of shabu. PO1 Simon also pointed
G.R. No. 186227               July 20, 2011 to the barangay officials the marked money, two pieces of ₱100 bill,
thrown by the appellant on the ground.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 
vs. After the operation, and in the presence of the same barangay officials,
ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA, Accused-Appellant. the police officers made an inventory of the items recovered from the
appellant which are: (1) one big sachet of shabu which they marked as
DECISION RMP-1-10-01-03; (2) one small sachet of shabu which they marked as
RMP 2-10-01-03; and (3) two (2) pieces of one hundred pesos marked
money and a fifty peso (₱50) bill. Thereafter, a letter-request was
PERALTA, J.:
prepared by Inspector Ferdinand B. Dacillo for the laboratory examination
of the two (2) sachets containing a crystalline substance, ultra-violet
For this Court's consideration is the Decision1 dated July 31, 2008 of the examination on the person of the appellant as well as the two (2) pieces
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00240-MIN, affirming the of one hundred pesos marked money. The request was brought by PO1
Omnibus Judgment2 dated September 14, 2005, of the Regional Trial Pajo and personally received by Police Inspector Virginia Sison-Gucor,
Court, Branch 1, Butuan City in Criminal Case No. 10250 and Criminal Forensic Chemical Officer of the Regional Crime Laboratory Office XII
Case No. 10251, finding appellant Allen Udtojan Mantalaba, guilty Butuan City, who immediately conducted the examination. The laboratory
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of examination revealed that the appellant tested positive for the presence
Republic Act (RA) 9165. of bright orange ultra-violet fluorescent powder; and the crystalline
substance contained in two sachets, separately marked as RMP-1-10-01-
The facts, as culled from the records, are the following: 03 and RMP-2-10-01-03, were positively identified as methamphetamine
hydrochloride.
The Task Force Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response (RACER) in
Butuan City received a report from an informer that a certain Allen Thereafter, two separate Informations were filed before the RTC of
Mantalaba, who was seventeen (17) years old at the time, was Butuan City against appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA
selling shabu at Purok 4, Barangay 3, Agao District, Butuan City. Thus, a 9165, stating the following:
buy-bust team was organized, composed of PO1 Randy Pajo, PO1 Eric
Simon and two (2) poseur-buyers who were provided with two (2) pieces Criminal Case No. 10250
of ₱100 marked bills to be used in the purchase.
That on or about the evening of October 1, 1003 at Purok 4, Barangay 3,
Around 7 o'clock in the evening of October 1, 2003, the team, armed with Agao, Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
the marked money, proceeded to Purok 4, Barangay 3, Agao District, Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did
Butuan City for the buy-bust operation. The two poseur-buyers then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell zero point zero
approached Allen who was sitting at a corner and said to be in the act of four one two (0.0412) grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
selling shabu. PO1 Pajo saw the poseur-buyers and appellant talking to otherwise known as shabu which is a dangerous drug.
each other. Afterwards, the appellant handed a sachet of shabu to one of
the poseur-buyers and the latter gave the marked money to the appellant.
CONTRARY TO LAW : (Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165).3
The poseur-buyers went back to the police officers and told them that the
 Criminal Case No. 10251 The CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. It disposed of the case
as follows:
That on or about the evening of October 1, 2003 at Purok 4, Barangay 3,
Agao, Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1,
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did Butuan City dated September 14, 2005 appealed from finding the
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess zero point six accused-appellant Allen Udtojan Mantalaba guilty beyond reasonable
one three one (0.6131) grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, doubt with the crime of Violation of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of
otherwise known as shabu, which is a dangerous drug. Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act, is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against accused-appellant.
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Violation of Section 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165).4
SO ORDERED.7
Eventually, the cases were consolidated and tried jointly.
Thus, the present appeal.
Appellant pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charges against him. Thereafter,
trial on the merits ensued. Appellant states the lone argument that the lower court gravely erred in
convicting him of the crime charged despite failure of the prosecution to
In its Omnibus Judgment5 dated September 14, 2005, the RTC found the prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, the
dispositive portion of which, reads: According to appellant, there was no evidence of actual sale between him
and the poseur-buyer. He also argues that the chain of custody of the
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds accused Allen Mantalaba y seized shabu was not established. Finally, he asserts that an accused
Udtojan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 10250 should be presumed innocent and that the burden of proof is on the
for selling shabu, a dangerous drug, as defined and penalized under prosecution.
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. As provided for in Sec. 98
of R.A. 9165, where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts The petition is unmeritorious.
punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be reclusion perpetua to
death. As such, Allen Mantalaba y Udtojan is hereby sentenced to Appellant insists that the prosecution did not present any evidence that
RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand an actual sale took place. However, based on the testimony of PO1
Pesos (₱500,000.00). Randy Pajo, there is no doubt that the buy-bust operation was
successfully conducted, thus:
In Criminal Case No. 10251, the Court likewise finds accused Allen
Mantalaba y Udtojan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for illegally PROS. RUIZ:
possessing shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.6131 gram as defined
and penalized under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and Q: Will you explain to this Honorable Court why did you conduct
accused being a minor at the time of the commission of the offense, after and how did you conduct your buy-bust operation at the time?
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is accordingly sentenced to
six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to eight (8) years, as
A: We conducted a buy-bust operation because of the report from
maximum of prision mayor and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand
our civilian assets that Allen Mantalaba was engaged in drug
Pesos (₱300,000.00).
trade and selling shabu. And after we evaluated this Information
we informed Inspector Dacillo that we will operate this accused
SO ORDERED.6 for possible apprehension.
Q: Before you conducted your buy-bust operation, what used a cap and a towel. (sic) In the case, of this suspect,
procedure did you take? there was no towel there was no cap at the time of giving the
shabu and the marked moneys to the suspect and
A: We prepared the operational plan for buy-bust against the considering also that that was about 7:00 o'clock in the
suspect. We prepared a request for powder dusting for our evening. The poseur-buyer immediately proceeded to us and
marked moneys to be used for the operation. informed us that the shabu was already given by the
suspect.
Q: Did you use marked moneys in this case?
Q: What did you do next after that?
xxxx
A: After examining the sachet of shabu that it was really the
Q: Then armed with these marked moneys, what steps did you plastic containing white [crystalline] substance, we immediately
take next? approached the suspect.

A: After briefing of our team, we proceeded immediately to the Q: Who was with a (sic) suspect when you conducted the buy-
area. bust operation[?] Was he alone or did he had (sic) any
companion at that time?
Q: You mentioned of poseur-buyer, what would the poseur-buyer
do? A: He was alone.

A: We made an arrangement with the poseur-buyer that during Q: When you rushed up to the suspect what did you do?
the buying of shabu there should be a pre-arranged signal of the
poseur-buyer to the police officer. A: We informed the suspect that we are the police officers and he
has this constitutional rights and we immediately handcuffed him.
Q: What happened when your poseur-buyer who, armed with
this marked moneys, approached the guy who was selling Q: Where were the marked moneys?
shabu at that time?
A: The marked moneys were thrown on the ground. After we
A: The poseur-buyer during that time gave the marked handcuffed the suspect, we did not immediately searched in. We
moneys to the suspect. called the attention of the barangay officials to witness the search
of the suspect.
Q: Where were you when this poseur-buyer gave the moneys to
the suspect? Q: How many sachets of shabu have you taken from the suspect
during the buy-bust operation?
A: We positioned ourselves about 10 meters away from the area
of the poseur-buyer and the suspect. A: We took from the possession of the suspect one big sachet of
shabu.
Q: You mentioned of the pre-arranged signal, what would
this be? xxxx

A: This is a case-to-case basis, your Honor, in the pre- Q: What was the result of the searched (sic) for him?
arrangement signal because in the pre-arranged signal we
A: We confiscated one big sachet of suspected shabu and the The above only confirms that the buy-bust operation really occurred.
retrieval of 2 pieces of 100 peso bills as marked moneys.8 Once again, this Court stresses that a buy-bust operation is a legally
effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending
What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs drug peddlers and distributors.11 It is often utilized by law enforcers for the
in a buy-bust operation is proof of the concurrence of all the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their
elements of the offense, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and nefarious activities.12 In People v. Roa,13 this Court had the opportunity to
the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery expound on the nature and importance of a buy-bust operation, ruling
of the thing sold and the payment therefor.9 From the above that:
testimony of the prosecution witness, it was well established that
the elements have been satisfactorily met. The seller and the In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable
poseur-buyer were properly identified. The subject dangerous requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation.
drug, as well as the marked money used, were also satisfactorily While it is true that Section 8614 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the
presented. The testimony was also clear as to the manner in National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to
which the buy-bust operation was conducted. maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters,"
the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a
To corroborate the testimony of PO2 Pajo, the prosecution condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust
presented the testimony of Police Inspector Virginia Sison-Gucor, is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule
a forensic chemical officer, who confirmed that the plastic 11315 of the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully
containing white crystalline substance was positive for resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of
methamphetamine hydrochloride and that the petitioner was in the PDEA.16 A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-
possession of the marked money used in the buy-bust operation, coordination with the PDEA.
thus:
Neither is the lack of prior surveillance fatal. The case of People v.
PROS. RUIZ: Lacbanes17 is quite instructive:

Q: What was the result of your examination or what were your In People v. Ganguso,18 it has been held that prior surveillance is not a
findings on the sachets of suspected shabu? prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation, especially when
the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their
A: After the preliminary and confirmatory tests were conducted on informant. In the instant case, the arresting officers were led to the scene
the stated specimen, the result was positive for by the poseur-buyer. Granting that there was no surveillance conducted
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. before the buy-bust operation, this Court held in People v. Tranca,19 that
there is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations.
Flexibility is a trait of good police work. The police officers may decide
xxxx
that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior
surveillance.20
Q: What were your findings when you examined the living person
of the accused, as well as the marked money mentioned in this
The rule is that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses
report?
are entitled to great respect because trial courts have the advantage of
observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify. This is more
A: According to my report, the findings for the living person of true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial
Allen Udtojan Mantalaba is positive to the test for the presence of court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings
bright orange ultra-violet flourescent powder. x x x10 are generally binding upon this Court.21
In connection therewith, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, was also correct Q: Were not ₱200 of the ₱250.00 was thrown to the ground
in finding that the appellant is equally guilty of violation of Section 11 of during the time you were arrested by the police?
RA 9165, or the illegal possession of dangerous drug. As an incident to
the lawful arrest of the appellant after the consummation of the buy-bust A: No, sir.
operation, the arresting officers had the authority to search the person of
the appellant. In the said search, the appellant was caught in possession Q: It was taken from your possession?
of 0.6131 grams of shabu. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which
A: Yes, sir.
is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized
by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug.22 Q: And when the policemen brought you to the crime laboratory
and had your hands tested for ultra-violet fluorescent powder,
your hands tested positively for the presence of the said powder?
As a defense, appellant denied that he owns the shabu and the marked
money confiscated from him. However, based on his cross-examination,
such denial was not convincing enough to merit reasonable doubt, thus: A: Yes, sir.23

PROS. RUIZ: Incidentally, the defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably
viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a
common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of the
Q: So it is true now that when these police officers passed
Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and
you by they recovered from your possession one sachet of
frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.24
shabu?
Another contention raised by the appellant is the failure of the
A: Yes, sir.
prosecution to show the chain of custody of the recovered dangerous
drug. According to him, while it was Inspector Ferdinand B. Dacillo who
Q: And it is true that after you were arrested and when you signed the request for laboratory examination, only police officers Pajo
were searched they also found another sachet of shabu also and Simon were present in the buy-bust operation.
in your pocket?
Section 21 of RA 9165 reads:
A: Yes, sir.
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or
Q: And you mentioned in your counter-affidavit marked as Exhibit Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
H for the prosecution that no money was taken from you because Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
you have none at that time, is it not? Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA
shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources
A: None sir, only the ₱250.00 which Jonald Ybanoso left to me. of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as
well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
Q: This ₱250.00 which Jonald left to you was also confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
confiscated from your possession? following manner:

A: Yes, sir. (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the xxxx
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Q: Now, before you searched the suspect you requested the
presence of the barangay officials. Now, when these barangay
Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is officials were present, what did you do on the suspect?
not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are A: We immediately searched the suspect.
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.25 Its non-
compliance will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items Q: What was the result of the searched for him? (sic)
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.26 What is of utmost importance
is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
A: We confiscated one big sachet of suspected shabu and the
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
retrieval of 2 pieces of ₱100.00 peso bills as marked moneys.
innocence of the accused.27 In this particular case, it is undisputed that
police officers Pajo and Simon were members of the buy-bust operation
team. The fact that it was Inspector Ferdinand B. Dacillo who signed the Q: You said the suspect threw the marked moneys when you
letter-request for laboratory examination does not in any way affect the searched him, where were the marked moneys?
integrity of the items confiscated. All the requirements for the proper
chain of custody had been observed. As testified to by PO2 Pajo A: On the ground.
regarding the procedure undertaken after the consummation of the buy-
bust operation: Q: Who picked these marked moneys?

Prosecutor A: I was the one who picked the marked moneys.

Q: What did you do next after that? Q: And then after you had picked the marked moneys and after
you had the 2 pieces of sachets of shabu; one during the buy-
A: After examining the sachet of shabu that it was really the bust and the other one during the search, what did you do [with]
plastic containing white [crystalline] in substance, we immediately these 2 pieces of sachets of shabu and the marked moneys?
approached the suspect.
A: I recorded those items recovered, sir, during the search to the
xxxx Certificate of Inventory.28

Q: When you rushed up to the suspect, what did you do? As ruled by this Court, what is crucial in the chain of custody is the
marking of the confiscated item which, in the present case, was complied
A: We informed the suspect that we are the police officers and he with, thus:
has this [constitutional] rights and immediately handcuffed him.
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking29 of the seized drugs or
Q: Where were the marked moneys? other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused.
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus, it is
vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because
A: The marked moneys were thrown on the ground. After we
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as
handcuffed the suspect, we did not immediately searched in. We
reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked
called the attention of the barangay officials to witness the search
evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the
of the suspect.
time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the
end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or years at the time of the commission of the offense for which they were
contamination of evidence.30 convicted and are serving sentence, shall likewise benefit from the
retroactive application of this Act. x x x
Anent the age of the appellant when he was arrested, this Court finds it
appropriate to discuss the effect of his minority in his suspension of However, this Court has already ruled in People v. Sarcia33 that while
sentence. The appellant was seventeen (17) years old when the buy-bust Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can still be
operation took place or when the said offense was committed, but was no applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18)
longer a minor at the time of the promulgation of the RTC's Decision. years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt,
Section 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until
It must be noted that RA 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, while the the child reaches the maximum age of 21. The provision states:
RTC promulgated its decision on this case on September 14, 2005, when
said appellant was no longer a minor. The RTC did not suspend the SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the
sentence in accordance with Article 192 of P.D. 603, The Child and court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon
Youth Welfare Code31 and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, the Rule the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in
on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law,32 the laws that were applicable at conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the condition of
the time of the promulgation of judgment, because the imposable penalty his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the
for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 is life imprisonment to death. law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.

It may be argued that the appellant should have been entitled to a If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of
suspension of his sentence under Sections 38 and 68 of RA 9344 which age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether
provide for its retroactive application, thus: to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of
sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of
under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the twenty-one (21) years.
offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine
and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense Hence, the appellant, who is now beyond the age of twenty-one (21)
committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, years can no longer avail of the provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of RA
the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended 9344 as to his suspension of sentence, because such is already moot
sentence, without need of application: Provided, however, That and academic. It is highly noted that this would not have happened if the
suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already CA, when this case was under its jurisdiction, suspended the sentence of
eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of the appellant. The records show that the appellant filed his notice of
his/her guilt. appeal at the age of 19 (2005), hence, when RA 9344 became effective
in 2006, appellant was 20 years old, and the case having been elevated
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various to the CA, the latter should have suspended the sentence of the appellant
circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate because he was already entitled to the provisions of Section 38 of the
disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court [Rule] on same law, which now allows the suspension of sentence of minors
Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. regardless of the penalty imposed as opposed to the provisions of Article
192 of P.D. 603.34
xxxx
Nevertheless, the appellant shall be entitled to appropriate disposition
Sec. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving Sentence. under Section 51 of RA No. 9344, which provides for the confinement of
- Persons who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time convicted children as follows:35
of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below the age of eighteen (18)
SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and The situation, however, is different where although the offense is defined
other Training Facilities. - A child in conflict with the law may, after in and ostensibly punished under a special law, the penalty therefor is
conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her actually taken from the Revised Penal Code in its technical nomenclature
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an and, necessarily, with its duration, correlation and legal effects under the
agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, system of penalties native to said Code. When, as in this case, the law
maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination involved speaks of prision correccional, in its technical sense under the
with the DSWD. Code, it would consequently be both illogical and absurd to posit
otherwise.
In finding the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant for violation
of Section 5 of RA 9165, the RTC imposed the penalty of reclusion xxxx
perpetua as mandated in Section 9836 of the same law. A violation of
Section 5 of RA 9165 merits the penalty of life imprisonment to death; Prefatorily, what ordinarily are involved in the graduation and
however, in Section 98, it is provided that, where the offender is a minor, consequently determine the degree of the penalty, in accordance with the
the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided in rules in Article 61 of the Code as applied to the scale of penalties in
the same law shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Basically, this means Article 71, are the stage of execution of the crime and the nature of the
that the penalty can now be graduated as it has adopted the technical participation of the accused. However, under paragraph 5 of Article 64,
nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code. The when there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances and no
said principle was enunciated by this Court in People v. Simon,37 thus: aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be reduced by one degree.
Also, the presence of privileged mitigating circumstances, as
We are not unaware of cases in the past wherein it was held that, in provided in Articles 67 and 68, can reduce the penalty by one or two
imposing the penalty for offenses under special laws, the rules on degrees, or even more. These provisions of Articles 64(5), 67 and 68
mitigating or aggravating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code should not apply in toto in the determination of the proper penalty under
cannot and should not be applied. A review of such doctrines as applied the aforestated second paragraph of section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425,
in said cases, however, reveals that the reason therefor was because the to avoid anomalous results which could not have been contemplated by
special laws involved provided their own specific penalties for the the legislature.
offenses punished thereunder, and which penalties were not taken from
or with reference to those in the Revised Penal Code. Since the penalties Thus, paragraph 5 of Article 61 provides that when the law prescribes a
then provided by the special laws concerned did not provide for the penalty in some manner not specially provided for in the four preceding
minimum, medium or maximum periods, it would consequently be paragraphs thereof, the courts shall proceed by analogy therewith.
impossible to consider the aforestated modifying circumstances whose Hence, when the penalty prescribed for the crime consists of one or two
main function is to determine the period of the penalty in accordance with penalties to be imposed in their full extent, the penalty next lower in
the rules in Article 64 of the Code. degree shall likewise consist of as many penalties which follow the former
in the scale in Article 71. If this rule were to be applied, and since the
This is also the rationale for the holding in previous cases that the complex penalty in this case consists of three discrete penalties in their
provisions of the Code on the graduation of penalties by degrees could full extent, that is, prision correccional, prision mayor and reclusion
not be given supplementary application to special laws, since the temporal, then one degree lower would be arresto menor, destierro and
penalties in the latter were not components of or contemplated in the arresto mayor. There could, however, be no further reduction by still one
scale of penalties provided by Article 71 of the former. The suppletory or two degrees, which must each likewise consist of three penalties,
effect of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, as provided in Article since only the penalties of fine and public censure remain in the scale.1avvphi1

10 of the former, cannot be invoked where there is a legal or physical

impossibility of, or a prohibition in the special law against, such The Court rules, therefore, that while modifying circumstances may be
supplementary application. appreciated to determine the periods of the corresponding penalties, or
even reduce the penalty by degrees, in no case should such graduation
of penalties reduce the imposable penalty beyond or lower than prision
correccional. It is for this reason that the three component penalties in the
second paragraph of Section 20 shall each be considered as an
independent principal penalty, and that the lowest penalty should in any
event be prision correccional in order not to depreciate the seriousness of
drug offenses. Interpretatio fienda est ut res magis valeat quam pereat.
Such interpretation is to be adopted so that the law may continue to have
efficacy rather than fail. A perfect judicial solution cannot be forged from
an imperfect law, which impasse should now be the concern of and is
accordingly addressed to Congress.38

Consequently, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority39 can

now be appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be imposed. The
RTC, as affirmed by the CA, imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without considering the minority of the appellant. Thus, applying
the rules stated above, the proper penalty should be one degree lower
than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated. Necessarily,
also applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW), the minimum
penalty should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which
is prision mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken from the
medium period of reclusion temporal, there being no other mitigating
circumstance nor aggravating circumstance.40The ISLAW is applicable in
the present case because the penalty which has been originally an
indivisible penalty (reclusion perpetua to death), where ISLAW is
inapplicable, became a divisible penalty (reclusion temporal) by virtue of
the presence of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
Therefore, a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day
of reclusion temporal, as maximum, would be the proper imposable
penalty.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 31, 2008 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00240-MIN, affirming the Omnibus
Judgment dated September 14, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
1, Butuan City in Criminal Case No. 10250 and Criminal Case No. 10251,
finding appellant Allen Udtojan Mantalaba, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 is
hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the penalty that should
be imposed on appellant's conviction of violation of Section 5 of RA 9165,
is six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, and
fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum.

SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines knowing fully well that said methamphetamine hydrochloride (SHABU), is
SUPREME COURT a regulated [drug], in violation of the aforementioned provision of law.4
Manila
On the other hand, the Information relative to Criminal Case No. 20442-R
THIRD DIVISION for infringement of Section 11, Article II of the same law5 reads:

G.R. No. 172019 February 12, 2007 That on or about 8th day of August, 2002 in the City of Baguio,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
vs. have in his/her possession and control one transparent plastic containing
BOISAN CABUGATAN y MACARAMBON, Accused-Appellant. four (4) small transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance "Shabu" weighing approximately 0.2 gm., marked as "RUA"
DECISION "JF"; 0.2 gm marked "RUA" "JF"; 0.1 gm. Marked "RUA" "JF" and 0.1 gm
marked "RUA" "JF", respectively; a regulated drug, without the
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: corresponding license or prescription, in violation of the aforecited
provision of law.6
For Review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated 28 October
2005 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00174 entitled, "People of the Philippines During his arraignment on 21 August 2002, appellant pleaded not guilty
v. Boisan Cabugatan y Macarambon," affirming the Decision2 rendered to both charges.7
by the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61, in Criminal Cases
No. 20441-R and No. 20442-R, finding appellant guilty of illegal sale and On 17 September 2002, the pre-trial of the cases was held at which time
of illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride more popularly appellant admitted the existence of the following documents:
known as "shabu."
1. Certification of Preliminary test on the five sachets marked as Exh. A
On 9 August 2002, two Informations were filed against appellant before and B as to the findings of the positive result for methamphetamine
the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City for violations of Republic Act No. hydrochloride.
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
2. Chemistry Report No. D-070-2002
The offense involved in Criminal Case No. 20441-R for violation of
Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. 91653 was allegedly committed 3. Buy-bust money
as follows:
4. Request for Drug Test
That on or about the 8th day of August, 2002 in the City of Baguio,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- 5. Booking Sheet and Arrest Report of the accused.8
named accused and without any authority of law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously SELL, DISTRIBUTE and/or DELIVER During the trial of the cases, the prosecution presented the testimonies of
a small transparent plastic heat sealed sachet containing white crystalline PO2 Benedict Del-ong, PO2 Gilbert Bulalit, and PO3 Roy Aguirre who
substance "Shabu" weighing 0.1 gram for ONE HUNDRED FIFTY were all members of the Baguio City Police.
PESOS (₱150.00), Philippine Currency to PO3 Benedict Del-ong, a
member of the Philippine National Police who acted as poseur-buyer, The prosecution’s version of the facts shows that on 8 August 2002, a
reliable civilian informant, accompanied by a barangay kagawad, went to
the Station 7 of the Baguio City Police. The informant purportedly advised was performed by PO2 Joseph Filog who issued a certification dated 8
Police Chief Inspector Eduardo Z. Garcia that a person by the name of August 2002, the pertinent portion of which states:
Boisan was engaged in the illegal sale of shabu at Villacor Billiard Hall
located on Otek St., Baguio City.9 The purpose of which is to determine the presence of regulated drug on
the above specimen.
Police Chief Inspector Garcia immediately formed a team to conduct a
buy-bust operation to apprehend Boisan with PO2 Del-ong as the That by using the "SIMONS REAGENT" to the white crystalline
designated poseur-buyer.10 Police Chief Inspector Garcia gave PO2 substance from the five (5) plastic heat sachets, gave POSITIVE result of
Bulalit one piece of ₱100.00 bill and a ₱50.00 bill. PO2 Bulalit proceeded "DARK BLUE COLOR" which indicates the presence of
to have the bills photocopied and authenticated by the City Prosecutor’s Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, an active component of Shabu, a
Office.11 regulated drug.14

Later in the afternoon, the team proceeded to Villacor Billiard Hall. PO3 The sachets of white crystalline substance were also examined by the
Aguirre and PO2 Bulalit positioned themselves inside a public utility Regional Crime Laboratory Office of the Philippine National Police. This
jeepney parked near the entrance of the billiard hall. The other member test yielded the following results:
of the team, PO1 Eugene Raymundo, stood about four to five meters
away.>12 FINDINGS:

When they reached the designated place, they were met by a man Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimens (Exhs.
wearing a black bull cap and a gray sweatshirt with collar. This person "A", B-1 thru B-4) gave POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of
was identified during the trial to be appellant. After the civilian informant Methamphetamine hydrochloride (SHABU), a regulated drug. x x x
introduced PO2 Del-ong and appellant to each other, the latter asked
PO2 Del-ong how much worth of shabu was he willing to purchase. PO2 CONCLUSION:
Del-ong replied that he had only ₱150.00 with him. After he handed this
sum to appellant, the latter drew from his right front pocket a small sachet Exhs. "A", B-1 thru B-4 contain Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
which he gave to PO2 Del-ong. PO2 Del-ong then examined the content regulated drug. x x x.15
of the sealed plastic sachet. Certain that what appellant gave him was
shabu, PO2 Del-ong scratched his head using his left hand to alert his Appellant was likewise subjected to a drug test which allegedly showed
fellow team members that the sale of shabu was already consummated. that he was a shabu user.16
Thereupon, the rest of the buy-bust team rushed towards appellant and
informed him that he was being arrested. They likewise advised him of Expectedly, accused presented an entirely different version of what
his constitutional rights.13 transpired during that afternoon and claimed that the buy-bust never took
place.17 According to appellant, he is a Maranaw who earns a living by
PO3 Aguirre then frisked appellant and recovered from the latter four peddling sunglasses in Baguio City. At the time the supposed buy-bust
small transparent sachets containing crystalline substance. operation took place, he was playing billiard with two others at the
Villacor Billiard Hall when three men in civilian clothes arrived.18
Appellant was thereafter taken to the police station where the buy-bust Appellant identified two of the men who came inside the billiard hall to be
team prepared the arrest report, booking sheet, and their joint affidavit. PO2 Del-ong and PO3 Aguirre.19
They also made a request for the initial testing of the evidence they
confiscated from appellant. The task of conducting the preliminary test The group of PO2 Del-ong allegedly frisked appellant’s fellow players and
was able to recover a single plastic sachet from one of them. PO2 Del-
ong, who was then standing beside appellant, held the latter’s hand, As the trial court meted a penalty of life imprisonment, the case was
pointed a gun at his head, and warned him not to do anything or else he transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition
would be shot.20 PO3 Aguirre then called for a mobile car and appellant, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo.30
together with his two companions, was brought to the Station 7 of the
Baguio City Police.21 In the police station, appellant was handcuffed to On 28 October 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered the now assailed
the window rail. After a few hours, one of the arresting officers came to decision affirming in toto the decision of the trial court.31 Appellant is
see him and asked appellant if he could settle his case by paying a sum again before us proclaiming his innocence.32
of money to the police22 or he could just identify others who are engaged
in drug trade in Baguio City.23 Appellant likewise claimed that he learned Appellant assigns the following errors:
later on that the two others who were arrested with him were able to
settle their cases and had been set free.24 I

As for the result of his drug test, appellant stated that he was a drug user THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND
while he was still residing in Mindanao and that he decided to move to CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION
Baguio City to evade the habit.25 WITNESSES AND IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT
The prosecution presented PO2 Del-ong as a rebuttal witness. He stated NO. 9165.
that while they were waiting for the mobile patrol car after the appellant’s
arrest, a minor boy and a companion approached appellant and asked if II
he still had drugs to sell.26 The buy-bust team then decided to arrest the
two would-be-buyers. As the drug test of the boy revealed that he was a THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-
drug user, he was referred to the Youth and Women Section of the APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
Baguio City Police Office. They were, however, compelled to release his OFFENSES CHARGED.33
companion as his drug test established that he was not a drug user and
because he claimed that he had just met the minor boy that afternoon.27 Appellant claims that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. He faults the trial court for giving "full faith and
On 1 December 2003, the trial court rendered its decision sustaining the credence to the [testimonies] of the prosecution witnesses"34 even when
prosecution, thus: he had categorically denied the occurrence of any buy-bust operation. He
also assails his arrest by the Baguio City Police as it was carried out
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the accused GUILTY as without a valid warrant.35 As his arrest was illegal, it follows that the
charged on both counts and he is hereby sentenced as follows: a) in search conducted by the police upon his person was similarly unlawful.36
Criminal Case No. 20441-R, to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
₱1,000,000.00, and b) in Criminal Case No. 20442-R, to a prison term of Appellant’s arguments fail to persuade.
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years, to pay a fine of
₱300,000.00, and the costs.28 It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in
nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect
Appellant seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal elevating the case to this when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative,
Court.29 arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such
findings. The reason for this, being, that the trial court is in a better
position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their
testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial.37 The rule finds an even more stringent application Q Did you use buy-bust money?
where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals as in this
case.38 A Yes, Sir.

Considering, however, that at stake is no less than the liberty of Q How much?
appellant, we thoroughly examined the entire records of this case.
Unfortunately for appellant, we failed to identify any error committed by A In the amount of ₱150.00, Sir.
the trial court both in its appreciation of the evidence presented before it
and in the conclusion it reached. Q Did you have any xerox copy of that money authenticated prior to the
buy-bust operation?
In the prosecution of offenses involving this provision of the statute, it is
necessary that the following elements be established: (1) the identity of A Yes, actually when we will conduct the buy-bust operation, our Chief of
the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the office handed to PO2 Bulalit one (1) piece of one hundred peso bill and
thing sold and the payment therefore.39 What is material to the one (1) piece of fifty peso bill to be photocopied and have it authenticated
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the to the City Prosecutor’s Office, Sir.
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in
court of evidence of corpus delicti.40 PROS. VERGARA:

In this case, all the elements of the crime have been sufficiently May we know from the defense if they admit this authenticated copy to be
established. The witnesses for the prosecution were able to prove that a true and faithful reproduction/copy of the original?
the buy-bust operation indeed took place and the shabu subject of the
sale was brought and duly identified in court. The poseur-buyer (PO2 ATTY. MARAMAT:
Del-ong) positively identified appellant as the one who sold to him a
packet of white crystalline substance41 which was later confirmed by two We’ll just have to see the original, your Honor.
chemical examinations to be shabu.42
xxxx
As recalled by the PO2 Del-ong, the designated poseur-buyer, the events
that led to the apprehension of appellant are as follows: Q Would you be able to identify the authenticated/xerox copy?

Q When the male Civilian Informant went to your office and gave those A Yes, Sir.
informations, what happened next?
Q Considering that the (sic) you were the poseur-buyer and the ₱100.00
A Acting on said information and with supervision of our Chief of office, peso bill ₱50.00 bill were handed to you as buy-bust money, will you
Police Chief Inspector Garcia formed our team to conduct Narcotics buy- please tell the Honorable Court if this authenticated xerox copy
bust operation against the suspect, Sir. represents the ₱100.00 peso bill and ₱50.00 peso bill that were used as
buy-bust money?
Q What was your role in that buy-bust operation?
A Yes, Sir.
A Poseur-buyer to be introduced by the Civilian Informant to the suspect,
Sir. PROS. VERGARA:
May we pray that that document be marked as Exhibit "C," your Honor. A The Civilian Informant, Sir.

COURT: Q Who else?

Mark it, please. A The rest of the group followed us secretly, Sir.

PROS. VERGARA: Q Were you able to reach the place?

Q After the ₱150.00 was authenticated by Officer Bulalit, what happened A Yes, Sir.
next?
xxxx
A At about 2:00 p.m. of the same date I together with the Civilian
Informant proceeded at Otek Street, Baguio City particularly at Villacor Q With that situation after you and the Civilian Informant arrived at the
Billiard Hall while the rest of the group followed us secretly, Sir. billiard hall, what happened next?

Q About what time was the authentication made? A Upon arrival at the said place, a male person wearing a black bull cap
and gray sweatshirt with collar approached us outside the said billiard
A Between 1:30 to 2:00, Sir. hall, Sir.

Q It was early afternoon of August 8, 2002 when your Civilian Informant PROS. VERGARA:
came to your office?
Q What happened after that person approached you and the Civilian
A Yes, Sir. Informant outside of the Villacor billiard hall?

Q And before 2:00 o’clock the authentication was made? A The Civilian Informant introduced me to the suspect as an interested
buyer of shabu, Sir.
A Yes, Sir.
Q After you were introduced, what happened next?
Q At about 2:00 you proceeded to conduct the buy-bust operation?
A The alleged suspect asked me how much will I buy, Sir.
A Yes, Sir.
Q What was your response?
xxxx
A I told him that I have only ₱150.00 and handed to him immediately, Sir.
Q You said that at about 2:00 p.m. of August 8, 2002 you proceeded to
the Villacor Billiard Hall, where is that establishment located? Q After you handed to him the ₱150.00, what happened next?

A Otek St., Baguio City, Sir. A He got the ₱150.00 and put it inside of his left front pocket, Sir.

Q Who were with you in proceeding to that place? Q After that what happened next?
A And then he got something from his right front pocket a small sachet backed up by physical evidence, overcome the unsubstantiated claim of
and handed it to me, Sir. ill-motive by appellant.

Q After he handed that to you, what did you do? In this jurisdiction, the conduct of buy-bust operation is a common and
accepted mode of apprehending those involved in illegal sale of
A I ascertained the content of it and I found out that the small plastic heat prohibited or regulated drugs. It has been proven to be an effective way
sealed sachet contains white crystalline substance, shabu, Sir. of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of
obscurity. Thus, unless the defense could persuade us otherwise, we are
Q After you found out that the contents were suspected shabu, what inclined to confer full credit and faith to the testimonies of the members of
happened next? the buy-bust team as regards the conduct of their operation.1awphi1.net

A After the completion of the deal, I made the pre-arranged signal by Appellant’s claim that his warrantless arrest was invalid is similarly devoid
scratching my head using my left hand, Sir. of merit. The rule is settled that an arrest made after an entrapment does
not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless
Q After you scratched your head, what happened next? arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court47 which
states:
A The back-up operatives rushed to our place and informed him of his
constitutional rights and the violation, Sir.43 SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
These pronouncements were corroborated on their material points by
PO2 Bulalit and PO3 Aguirre whose respective testimonies were just as (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
straightforward and candid as that of PO2 Del-ong’s. actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

For his part, appellant could not offer any viable defense except to claim As the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is beyond question, the
that he was a victim of frame-up and extortion by the police officers. subsequent warrantless arrest as well as the warrantless search and
However, like alibi, we view the defense of frame-up with disfavor as it seizure was permissible, thus:
can easily be concocted and is commonly used as a standard line of
defense in most prosecutions arising from illegal sale of drugs.44 For the This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, however, is
claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must present clear and not absolute and such warrantless searches and seizures have long been
convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the arresting deemed permissible by jurisprudence in instances of (1) search of
policemen performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.45 moving vehicles, (2) seizure in plain view, (3) customs searches, (4)
waiver or consented searches, (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry
Appellant failed to substantiate his claim that he was an unfortunate prey search), and search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid
to a supposed ploy concocted by the police. By all indications, he did not warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate
know anyone of the members of the buy-bust team which apprehended [if] effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize
him. There was, therefore, no motive for them to frame him up. Absent permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto, (2)
any proof of motive to falsely accuse him of such a grave offense, the arrest effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners.48
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the (Emphasis supplied.)
findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall
prevail over appellant’s bare allegation that he was framed-up.46 In other
words, the categorical and convincing testimonies of the policemen,
Having established the guilt of the appellant for the crimes charged, we and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by
shall now proceed to a determination of the appropriate penalties to be the same.
imposed upon him.
In the imposition of the proper penalty, the courts, taking into account the
The unauthorized sale of shabu carries with it the penalty of life circumstances attendant in the commission of the offense, are given
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand discretion to impose either life imprisonment or death, and the fine as
pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00).49 On the provided for by law. In light, however, of the effectivity of Republic Act No.
other hand, the unauthorized possession of less than five grams of said 9346 entitled, "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
substance is penalized with a prison term of twelve (12) years and one Philippines," the imposition of the supreme penalty of death shall only be
(1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine of Three hundred thousand pesos life imprisonment and fine. Hence, the penalty of life imprisonment
(₱300,000.00) up to Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000.00).50 imposed on appellant in Criminal Case No. 20441-R is proper. We,
however, find the fine of ₱1,000,000.00 to be excessive and hereby
Section 98, Article XIII of Republic Act No. 9165 expressly provides for reduce the same to ₱500,000.00 considering that the records do not
the limited application of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on reveal any prior arrest or conviction of appellant for a drug-related
said law. This section reads: offense.

SEC. 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. – We likewise affirm the conviction and penalty of imprisonment of twelve
Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and the fine of
of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815), as amended, shall not apply ₱300,000.00 meted out by the trial court with respect to Criminal Case
to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where No. 20442-R.
the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life
imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 28 October
death. 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00174, affirming, in
toto, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61 is
Under the aforesaid section, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the fine imposed on
shall no longer apply to the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 except appellant in Criminal Case No. 20441-R is reduced to ₱500,000.00. No
when the offender is a minor. Thus, Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal costs.
Code shall not be used in the determination of the penalty to be imposed
on the accused. Since Section 98 of the said law contains the word SO ORDERED.
"shall," the non-applicability of the Revised Penal Code provisions is
mandatory, subject only to the exception in case the offender is a minor.

With the advent of Republic Act No. 9165, the Courts, in determining the
appropriate minimum and maximum of the penalty to be meted out to
offenders, shall be guided solely by the pertinent part of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, to wit:

SECTION 1. xxx; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the
court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law
 Republic of the Philippines Internal Audit Service (IAS) as its Technical Working Group to conduct
SUPREME COURT the actual investigation.10
Manila
In the course of its investigation, the DPWH-IAS11 learned that the
SECOND DIVISION emergency repairs and/or purchase of spare parts of DPWH service
vehicles basically undergo the following documentary process:
G.R. No. 169042               October 5, 2011
I. Determination of repairs and/or spare parts needed
ERDITO QUARTO, Petitioner, 
vs. a. The end-user requesting repair brings the service vehicle to the
THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN SIMEON MARCELO, CHIEF Motorpool Section, CESPD for initial inspection and preparation
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR DENNIS VILLA IGNACIO, LUISITO M. of Job Order; and
TABLAN, RAUL B. BORILLO, and LUIS A. GAYYA, Respondents.
b. Based on the Job Order, the SIT conducts a pre-repair
DECISION inspection (to determine the necessity of repair and whether the
repair is emergency in nature) and prepares a Pre-Repair
BRION, J.: Inspection Report, with a recommendation for its approval by the
CESPD Chief.
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and mandamus1 filed by Erdito
Quarto (petitioner) assailing the Ombudsman’s January 7, 20042 and II. Preparation and Approval of Requisition for Supplies and/or Equipment
November 4, 20043 resolutions which granted Luisito M. Tablan, Raul B. with accompanying documents (Job Order and Pre-Inspection Report)
Borillo, and Luis A. Gayya (collectively, respondents) immunity from
prosecution, resulting in the respondents’ exclusion from the criminal a. The Procurement Section, Administrative Manpower
informations filed before the Sandiganbayan. The petitioner seeks to Management Service (AMMS) prepares the Requisition for
nullify the immunity granted to the respondents, and to compel the Supplies and Equipment (RSE), the Canvass Quotation of three
Ombudsman to include them as accused in the informations for estafa Suppliers, the Certificate of Emergency Purchase, and the
through falsification of public documents4 and for violation of Section 3(e), Certificate of Fair Wear and Tear;
Republic Act (RA) No. 3019.5
b. The end-user signs the RSE with the recommending approval
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS of the concerned head of office; and

The petitioner is the Chief of the Central Equipment and Spare Parts c. The AMMS Director approves the RSE.
Division (CESPD),6 Bureau of Equipment (BOE), Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH), Port Area, Manila. As CESPD Chief, he is III. Repair of Vehicles
also the Head of the Special Inspectorate Team (SIT) of the DPWH.7 The
respondents are members of the SIT.8 a. The end-user selects the repair shop/auto supply from
accredited establishments;
On January 9, 2002, DPWH Secretary Simeon Datumanong created a
committee to investigate alleged anomalous transactions involving the b. The selected repair shop/auto supply repairs the service
repairs and/or purchase of spare parts of DPWH service vehicles in vehicle and issues the corresponding sales invoice and/or official
2001.9 On January 17, 2002, the committee designated the DPWH receipt;
 c. The end-user accepts the repair and executes a Certificate of The documents relating to [this vehicle] were filed within a period of one
Acceptance; month (between September to October 2001) [and] were used to
authorize the payment of said non existent ghost repairs to the damage
d. The SIT conducts a post-repair inspection (to check if the and prejudice of the [DPWH.]17 (emphases ours)
vehicle was repaired and whether the repair conformed to
specifications) and prepares a Post-Repair Inspection Report, On the other hand, Atty. Ofilada charged the respondents with the
with a recommendation for its approval by the CESPD Chief. The following:
Motorpool and the end-user would prepare the Report of Waste
Materials also for the signature of the CESPD Chief; and With dishonesty and grave misconduct, [respondents] as members of the
[SIT] xxx accomplished and signed Pre-Repair Inspection and Post
e. The Assets and Supply Management and Control Division Repair Inspection Reports in support of the four job orders [and made] it
recommends payment of the expense/s incurred. appear that the vehicle was inspected prior and after the alleged repair
[although they knew that the vehicle was never turned over for
The processing of the payment of claims for reimbursement follows the inspection]. The accomplishment of the Pre-Repair and Post-Repair
above process. Inspection Report[s] led to the preparation of the Request for Supplies
and Equipment which was the basis of the preparation of the
Based on this procedure, the DPWH-IAS discovered that from March to disbursement vouchers ultimately authorizing the payment of the said
December 2001, several emergency repairs and/or purchase of spare repairs thru reimbursement scheme to the damage and prejudice of the
parts of hundreds of DPWH service vehicles, which were approved and DPWH.
paid by the government, did not actually take place, resulting in
government losses of approximately ₱143 million for this ten-month x x x the [P]re-[R]epair and [P]ost-[R]epair [I]nspection [R]eports of the
period alone.12 [SIT] xxx are fictitious and falsified as no actual inspection could have
transpired[.]18 (emphasis ours)
Thus, Atty. Irene D. Ofilada of the DPWH-IAS filed before the Office of
the Ombudsman13 a Complaint-Affidavit14and a Supplemental Complaint- The petitioner denied the allegations against him, claiming that he merely
Affidavit15 charging several high-ranking DPWH officials and employees – relied on his subordinates when he signed the job orders and the
including the petitioner, the respondents, and other private individuals inspection reports.19 In contrast, the respondents admitted the existence
who purportedly benefited from the anomalous transactions – with of irregularities in the repairs and/or purchase of spare parts of DPWH
Plunder, Money Laundering, Malversation, and violations of RA No. 3019 service vehicles, and offered to testify and to provide evidence against
and the Administrative Code.16 the DPWH officials and employees involved in the anomaly in exchange
for their immunity from prosecution. The respondents submitted:
Atty. Ofilada imputed the following acts to the petitioner:
5.2 x x x since we assumed our duties as members of the SIT xxx, we
With dishonesty and grave misconduct, [the petitioner] x x x approved observed that [the] DPWH vehicles were being sent to the repair shop in
four (4) job orders for [the] repairs [and/or] purchase of spare parts of [the violation of the prescribed guidelines governing the emergency repair of a
vehicle assigned to Atty. Ofilada,] noted the certificate of urgency of said service vehicle. In most instances, service vehicles are immediately
repairs [and/or] purchase[,] concurred with both the pre-repair and post brought to a car repair shop of the end-user’s choice without bringing it
repair inspection reports thereon, participated in the accomplishment of first to the [Motorpool Section, CESPD, BOE] for the preparation of the
the supporting Requisition for Supplies and Equipment (RSE) x x x[,] and required job order by [Gayya] of the Motorpool Section and the pre-repair
participated in the approval of the disbursement voucher authorizing inspection to be conducted by the SIT. After the purported repairs are
payment of said repairs as necessary and lawful [even if said vehicle was done, SIT members are made to sign a post-repair inspection report
never referred to the Motorpool Section, CESPD for repair]. which already includes a typed-in recommendation for the payment of
repairs, and the signature of the Head of the [SIT] indicating his alleged
concurrence with the findings of the SIT despite the absence of an actual 8. The anomalous practices of the DPWH executives and
inspection. The post-repair inspection report is accompanied by the suppliers in the purported repair of DPWH service vehicles were
following attachments, to wit: a) a falsified job order signed by the head of indeed more widespread and rampant in the year 2001. As a
the [SIT] and the Chief of the Motorpool Section x x x [and] e) an empty precautionary measure, we took the initiative of photocopying
or falsified [p]re-repair inspection report[.] these sets of falsified documents as they were presented to us
before we affixed our respective signatures thereon. We grouped
5.3 Initially[,] we tried to curb the above anomalous practices being these documents into Sets A and B[.]
perpetrated by suppliers and officials of the DPWH x x x [by making]
known [our] objections to the questionable job orders for the proposed xxxx
repairs of DPWH service vehicles[,] thus:
11. x x x That the service vehicle x x x has not been actually
a. On July, 9, 1999, [Tablan] wrote the Head of the SIT a inspected by [Tablan and Borillo] is attested to by the pre and
memorandum x x x stating that the job orders for [several post repair inspection reports initially bearing the signature of the
identified vehicles] x x x violated the prohibition against splitting of head of the SIT as concurring official without the required
job orders x x x. [Tablan recommended for public bidding the signatures of Borillo and Tablan. More importantly, these DPWH
proposed repairs for the said vehicles]. officials did not bother, in a majority of cases, to "cover their
tracks" when they prepared and signed the pre and post repair
b. In connection with the job orders involving [several identified inspection reports on the same dates. Based on proper
vehicles] x x x Tablan and Borillo wrote the Head of the SIT a procedure, a post repair inspection report is to be accomplished
Memorandum x x x recommending that the whereabouts of the only after the preparation and approval of the Job Order, pre-
end-user be verified, and the service vehicle be re-inspected repair inspection report, RSE, Cash Invoice and Acceptance by
and/or disposed of. the end-user. In this case, the RSE, Cash Invoice and Certificate
of Acceptance are dated much later than the post-repair
c. Since the July 9, 1999 Memorandum was returned to x x x inspection report. Since xxx there was no actual pre-repair and
Tablan without any action being undertaken by the SIT Chief, post-repair inspection conducted, the foregoing sample instances
[Tablan and Borillo] reiterated the recommendation for the public paved the way for the "ghost repairs" of DPWH service vehicles,
bidding of the proposed repairs described therein[.] to the detriment and prejudice of the government.

6. In our attempts to perform our sworn duties, however, we 12. Because of the anomalous transactions, the joke circulating
incurred the displeasure of the suppliers, the head of [SIT] and around the DPWH is that we are actually the directors of the
other officials of the DPWH who threatened various administrative DPWH since we are the "last to sign," so to speak. That the
sanctions against us if we should not accede to their wishes. x x x signature[s] of the [respondent] SIT members are merely pro
forma is all the more pronounced in a sample set consisting of a
number of pre-repair inspection reports for a particular month in
7. In addition to the foregoing, there are other factors which
2001. The pre-repair inspection reports of the service vehicles
conspired to prevent us from properly performing our duties. For
indicated therein are empty of any findings and bear the signature
one, the DPWH processes an average of 3,000 repairs per
of the head of the SIT as concurring official. All the foregoing
calendar year. Given the staggering number and extent of
documents above detailed negate the convenient excuse
repairs, including the volume of paperwork, it was practically
proffered by DPWH executives that they sign the documents only
impossible for [us] to implement the rules which proved too
after the SIT had inspected the service vehicle and prepared the
tedious under the circumstance. As such, a "short-cut" of the
pre and post repair inspection reports.
rules was necessary to accommodate the demands of the end-
user, the suppliers, our superiors, and other executives of the
DPWH. x x x xxxx
 14.1 xxx the above examples are only a representative sampling respondents failed to comply with these conditions as the Ombudsman’s
of the extent of the anomalous transactions involving DPWH "evidence," which became the basis of the informations subsequently
service vehicles which can be considered "ghost repairs." There filed, shows that the respondents’ testimony is not absolutely necessary;
are more instances wherein [we] are willing to testify to in in fact, the manner of the respondents’ participation proves that they are
exchange for immunity from prosecution.20 (emphases ours) the "most guilty" in the premises.

After conducting preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman filed with the THE COMMENTS OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE RESPONDENTS
Sandiganbayan21 several informations charging a number of DPWH
officials and employees with plunder,22 estafa through falsification of The Ombudsman counters that RA No. 6770 (the Ombudsman Act of
official/commercial documents and violation of Section 3(e), RA No. 1989) expressly grants him the power to grant immunity from prosecution
3019. On the other hand, the Ombudsman granted the respondents’ to witnesses. Given this power, the Ombudsman asserts that Section 17,
request for immunity in exchange for their testimonies and cooperation in Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, which presupposes that the witness is
the prosecution of the cases filed. originally included in the information, is inapplicable to the present case
since the decision on whom to prosecute is an executive, not a judicial,
The petitioner initially filed a certiorari petition with the Sandiganbayan, prerogative.25
questioning the Ombudsman’s grant of immunity in the respondents’
favor. The Sandiganbayan, however, dismissed the petition for lack of The Ombudsman invokes this Court’s policy of non-interference in the
jurisdiction and advised the petitioner to instead question the Ombudsman’s exercise of his discretion in matters involving his
Ombudsman’s actions before this Court.23 Hence, this present petition. investigatory and prosecutorial powers.26 The petitioner’s claim that the
respondents are the "most guilty" is a matter of defense which the
THE PETITION petitioner may raise not in this proceeding, but in the trial proper.27

The petitioner argues that the Ombudsman should have included the On the other hand, the respondents submit that the Ombudsman has
respondents in the informations since it was their inspection reports that ample discretion in determining who should be included in the information
actually paved the way for the commission of the alleged on the basis of his finding of probable cause. The courts can only
irregularities.24 The petitioner asserts that the respondents’ criminal interfere in the Ombudsman’s exercise of his discretion in case of a clear
complicity clearly appears since "no repair could have started" and "no showing of grave abuse of discretion, which the petitioner failed to
payment for repairs, ghost or not," could have been made without the establish.28
respondents’ pre-repair and post-repair inspection reports. By excluding
the respondents in the informations, the Ombudsman is engaged in THE PETITIONER’S REPLY29
"selective prosecution" which is a clear case of grave abuse of discretion.
While conceding that the Ombudsman has the power and the discretion
The petitioner claims that before the Ombudsman may avail of the to grant immunity to the respondents, the petitioner asserts that this
respondents as state witnesses, they must be included first in the power must be exercised within the confines of Section 17, Rule 119 of
informations filed with the court. Thereafter, the Ombudsman can ask the the Rules of Court which requires, inter alia, that the proposed witness
court for their discharge so that they can be utilized as state witnesses must not appear to be the "most guilty." By ignoring this provision and
under the conditions laid down in Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of extending immunity to the respondents whose false reports ultimately led
Court since the court has the "sole province" to determine whether these to the payment for supposed repairs, and who are, thus, the "real
conditions exist. culprits,"30 the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion – a fatal defect
correctible by certiorari.
These conditions require, inter alia, that there should be "absolute
necessity" for the testimony of the proposed witness and that he/she Amplifying on the respondents’ "guilt," the petitioner cites the DPWH’s
should not appear to be the "most guilty." The petitioner claims that the decision in an administrative case which the Civil Service Commission
affirmed, finding the respondents guilty of dishonesty and grave be resorted to, to compel the respondent to take action; it cannot be used
misconduct involving the same set of facts.31 to direct the manner or the particular way discretion is to be exercised.39

OUR RULING In the exercise of his investigatory and prosecutorial powers, the
Ombudsman is generally no different from an ordinary prosecutor in
We dismiss the petition on two grounds: first, the petitioner did not avail determining who must be charged.40 He also enjoys the same latitude of
of the remedies available to him before filing this present petition; and, discretion in determining what constitutes sufficient evidence to support a
second, within the context of the Court’s policy of non-interference with finding of probable cause (that must be established for the filing of an
the Ombudsman’s exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers, information in court)41 and the degree of participation of those involved or
the petitioner failed to establish that the grant of immunity to the the lack thereof. His findings and conclusions on these matters are not
respondents was attended by grave abuse of discretion. ordinarily subject to review by the courts except when he gravely abuses
his discretion,42 i.e., when his action amounts to an evasion of a positive
I. The petitioner did not exhaust remedies available in the ordinary course duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or when he
of law acts outside the contemplation of law.43

As extraordinary writs, both Sections 1 (certiorari) and 3 (mandamus), If, on the basis of the same evidence, the Ombudsman arbitrarily
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court require, as a pre-condition for these excludes from an indictment some individuals while impleading all others,
remedies, that there be no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the remedy of mandamus lies44 since he is duty-bound, as a rule, to
the ordinary course of law. In the present case, the petitioner has not include in the information all persons who appear responsible for the
shown that he moved for a reconsideration of the assailed resolutions offense involved.45
based substantially on the same grounds stated in this present
petition.32 Neither did the petitioner file a motion for the inclusion of the Citing the cases of Guiao v. Figueroa46 and Castro, Jr., et al. v.
respondents in the informations before filing the present petition.33 These Castañeda and Liceralde,47 the petitioner argues for the inclusion of the
are adequate remedies that the petitioner chose to forego; he bypassed respondents in the criminal informations, pointing out that the
these remedies and proceeded to seek recourse through the present respondents accomplished the inspection reports that allegedly set in
petition.34 motion the documentary process in the repair of the DPWH vehicles;
these reports led to the payment by the government and the consequent
Similarly, the petitioner has not shown that he filed the present petition losses.
with this Court within the sixty-day reglementary period35 from notice of
the assailed Ombudsman’s resolutions. He did not do so, of course, since In Guiao and Castro, we ruled that mandamus lies to compel a
he initially and erroneously filed a certiorari petition with the prosecutor who refuses (i) to include in the information certain persons,
Sandiganbayan. We remind the petitioner that the remedy from the whose participation in the commission of a crime clearly appears, and (ii)
Ombudsman’s orders or resolutions in criminal cases is to file a petition to follow the proper procedure for the discharge of these persons in order
for certiorari under Rule 6536 with this Court.37 that they may be utilized as prosecution witnesses.

The petition likewise fails even on the merits. These cited cases, however, did not take place in the same setting as the
present case as they were actions by the public prosecutor, not by the
II. The respondents’ exclusion in the informations is grounded on the Ombudsman. In the present case, the Ombudsman granted the
Ombudsman’s grant of immunity respondents immunity from prosecution pursuant to RA No. 6770 which
specifically empowers the Ombudsman to grant immunity "in any hearing,
inquiry or proceeding being conducted by the Ombudsman or under its
Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the performance of a
authority, in the performance or in the furtherance of its constitutional
ministerial duty imposed by law upon the respondent.38 In matters
involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only
functions and statutory objectives." The pertinent provision – Section 17 III. Nature of the power to grant immunity
of this law – provides:
The power to grant immunity from prosecution is essentially a legislative
Sec. 17. Immunities. – x x x. prerogative.55 The exclusive power of Congress to define crimes and their
nature and to provide for their punishment concomitantly carries the
Under such terms and conditions as it may determine, taking into power to immunize certain persons from prosecution to facilitate the
account the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court, the attainment of state interests, among them, the solution and prosecution of
Ombudsman may grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person crimes with high political, social and economic impact.56 In the exercise of
whose testimony or whose possession and production of documents or this power, Congress possesses broad discretion and can lay down the
other evidence may be necessary to determine the truth in any hearing, conditions and the extent of the immunity to be granted.57
inquiry or proceeding being conducted by the Ombudsman or under its
authority, in the performance or in the furtherance of its constitutional Early on, legislations granting immunity from prosecution were
functions and statutory objectives. The immunity granted under this and few.58 However, their number escalated with the increase of the need to
the immediately preceding paragraph shall not exempt the witness from secure vital information in the course and for purposes of prosecution.
criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony nor shall he be exempt These statutes59considered not only the importance of the testimony
from demotion or removal from office. [emphasis ours] sought, but also the unique character of some offenses and of some
situations where the criminal participants themselves are in the best
To briefly outline the rationale for this provision, among the most position to give useful testimony.60 RA No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act
important powers of the State is the power to compel testimony from its of 1989 was formulated along these lines and reasoning with the vision of
residents; this power enables the government to secure vital information making the Ombudsman the protector of the people against inept,
necessary to carry out its myriad functions.48 This power though is not abusive and corrupt government officers and employees.61 Congress saw
absolute. The constitutionally-enshrined right against compulsory self- it fit to grant the Ombudsman the power to directly confer immunity to
incrimination is a leading exception. The state’s power to compel enable his office to effectively carry out its constitutional and statutory
testimony and the production of a person’s private books and papers run mandate of ensuring effective accountability in the public service.62
against a solid constitutional wall when the person under compulsion is
himself sought to be penalized. In balancing between state interests and IV. Considerations in the grant of immunity
individual rights in this situation, the principles of free government favor
the individual to whom the state must yield.491avvphi1
While the legislature is the source of the power to grant immunity, the
authority to implement is lodged elsewhere. The authority to choose the
A state response to the constitutional exception to its vast powers, individual to whom immunity would be granted is a constituent part of the
especially in the field of ordinary criminal prosecution and in law process and is essentially an executive function. Mapa, Jr. v.
enforcement and administration, is the use of an immunity Sandiganbayan63 is instructive on this point:
statute.50 Immunity statutes seek a rational accommodation between the
imperatives of an individual’s constitutional right against self- The decision to grant immunity from prosecution forms a constituent part
incrimination51(considered the fount from which all statutes granting of the prosecution process. It is essentially a tactical decision to forego
immunity emanate52) and the legitimate governmental interest in securing prosecution of a person for government to achieve a higher objective. It is
testimony.53 By voluntarily offering to give information on the commission a deliberate renunciation of the right of the State to prosecute all who
of a crime and to testify against the culprits, a person opens himself to appear to be guilty of having committed a crime. Its justification lies in the
investigation and prosecution if he himself had participated in the criminal particular need of the State to obtain the conviction of the more guilty
act. To secure his testimony without exposing him to the risk of criminals who, otherwise, will probably elude the long arm of the law.
prosecution, the law recognizes that the witness can be given immunity Whether or not the delicate power should be exercised, who should be
from prosecution.54 In this manner, the state interest is satisfied while extended the privilege, the timing of its grant, are questions addressed
respecting the individual’s constitutional right against self-incrimination. solely to the sound judgment of the prosecution. The power to prosecute
includes the right to determine who shall be prosecuted and the corollary appreciated by prosecutors. We thus hold that it is not constitutionally
right to decide whom not to prosecute. In reviewing the exercise of impermissible for Congress to enact R.A. No. 6981 vesting in the
prosecutorial discretion in these areas, the jurisdiction of the respondent Department of Justice the power to determine who can qualify as a
court is limited. For the business of a court of justice is to be an impartial witness in the program and who shall be granted immunity from
tribunal, and not to get involved with the success or failure of the prosecution. Section 9 of Rule 119 does not support the proposition that
prosecution to prosecute. Every now and then, the prosecution may err in the power to choose who shall be a state witness is an inherent judicial
the selection of its strategies, but such errors are not for neutral courts to prerogative. Under this provision, the court is given the power to
rectify, any more than courts should correct the blunders of the defense. discharge a state witness only because it has already acquired
[emphasis ours] jurisdiction over the crime and the accused. The discharge of an accused
is part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a recognition of an inherent
RA No. 6770 fully recognizes this prosecutory prerogative by empowering judicial function. [emphasis ours]
the Ombudsman to grant immunity, subject to "such terms and
conditions" as he may determine. The only textual limitation imposed by Thus, it is the trial court that determines whether the prosecution’s
law on this authority is the need to take "into account the pertinent preliminary assessment of the accused-witness’ qualifications to be a
provisions of the Rules of Court," – i.e., Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules state witness satisfies the procedural norms.68 This relationship is in
of Court.64 This provision requires that: reality a symbiotic one as the trial court, by the very nature of its role in
the administration of justice,69 largely exercises its prerogative based on
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused the prosecutor’s findings and evaluation. On this point, the Court’s
whose discharge is requested; pronouncement in the 1918 case of United States v. Abanzado70 is still
very much relevant:
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper
prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of A trial judge cannot be expected or required to inform himself with
said accused; absolute certainty at the very outset of the trial as to everything which
may be developed in the course of the trial in regard to the guilty
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially participation of the accused in the commission of the crime charged in the
corroborated in its material points; complaint. If that were practicable or possible there would be little need
for the formality of a trial. He must rely in large part upon the suggestions
and the information furnished by the prosecuting officer in coming to his
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
conclusions as to the "necessity for the testimony of the accused whose
discharge is requested"; as to the availability or nonavailability of other
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any direct or corroborative evidence; as to which of the accused is "most
offense involving moral turpitude. guilty," and the like.

This Rule is itself unique as, without detracting from the executive nature Notably, this cited case also observes that the Rules-provided guidelines
of the power to prosecute and the power to grant immunity, it clarifies that are mere express declarations of the conditions which the courts ought to
in cases already filed with the courts,65 the prosecution merely makes a have in mind in exercising their sound discretion in granting the
proposal and initiates the process of granting immunity to an accused- prosecution’s motion for the discharge of an accused.71 In other words,
witness in order to utilize him as a witness against his co-accused.66 As these guidelines are necessarily implied in the discretion granted to the
we explained in Webb v. De Leon67 in the context of the Witness courts.
Protection, Security and Benefit Act:
RA No. 6770 recognizes that these same principles should apply when
The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of the Ombudsman directly grants immunity to a witness. The same
discretion — the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the consideration – to achieve the greater and higher purpose of securing the
exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best conviction of the most guilty and the greatest number among the
accused72 – is involved whether the grant is secured by the public As a last observation, we note the unique wording of the grant of the
prosecutor with active court intervention, or by the Ombudsman. If there power of immunity to the Ombudsman. It is not without significance that
is any distinction at all between the public prosecutor and the the law encompassed (and appears to have pointedly not separated) the
Ombudsman in this endeavor, it is in the specificity of and the higher consideration of Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court within the
priority given by law to the Ombudsman’s purpose and objective – to broader context of "such terms and conditions as the Ombudsman may
focus on offenses committed by public officers and employees to ensure determine." This deliberate statutory wording, to our mind, indicates the
accountability in the public service. This accounts for the Ombudsman’s intent to define the role of Section 17, Rule 119 in the Ombudsman’s
unique power to grant immunity by itself and even prior to the filing of exercise of discretion. It suggests a broad grant of discretion that allows
information in court, a power that the public prosecutor himself generally the Ombudsman’s consideration of factors other than those outlined
does not enjoy.73 under Section 17, Rule 119; the wording creates the opening for the
invocation, when proper, of the constitutional and statutory intents behind
V. Extent of judicial review of a bestowed immunity the establishment of the Ombudsman.

An immunity statute does not, and cannot, rule out a review by this Court Based on these considerations, we shall now proceed to determine
of the Ombudsman’s exercise of discretion. Like all other officials under whether the petitioner has clearly and convincingly shown that the
our constitutional scheme of government, all their acts must adhere to the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion in granting immunity to the
Constitution.74 The parameters of our review, however, are narrow. In the respondents.
first place, what we review are executive acts of a constitutionally
independent Ombudsman.75 Also, we undertake the review given the Va. Absolute necessity for testimony of the respondents
underlying reality that this Court is not a trier of facts. Since the
determination of the requirements under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Under the factual and legal situation before us, we find that the petitioner
Rules of Court is highly factual in nature, the Court must, thus, generally miserably failed to clearly and convincingly establish that the
defer to the judgment of the Ombudsman who is in a better position (than Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion in granting immunity to the
the Sandiganbayan or the defense) to know the relative strength and/or respondents. While he claims that both conditions (a) and (d) of Section
weakness of the evidence presently in his possession and the kind, tenor 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court are absent, we observe his utter lack
and source of testimony he needs to enable him to prove his case.76 It of argument addressing the "absolute necessity" of the respondents’
should not be forgotten, too, that the grant of immunity effectively but testimony. In fact, the petitioner simply concluded that the requirement of
conditionally results in the extinction of the criminal liability the accused- "absolute necessity" does not exist based on the Ombudsman’s
witnesses might have incurred, as defined in the terms of the grant.77This "evidence," without even attempting to explain how he arrived at this
point is no less important as the grant directly affects the individual and conclusion.
enforces his right against self-incrimination. These dynamics should
constantly remind us that we must tread softly, but not any less critically, We note in this regard that the respondents’ proposed testimony tends to
in our review of the Ombudsman’s grant of immunity. counteract the petitioner’s personal defense of good faith (i.e., that he
had no actual participation and merely relied on his subordinates) in
From the point of view of the Court’s own operations, we are approving the job orders and in his concurrence with the inspection
circumscribed by the nature of the review powers granted to us under the reports. In their Joint Counter-Affidavit, the respondents narrated the
Constitution and the Rules of Court. We rule on the basis of a petition for accused DPWH officials/employees’ flagrant disregard of the proper
certiorari under Rule 65 and address mainly the Ombudsman’s exercise procedure and the guidelines in the repair of DPWH service vehicles
of discretion. Our room for intervention only occurs when a clear and which culminated in losses to the government. Particularly telling is the
grave abuse of the exercise of discretion is shown. Necessarily, this respondents’ statement that a number of pre-repair inspection reports for
limitation similarly reflects on the petitioner who comes to us on the a particular month in 2001 bear the petitioner’s signature despite the fact
allegation of grave abuse of discretion; the petitioner himself is bound to that these reports are not supported by findings from the respondents as
clearly and convincingly establish that the Ombudsman gravely abused SIT members.79 This kind of statement cannot but impact on how the
his discretion in granting immunity in order to fully establish his case.78 Ombudsman viewed the question of "absolute necessity" of the
respondents’ testimony since this testimony meets the defense of good the Ombudsman simply saw the higher value of utilizing the respondents
faith head-on to prove the prosecution’s allegations. Under these themselves as witnesses instead of prosecuting them in order to fully
circumstances, we cannot preempt, foreclose, nor replace with our own establish and strengthen its case against those mainly responsible for the
the Ombudsman’s position on this point as it is clearly not without basis. criminal act, as indicated by the available evidence. 1avvphi1

Vb. The respondents do not appear to be the "most guilty" VI. The respondents’ administrative liability has no bearing at all on the
immunity granted to the respondents
Similarly, far from concluding that the respondents are the "most guilty,"
we find that the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the The fact that the respondents had previously been found administratively
inspection reports can significantly lessen the degree of the respondents’ liable, based on the same set of facts, does not necessarily make them
criminal complicity in defrauding the government. Again, this is a matter the "most guilty." An administrative case is altogether different from a
that the Ombudsman, in the exercise of his discretion, could not have criminal case, such that the disposition in the former does not necessarily
avoided when he considered the grant of immunity to the respondents. result in the same disposition for the latter, although both may arise from
the same set of facts.82 The most that we can read from the finding of
We note, too, that while the petitioner incessantly harped on the liability is that the respondents have been found to be administratively
respondents’ role in the preparation of the inspection reports, yet, as guilty by substantial evidence – the quantum of proof required in an
head of the SIT, he was eerily silent on the circumstances surrounding administrative proceeding. The requirement of the Revised Rules of
this preparation, particularly on the respondents’ explanation that they Criminal Procedure (which RA No. 6770 adopted by reference) that the
tried "to curb the anomalous practices"80 in the DPWH. We are aware, of proposed witness should not appear to be the "most guilty" is obviously in
course, that the present petition merely questions the immunity granted to line with the character83 and purpose84 of a criminal proceeding, and the
the respondents and their consequent exclusion from the informations; it much stricter standards85 observed in these cases. They are standards
does not assail the finding of probable cause against the petitioner entirely different from those applicable in administrative proceedings.
himself. This current reality may explain the petitioner’s silence on the
respondents’ assertions; the respondents’ allegations, too, still have to be VII. The policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s investigatory
proven during the trial. However, these considerations are not sufficient and prosecutory powers cautions a stay of judicial hand
to save the petitioner from the necessity of controverting the respondents’
allegations, even for the limited purpose of the present petition, since his The Constitution and RA No. 6770 have endowed the Office of the
counter-assertion on this basic ground (that the respondents bear the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory
most guilt) is essential and critical to the viability of his petition. powers, freed, to the extent possible within our governmental system and
structure, from legislative, executive, or judicial intervention, and
In considering the respondents’ possible degree of guilt, we are keenly insulated from outside pressure and improper influence.86Consistent with
aware of their admission that they resorted to a "short-cut"81 in the this purpose and subject to the command of paragraph 2, Section 1,
procedure to be observed in the repairs and/or purchase of emergency Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution,87 the Court reiterates its policy of non-
parts of DPWH service vehicles. To our mind, however, this admission interference with the Ombudsman’s exercise of his investigatory and
does not necessarily result in making the respondents the "most guilty" in prosecutory powers (among them, the power to grant immunity to
the premises; not even a semblance of being the "most guilty" can be witnesses88), and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the
deduced therefrom. Ombudsman who, "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the
people and the preserver of the integrity of the public service."89 Ocampo
In sum, the character of the respondents’ involvement vis-à-vis the IV v. Ombudsman90 best explains the reason behind this policy:
crimes filed against the DPWH officials/employees, coupled with the
substance of the respondents’ disclosures, compels this Court to take a The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and
dim view of the position that the Ombudsman gravely abused his prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the
discretion in granting immunity to the respondents. The better view is that Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the
courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the
dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the
Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same
way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be
compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or
prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court
or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.

Following this policy, we deem it neither appropriate nor advisable to

interfere with the Ombudsman’s grant of immunity to the respondents,
particularly in this case, where the petitioner has not clearly and
convincingly shown the grave abuse of discretion that would call for our
intervention.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against the

petitioner.

SO ORDERED.
 Republic of the Philippines and two counts of falsification under Article 171, paragraph 4, of the
SUPREME COURT Revised Penal Code in Criminal Cases 27511-14.
Manila
The first information alleged that respondent DOF officials approved and
THIRD DIVISION issued in 1996 Tax Credit Certificate 7711 for ₱7,350,444.00 in favor of
JAM Liner, Inc. for domestic capital equipment although it did not qualify
G.R. Nos. 185729-32               June 26, 2013 for such tax credit. The second Information alleged that they further
illegally issued in 1996 Tax Credit Certificate 7708 for ₱4,410,265.50 in
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER,  favor of the same company covering its purchase of six Mitsubishi buses.
vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), Mercado filed a motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation before the
ANTONIO P. BELICENA, ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN, JR., RAUL C. DE Ombudsman, citing the DOJ’s grant of immunity to him. Acting favorably
VERA, ROSANNA P. DIALA AND JOSEPH A. on the motion, on September 4, 2003 the Ombudsman executed an
CABOTAJE, RESPONDENTS. Immunity Agreement1 with Mercado. The agreement provided that, in
consideration for granting him immunity from suit, Mercado would
DECISION produce all relevant documents in his possession and testify against the
accused in all the cases, criminal or otherwise, that may be filed against
them. Accordingly, on the same date, the Ombudsman filed a motion to
ABAD, J.:
discharge Mercado2 from the information involving him.
This case arose from the issuance of two Tax Credit Certificates in favor
But on April 30, 2008 the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution,3 denying
of JAM Liner, Inc. which were investigated and found fraudulent by the
the Ombudsman’s motion. That court held that the pieces of evidence
Presidential Task Force 156, created by then President Joseph E.
adduced during the hearing of the Ombudsman’s motion failed to
Estrada.
establish the conditions required under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules
of Court for the discharge of an accused as a state witness. The
The Facts and the Case Ombudsman filed a motion for reconsideration but the court denied it on
November 6, 2008,4 hence, this petition of the People of the Philippines.
The principal respondent in this case, Homero A. Mercado, was the
President of JAM Liner, Inc. The other respondents, Antonio A. Belicena, Issue Presented
Uldarico P. Andutan Jr., Raul C. De Vera, and Rosanna P. Diala, were
Department of Finance (DOF) officials formerly assigned at its One-Stop
The central issue that this case presents is whether or not the
Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Drawback Center (DOF One-Stop
Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in refusing to recognize the
Shop).
immunity from criminal prosecution that the Ombudsman granted
respondent Mercado and, as a result, in declining to discharge him from
Sometime in 2000, showing willingness to testify against the criminal the information as a state witness.
syndicate that allegedly ran the tax credit scam at the DOF One-Stop
Shop, Mercado applied with the Department of Justice (DOJ) for
Ruling of the Court
immunity as state witness under its witness protection program. On June
5, 2000 the DOJ favorably acted on the application and granted immunity
to Mercado. Still, since the investigation of the case fell within the In denying the Ombudsman’s motion to drop Mercado from the
authority of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman), the latter information, the Sandiganbayan largely dwelt on the question of whether
charged him and the other respondents before the Sandiganbayan’s or not the prosecution complied with the requirements of Section 17, Rule
Fourth Division with violations of Section 3(j) of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Respondents De Vera and Diala, Mercado’s co-accused who opposed The Ombudsman premised its grant of immunity to Mercado on his
the grant of immunity to him, contend that the immunity that the undertaking to produce all the documents in his possession relative to the
Ombudsman gave Mercado does not bind the court, which in the DOF tax credit scam and to testify in all pending criminal, civil, and
meantime already acquired jurisdiction over the case against him. That administrative cases against those involved. Indeed, he had consistently
immunity merely relieves Mercado from any further proceedings, cooperated even prior to immunity agreement in the investigation and
including preliminary investigation, which the state might still attempt to prosecution of the case. His testimony gave the prosecution a clearer
initiate against him.5 picture of the transactions that led to the issuance of the subject
certificates.
This in a way is true. But the filing of the criminal action against an
accused in court does not prevent the Ombudsman from exercising the In any event, the question before the Sandiganbayan was whether or not
power that the Congress has granted him. Section 17 of R.A. 6770 Mercado met, from its point of view, the following requirements of Section
provides: 17, Rule 119 for the discharge of an accused to be a state witness: (a)
there is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose
Section 17. Immunities. – x x x Under such terms and conditions as it discharge is requested; (b) there is no other direct evidence available for
may determine, taking into account the pertinent provisions of the Rules the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of
of Court, the Ombudsman may grant immunity from criminal prosecution said accused; (c) the testimony of said accused can be substantially
to any person whose testimony or whose possession and production of corroborated in its material points; (d) said accused does not appear to
documents or other evidence may be necessary to determine the truth in be the most guilty; and (e) said accused has not at any time been
any hearing, inquiry or proceeding being conducted by the Ombudsman convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
or under its authority, in the performance or in the furtherance of its
constitutional functions and statutory objectives. The immunity granted The authority to grant immunity is not an inherent judicial function.
under this and the immediately preceding paragraph shall not exempt the Indeed, Congress has vested such power in the Ombudsman as well as
witness from criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony nor shall in the Secretary of Justice. Besides, the decision to employ an accused
he be exempt from demotion or removal from office. as a state witness must necessarily originate from the public prosecutors
whose mission is to obtain a successful prosecution of the several
His above authority enables the Ombudsman to carry out his accused before the courts. The latter do not as a rule have a vision of the
constitutional mandate to ensure accountability in the public service.6 It true strength of the prosecution’s evidence until after the trial is over.
gives the Ombudsman wide latitude in using an accused discharged from Consequently, courts should generally defer to the judgment of the
the information to increase the chances of conviction of the other prosecution and deny a motion to discharge an accused so he can be
accused and attain a higher prosecutorial goal.7 Immunity statutes seek used as a witness only in clear cases of failure to meet the requirements
to provide a balance between the state’s interests and the individual’s of Section 17, Rule 119.
right against self-incrimination. To secure his testimony without exposing
him to the risk of prosecution, the law recognizes that the witness can be Here, the Sandiganbayan held that Mercado’s testimony is not absolutely
given immunity from prosecution.8 In such a case, both interests and necessary because the state has other direct evidence that may prove
rights are satisfied. the offenses charged. It held that Mercardo’s testimony, in large part,
would only help (1) identify numerous documents and (2) disclose
As it happened in this case, the Ombudsman had already filed with the matters that are essentially already contained in such documents.
Sandiganbayan the criminal action against Mercado and the other
respondents in Criminal Cases 27511-14 prior to the Ombudsman’s grant But the records, particularly Mercado’s consolidated affidavit, show that
of immunity to Mercado. Having already acquired jurisdiction over his testimony if true could be indispensable in establishing the
Mercado’s case, it remained within the Sandiganbayan’s power to circumstances that led to the preparation and issuance of fraudulent tax
determine whether or not he may be discharged as a state witness in credit certificates. Indeed, nobody appears to be in a better position to
accordance with Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal testify on this than he, as president of JAM Liner, Inc., the company to
Procedure. which those certificates were issued. This is what he said in that affidavit:
Sometime in June 1997, Joseph Cabotaje went to Jam Compound office, It says here, date complied, when we haven’t given anything to the
approached Jerry Mapalo, the liaison officer of Jam Liner and claimed Department of Finance except for those we filed originally on April 11, sir.
that as a former salesman of Diamond Motor Corporation, he could We have not submitted any document related in this application other
facilitate the release of the tax credit. He was brought to my office and than those we originally filed on April 11, sir. But it says here, dated (sic)
impressed upon me that he could do the work as he personally knows the complied, June 26, so, it means, for us, that we have complied with their
top brass in the Center, like Raul De Vera, Assistant Executive Director; requirements while we did not give any additional documents to them,
Uldarico Andutan, Jr., Deputy Director and Undersecretary Antonio Your Honors (sic).
Belicena.
xxxx
xxxx
Q:
x x x He asked for a fee of 20% of the amount of the tax credit and
explained that this amount he would still share with his "connections" in What else did you notice aside from the date of suspension?
the Center.
A:
As Jam Liner[’s] application with the Center for the 16 Mitsubishi bus
units was pending, and having nobody to turn to, my liaison officer The date of suspension, sir, was April 13, a few days after we filed the
recommended that I accept the offer of services of Cabotaje. There was application and on the third page of Exhibit "KKK-2". If I may repeat my
nothing written about the arrangement and it was with the understanding testimony before, this amount is much bigger than those we filed with the
of "no cure no pay," meaning Cabotaje would only be paid after the tax Department of Finance. But the engine and chassis number are the same
credit certificates were released. except for the amount, which was noted to ₱4,094,000.00, sir.11 x x x

Sometime in July 1997, Cabotaje handed to me tax credit certificates for The decision to move for the discharge of Mercado was part of
₱4.4 million and ₱7.3 million in favor of Jam Liner. I believed that these prosecutorial discretion in the determination of who should be used as a
certificates were approved upon the intercession and through the efforts state witness to bolster the successful prosecution of criminal offenses.
of Cabotaje. The tax credit certificates were issued on June 30, 1997. Unless made in clear violation of the Rules, this determination should be
given great weight by our courts. As this Court held in People v. Court of
The 2 TCCs were received and handed to me by Mr. Cabotaje. When he Appeals:12
presented the TCCs to me, I noticed that the amount was bigger than
what we were supposed to get. In my estimate, there was an over The Rules do not require absolute certainty in determining those
evaluation of about 20% equivalent to ₱100,000.00 per unit, more or conditions. Perforce, the Judge has to rely in a large part upon the
less.10 suggestions and the considerations presented by the prosecuting officer.

During direct examination by the Sandiganbayan, Mercado also testified "A trial judge cannot be expected or required to inform himself with
that: absolute certainty at the very outset of the trial as to everything which
may be developed in the course of the trial in regard to the guilty
AJ Ponferrada: participation of the accused in the commission of the crime charged in the
complaint. If that were practicable or possible, there would be little need
The question is, what is unusal about that document? for the formality of a trial. In coming to his conclusions as to the necessity
for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested, as to the
Answer. availability or non-availability of other direct or corroborative evidence; as
to which of the accused is the ‘most guilty’ one; and the like, the judge
Mr. Mercado:
must rely in a large part upon the suggestions and the information
furnished by the prosecuting officer. x x x."13 (Emphasis supplied)

What is more, the criminal informations in these cases charge

respondents with having conspired in approving and issuing the
fraudulent tax credit certificates. One rule of wisdom is that where a crime
is contrived in secret, the discharge of one of the conspirators is essential
so he can testify against the others.14 Who else outside the conspiracy
can testify about the goings-on that took place among the accused
involved in the conspiracy to defraud the government in this case?15 No
one can underestimate Mercado’s testimony since he alone can provide
a detailed picture of the fraudulent scheme that went into the approval
and issuance of the tax credit certificates. The documents can show the
1âwphi1

irregularities but not the detailed events that led to their issuance. As
correctly pointed out by the prosecution, Mercado’s testimony can fill in
the gaps in the evidence.

Respondents further contend that Mercado should not be granted

immunity because he also benefited from the unlawful transactions. But
the immunity granted to Mercado does not blot out the fact that he
committed the offense. While he is liable, the State saw a higher social
value in eliciting information from him rather than in engaging in his
prosecution.16

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition, SETS ASIDE the

Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions of April 30 and November 6, 2008 in
Criminal Cases 27511-14, and ORDERS the discharge of accused
Homero A. Mercado from the criminal information to be used as state
witness.

SO ORDERED.
 Republic of the Philippines That on or about and during the period from March 1985
SUPREME COURT and March 1986, in Metro Manila, Philippines, and within
Baguio the jurisdiction of the Honorable Sandiganbayan, accused
Placido L. Mapa, Jr., J. Lorenzo Vergara, Ramon F.
EN BANC Aviado, Jr., Dominador Lopez, Jr., Fernando Maramag,
Jr., Jose C. Crisanto, Jr., acting in various capacities as
  management officials of the Philippine National Bank
(PNB), National Investment and Development Corporation
(NIDC) and/or Pantranco North Express Inc. (PNEI), all
G.R. No. 100295 April 26, 1994
government-owned and controlled corporations, as well
as Dolores Potenciano of BLTB, acting in concert in the
PLACIDO L. MAPA, JR., and J. LORENZO VERGARA, petitioners,  performance of their duties, in utter neglect of their
vs. fiduciary responsibilities, and with intent to gain,
SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent. conspiring and confederating with one another and with
accused Gregorio Ma. Araneta III, son-in-law of former
Estelito P. Mendoza for Placido L. Mapa, Jr. President Ferdinand E. Marcos and therefore related to
the deposed President by affinity within the third degree,
Filemon Flores for J. Lorenzo Vergara. and Fernando Balatbat, did then and there, willfully and
unlawfully, with manifest partiality and evident bad faith,
without proper board resolution and in disregard of better
PUNO, J.: offers, promote and facilitate the sale of a major portion of
the public utility assets of the Pantranco Express, Inc., for
The denial of the right to be free from further prosecution of a cooperative a consideration of SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE
witness who has been granted immunity is the core issue posed in this MILLION (P775,000,000.00) PESOS, Philippine
petition. On balance are important rights in conflict: the right of an Currency, to the North Express Transport, Inc. (NETI),
individual who has surrendered his constitutional prerogative to be silent which the accused knew to be a newly organized paper
to the State to be exempt from further prosecution; the right of the State corporation with a purported paid-up capital of only FIVE
to prosecute all persons who appear to have committed a crime and its MILLION (P5,000,000.00) PESOS and owned and
prerogative to revoke the immunity it has granted to an accused for controlled by accused Gregorio Ma. Araneta III, by
breach of agreement; and the extent of the jurisdiction of the misleading, inducing and/or unduly influencing the Board
Sandiganbayan as an impartial tribunal to review the grant of immunity of Directors of PNB, NIDC and PNEI into approving a
extended by the PCGG to an accused. Memorandum of Agreement and later a Purchase
Agreement with manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
First, the facts. terms and conditions which made possible the premature
delivery of said PNEI assets to NETI without any down
On January 20, 1987, petitioners Placido L. Mapa and Lorenzo Vergara, payment, and which, inter alia, allowed NETI to operate
together with Gregorio Ma. Araneta III, Fernando Balatbat, Ramon PNEI's franchises and utilize, even before the execution
Aviado, Jr., Dominador Lopez, Jr., Fernando Maramag, Jr., and Jose of the said Purchase Agreement, not only the PNEI
Crisanto, Jr., were charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt assets subject of the proposed sale, but also other utility
Practices Act (R.A. 3019) as amended, docketed as Case No. 11960 in buses and properties of PNEI not covered by the sale,
the respondent court, as follows: thereby allowing NETI to derive an income from said
operation between the period of actual delivery and
execution of the Purchase Agreement of the sum of
 EIGHTY-FIVE MILLION SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE filed or intends to file in relation to this participation in
THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (P85,689,180.00) various contracts that are alleged to have resulted in the
PESOS before the actual payment of the agreed FIFTY- accumulation of ill-gotten wealth by Ferdinand and Imelda
FIVE MILLION (P55,000,000.00) PESOS down payment, Marcos in violation of Philippine laws, rules and
thereby giving accused Gregorio Ma. Araneta III regulations;
unwarranted benefits, advantages and/or preferences and
causing undue injury to the damage and prejudice of the WHEREAS, on the basis of MAPA's express intent to
Government in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED MILLION make himself available as witness in the case entitled
(P400,000,000.00) PESOS, and such other amounts as "United States of America vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et
may be awarded by the Court. al.," and in light of REPUBLIC's re-appraisal of the civil
and criminal cases which it has filed or intends to file
CONTRARY TO LAW. against MAPA under the terms and conditions herein
below set forth.
Except for petitioner Araneta, all the accused in Criminal Case
No. 11960 were arraigned. Their trial started on September 20, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the
foregoing premises, the parties agree as follows:
In the interim, the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Mrs. Imelda R.
Marcos were charged in New York with violations of the Racketeer 1. MAPA shall make himself available as a witness in the
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) by transporting to the case entitled "United States of America vs. Ferdinand E.
United States and concealing the investment of money through cronies Marcos, et al."
and offshore organizations. To insure the conviction of the Marcoses, the
prosecution solicited the testimonies of witnesses. Among these 2. In consideration of the same, REPUBLIC grants MAPA
witnesses were petitioners Vergara and Mapa. Petitioner Vergara was immunity from investigation, prosecution and punishment
interviewed in 1987 by PCGG lawyers Kendall and Severina Rivera and for any offense with reference to which his testimony and
by United States Prosecutor Charles La Bella. Petitioner Mapa was information are given, including any offense and
interviewed on November 14, 1988 and August 11, 1989 also by commission of which any information, directly or indirectly
Prosecutor La Bella at the behest of former Secretary of Justice Sedfrey derived from such testimony or other information is used
Ordonez and former PCGG Chairman Mateo Caparas. After their as basis thereof, except a prosecution for perjury and/or
interviews, petitioners were requested to testify in the said RICO cases giving false testimony.
against the former First Couple. They were promised immunity from
further criminal prosecution. They agreed. 3. Likewise, in consideration of such cooperation, and in
light of REPUBLIC’s review of the cases both civil and
On May 16, 1990, the Philippine Government through the PCGG, and the criminal which it has filed or intends to file against MAPA
petitioners formalized their separate agreements in writing. The within the purview of Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
agreement with petitioner Mapa provided: 14-A, the REPUBLIC shall cause the dismissal or
exclusion of MAPA as party defendant or respondent in all
WHEREAS, REPUBLIC has requested MAPA to make PCGG initiated civil cases and criminal proceeding or
himself available as a witness in the case entitled "United investigation.
States of America vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et al.," more
particularly in the on-going trial of the case; 4. The immunity has been granted by the REPUBLIC to
MAPA on the basis of and relying on MAPA's promise of
WHEREAS, MAPA is a defendant or respondent in cooperation as described herein. In case of breach of his
several civil and criminal cases which the REPUBLIC has commitment to fully cooperate and make himself available
 as a witness in the case entitled "United States of offense and commission of which any information, directly
America vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et al.", the immunity or indirectly derived from such testimony or other
herein granted shall forthwith be deemed revoked, and of information is used as basis thereof, except a prosecution
no force and effect. for perjury and/or giving false testimony.

5. The parties agree that the grant of immunity from 3. Likewise, in consideration of such cooperation, and in
criminal prosecution to MAPA and his exclusion from light of REPUBLIC’s review of VERGARA’s participation
PCGG initiated civil cases and criminal proceeding or in Criminal Case No. 11960, the REPUBLIC shall cause
investigations has been undertaken in the exercise of the the dismissal of VERGARA from Criminal Case No.
PCGG's authority under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 11960.
and 14-A. Accordingly, nothing herein shall be construed
as an admission by MAPA of any criminal or civil liability. 4. The immunity has been granted by the REPUBLIC to
VERGARA on the basis of and relying on VERGARA's
The agreement with petitioner Vergara stated: promise of cooperation as described herein. In case of
breach of h is commitment to fully cooperate and make
WHEREAS, REPUBLIC has requested VERGARA to himself available as a witness in the case entitled "United
make himself available as a witness in the case entitled States of America vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et al.", the
"United States of America vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et immunity herein granted shall forthwith be deemed
al.," more particularly in the on-going trial of the case; revoked, and of no force and effect.

WHEREAS, Vergara is a defendant in Criminal Case No. 5. The parties agree that the grant of immunity from civil
11960 entitled "People vs. Gregorio Ma. Araneta, et al.", and criminal prosecution to VERGARA and his exclusion
now pending before the Sandiganbayan, Second Division; from Criminal Case No. 11960 has been undertaken in
the exercise of the PCGG's authority under Executive
WHEREAS, on the basis of VERGARA’s express intent to Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. Accordingly, nothing
make himself available as witness in the case entitled herein shall be construed as a admission by VERGARA of
"United States of America vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et any criminal liability.
al.," and in the light of REPUBLIC's re-appraisal of
VERGARA's participation in Criminal Case No. 11960, the On the same day, May 16, 1990, former PCGG Chairman Mateo
REPUBLIC approved to grant immunity to VERGARA Caparas wrote to petitioner Mapa the following letter:
under the terms and conditions hereinbelow set forth.
Dear Sir:
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the
foregoing premises, the parties agree as follows: With reference to the agreement executed between
yourself and the Republic of the Philippines on May 16,
1. VERGARA shall make himself available as a witness in 1990, we would like to confirm
the case entitled "United States of America vs. Ferdinand that among the criminal cases which the Republic agrees
E. Marcos, et al." to cause the dismissal of the case entitled "People of the
Philippines vs. Mr. Gregorio Ma. Araneta III, et. al., "
2. In consideration of the same, REPUBLIC grants Criminal Case No. 11960 of the Sandiganbayan. We
VERGARA immunity from investigation, prosecution and understand that in that case the prosecution is in the
punishment for any offense with reference to which his process of closing its evidence with the submission of its
testimony and information are given, including any offer of documentary evidence and that it is your intention
 thereupon to submit a Motion to Dismiss for failure of the The PCGG, therefore, interposes no objection to the Joint
prosecution to prove its case. We affirm that if, because of Motion to Dismiss filed by accused Placido L. Mapa, Jr.
the situation of the case, it would not be possible for the and J. Lorenzo Vergara in Criminal Case No. 11960-
Republic to file the necessary motion to cause the PCGG by reason of the immunity aforestated.
dismissal thereof, then we shall upon submission of your
Motion to Dismiss offer no objection to its favorable Despite PCGG's concurrence, the respondent court denied the Joint
consideration by the court in relation to you. Motion to Dismiss, by a vote of 4-1.  Petitioners were undaunted. On April
1

8, 1991, they filed a Motion for Reconsideration. This was followed on

We also affirm our understanding that we shall arrange May 23, 1991, by a Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration. The
with the U.S. prosecutors the grant of immunity in your deputized prosecutors again filed a Manifestation reiterating PCGG's
favor no less broad or extensive than that granted to Mr. acquiescence to petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. Respondent
Jaime C. Laya. court, however, refused to budge from its prior position. It denied
petitioners' motions.

Hence, this recourse where petitioners charge the respondent court with
Very truly yours, grave abuse of discretion in denying their Motion to Dismiss and Motion
for Reconsideration. They pose the following issues:
(SGD.) M.A.T. Caparas
2.00.a. Does the fact that the information provided by
A similar letter was sent to petitioner Vergara. petitioners to the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) did not refer to Criminal Case No.
11960 make the immunity granted to them inapplicable to
The petitioners complied with their respective undertaking. They travelled
Criminal Case No. 11960?
to New York to testify against the Marcoses. Their travel fare and hotel
accommodations were even furnished by the PCGG. But despite their
availability and willingness to testify, the US prosecutors decided not to 2.00.b. Is it necessary that information furnished the
call them to the witness stand. The result was a debacle for the US PCGG, which would become basis of the grant of
prosecutors and the PCGG. Mrs.Imelda Marcos was acquitted by the immunity, be submitted to the Sandiganbayan in order
jury. Earlier, former President Marcos was delisted as an accused as he that it may determine whether such information is
died in the course of the proceedings. necessary to ascertain or prove the guilt or liability of a
respondent, defendant or an accused in an action
involving the recovery of ill-gotten wealth?
The legal struggle shifted back to the prosecution of petitioners in
Criminal Case No. 11960 before the respondent court. On the basis of
the immunity granted to them, petitioners filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss 2.00.c. Does the fact that the prosecution in the RICO
on October 22, 1990. Deputized PCGG prosecutors Vivencio B. Dionido cases did not actually present petitioners as witnesses
and Angel J. Parazo filed a Manifestation interposing no objection to abrogate the immunity granted to them?
petitioners' Motion, viz:
2.00.d. Was the immunity granted to petitioners too late
That herein accused Placido L. Mapa, Jr. and J. Lorenzo considering that when it was granted, the prosecution in
Vergara were granted immunity by the Presidential Criminal Case
Commission on Good Government from criminal liability No. 11960 had already rested its case?"
arising from cases which PCGG had or intends to file
against them; The proceedings before us took a new wrinkle with the appointment of
Atty. David Castro as Chairman of PCGG. In its Comment dated January
6, 1992, the PCGG somersaulted from its stance supporting the We begin with the Constitution which expressly grants some of these
petitioners. Its Comment states: immunities. Article XVI, section 3 provides that "the State may not be
sued without its consent." The classic justification for the non-suability of
1. The Presidential Commission on Good Government the State is that provided by Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: ". . .
has indeed granted Messrs. Placido L. Mapa, Jr., and there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on
Jesus Lorenzo Vergara immunity from investigation, which the right depends."   Article VI, section 11 of the Constitution also
2

prosecution and punishment for any offense for which civil grants parliamentary immunities, viz: "A Senator or Member of the House
and criminal cases have been or to be filed against them of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six
within the purview of Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in
14-A but such immunity is conditional. session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other
place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in
2. The conditions for giving such immunity is the any committee thereof." Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz explains the rationale
cooperation said petitioners shall give to said Commission for this immunity in the following manners: ". . . The first is intended to
by way of information and testimony in cases now ensure representation of the constituents of the member of the Congress
pending or to be filed before the Sandiganbayan against by preventing attempts to keep him from attending its sessions. The
other defendants therein to prove the latter's acquisition second enables the legislator to express views bearing upon the public
or accumulation of property or properties in violation of interest without fear of accountability outside the halls of the legislature
existing laws. for his inability to support his statements with the usual evidence required
in the court of justice. In other words, he is given more leeway than the
ordinary citizen in the ventilation of matters that ought to be divulged for
3. Failure on the part of petitioners Placido Mapa, Jr. and
the public good."  The President was also immunized from suit during his
3

Jesus Vergara to testify in favor of the government and

tenure in the 1973 Constitution.
against other defendants on matters referred to in
the immediately preceding paragraph nullifies the
immunity granted to both defendants (emphasis Aside from the Constitution, Congress has enacted laws giving immunity
supplied). to witnesses to facilitate the solution of crimes with high political, social
and economic impact against the people. Some of these statutory grants
are related in the impugned Resolution. Thus, PD 749 provides:
It reiterated its breakaway from petitioners in its Comment to the Reply of
petitioners dated June 10, 1992, where it adopted the respondent
Sandiganbayan's questioned Resolution and Concurring Opinions dated Section 1. Any person who voluntarily gives information
March 6, 1991. It further stressed that "[T]he granting of 'Immunity' from about any violation of Articles 210, 211, 212 of the
criminal liability and/or prosecution is a matter subject to the court's Revised Penal Code, Republic Act No. 3019, as
judicious determination and approval, after applying the test of amended; Section 345 of the Internal Revenue Code and
compliance and the standard of reasonableness with the rigid Section 3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code and other
requirements for such grant under Section 5 of Executive Order No. 14-A, provisions of the said codes penalizing abuse or
as amended." The Solicitor General defended the stance of the PCGG dishonesty on the part of the public officials concerned;
and the respondent court. and other laws, rules and regulations punishing acts of
graft, corruption and other forms of official abuse; and
who willingly testified, such violator shall be exempt from
We find merit in the petition.
prosecution or punishment for the offense with reference
to which his information and testimony were given, and
The practice of granting government, its officials, and some accused or may plead or prove the giving of such information and
respondents immunity from suits, has a long history. testimony in bar of such prosecution: Provided, That this
immunity may be enjoyed even in cases where the
information and the testimony are given against a person
 who is not a public official but who is a principal or punishment for perjury committed in so testifying, nor
accomplice, or accessory in the commission of any of the shall he be exempt from prosecution and punishment for
above-mentioned violations: Provided, further, That this perjury committed in so testifying, nor shall he be exempt
immunity may be enjoyed by such informant or witness from demotion or removal from office.
notwithstanding that he offered or gave bribe or gift to the
public official or is an accomplice for such gift or bribe- Indeed, as early as April 16, 1951, R.A. 602, establishing a minimum
giving; And, Provided, finally, That the following wage law, extended transactional immunity to persons who testify or
conditions concur: produce books, papers or other records and documents before the
Secretary of Labor or a Wage Board. A similar but not identical power is
1. The information must refer to consummated violations given to the prosecution under section 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on
of any of the above- mentioned provisions of law, rules Criminal Procedure to discharge an accused to be utilized as a state
and regulations; witness.

2. The information and testimony are necessary for the Our immunity statutes are of American origin. In the United States, there
conviction of the accused public officer; are two types of statutory immunity granted to a witness. They are the
transactional immunity and the used-and-derivative-use immunity.
3. Such information and testimony are not yet in the Transactional immunity is broader in the scope of its protection. By its
possession of the State; grant, a witness can no longer be prosecuted for any offense whatsoever
arising out of the act or transaction.   In contrast, by the grant of use-and-
4

4. Such information and testimony can be corroborated derivative-use immunity,

on its material points; and a witness is only assured that his or her particular testimony and
evidence derived from it will not be used against him or her in a
subsequent prosecution.   In Kastigar vs. US,   the rationale of these
5 6

5. The informant or witness has not been previously

immunity grants is well explained, viz:
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The power of government to compel persons to testify in
Likewise, under PD No. 1886, the Agrava Fact Finding Board, created to
court or before grand juries and other governmental
conduct a fact-finding inquiry in the Aquino-Galman double murder case,
agencies is firmly established in Anglo-American
was given the power to compel testimony of a witness. In exchange for
jurisprudence . . . The power to compel testimony, and the
his testimony, such a witness was extended transactional immunity from
corresponding duty to testify, are recognized in the Sixth
later prosecution. Section 5 of said PD No. 1886 states:
Amendment requirements that an accused be confronted
with the witnesses against him, and have compulsory
No person shall be excused from attending and testifying process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. . .
or from producing books, records, correspondence,
documents, or other evidence in obedience to a
xxx xxx xxx
subpoena issued by the Board on the ground that his
testimony or the evidence required of him may tend to
incriminate him or subject him to penalty or forfeiture; but But the power to compel testimony is not absolute. There
his testimony or any evidence produced by him shall not are a number of exemptions from the testimonial duty, the
be used against him in connection with any transaction, most important
matter or thing concerning which he is compelled, after of which is the Fifth Amendment privilege against
having invoked his privilege against self-incrimination to compulsory
testify or produce evidence, except that such individual so self-incrimination. The privilege reflects a complex of our
testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and fundamental values and aspirations, and marks an
 important advance in the development of our liberty. It can The witness may not refuse to comply with the order on
be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no
administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; testimony or other information compelled under the order
and it protects against any disclosures that the witness (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such
reasonably believes could be used in a criminal testimony, or other information) may be used against the
prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for
so used. This Court has been zealous to safeguard the perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to
values that underlie the privilege. comply with the other.'

Immunity statutes, which have historical roots deep in Sec. 3. Section 5 of Executive Order No. 14 dated May 7,
Anglo-American jurisprudence, are not incompatible with 1986 is hereby amended to read as follows:
these values. Rather, they seek a rational accommodation
between the imperatives of the privilege and the Sec. 5. The Presidential Commission on Good
legitimate demands of government to compel citizens to Government is authorized to grant immunity from criminal
testify. The existence of these statutes reflects the prosecution to any person who provides information or
importance of testimony, and the fact that many offenses testifies in any investigation conducted by such
are of such a character that the only persons capable of Commission to establish the unlawful manner in which
giving useful testimony are those implicated in the crime. any respondent, defendant or accused has acquired or
Indeed, their origins were in the context of such offenses, accumulated the property or properties in question in any
and their primary use has been to investigate such case where such information or testimony is necessary to
offenses . . . (E)very State in the Union, as well as the ascertain or prove the latter's guilt or his civil liability. The
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, has one of more immunity thereby granted shall be continued to protect
such statutes. The commentators, and this Court on the witness who repeats such testimony before the
several occasions, have characterized immunity statutes Sandiganbayan when required to do so by the latter or by
as essential to the effective enforcement of various the Commission.
criminal statutes. . .
There are obvious differences between the powers granted to the PCGG
We shall now examine the powers granted to PCGG by Executive Order under sections 4 and 5. Section 4 deals with the power which PCGG can
No. 14, as amended, to grant immunity from criminal prosecution. The use to compel an unwilling witness to testify. On the other hand, section 5
pertinent sections provide: speaks of the power which PCGG can wield to secure information from
a friendly witness. Under section 4, the hostile witness compelled to
xxx xxx xxx testify is not immunized from prosecution. He can still be prosecuted but
"no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any
Sec. 2. Section 4 of Executive Order No. 14 dated May 7, information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other
1986 is hereby amended to read as follows: information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case . . . ."
In contrast, under section 5, the friendly witness is completely immunized
Sec. 4. A witness may refuse on the basis of his privilege from prosecution.
against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other
information in a proceeding before the Sandiganbayan if The case at bench involves an exercise of power by PCGG under
the witness believes that such testimony or provision of section 5, supra. Petitioners are not hostile but friendly witnesses. It is not
information would tend to incriminate him or subject him disputed that they furnished information to the PCGG during their
to prosecution. Upon such refusal, the Sandiganbayan interviews conducted by PCGG lawyers and US prosecutor La Bella. Due
may order the witness to testify or provide information. to their cooperation, they were extended immunity from prosecution by
the PCGG. In return, they flew to New York to testify in the RICO trial of
Imelda Marcos. As they were witnesses for the prosecution, their Respondent court, thru the Solicitor General, pushes the proposition that
expenses were shouldered by the PCGG itself. At the last minute, said power of review is plenary in reach. It is urged that its plenitude and
however, US prosecutor La Bella decided to dispense with their panoply empower the respondent court to reverse the grant of immunity
testimony. The rest is history. The prosecution failed to convict Mrs. made by the PCGG by supplanting the latter's judgment. The submission
Marcos. will warrant the respondent court in examining the intrinsic quality of the
given information or testimony, i.e., whether it truly establishes the
The first issue is whether the respondent court has jurisdiction to review "unlawful manner" in which the respondent, defendant or accused has
the immunity granted by PCGG in favor of the petitioners. We sustain the acquired or accumulated the property or properties in question. Likewise,
jurisdiction of the respondent court. To be sure, we have grappled with it will give a warrant to the respondent court to change the judgment
this once slippery issue in the case of Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 173 made by the PCGG that the witness' information or testimony is
SCRA 76, 80-81, and we held: "necessary" to ascertain or prove the guilt or civil liability of the
respondent, defendant or accused.
We first ascertain whether or not the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction to look into the validity of the immunity granted We are not prepared to concede the correctness of this proposition.
by the PCGG to Jose Y. Campos which was extended to Neither the text nor the texture of E.O. No. 14, as amended, lends color
his son, petitioner-intervenor herein, to the suggested interpretation. Section 5 of E.O. No. 14, as amended,
Jose Campos, Jr. vests no such role in respondent court. In instances, where the intent is to
endow courts of justice with the power to review and reverse tactical
xxx xxx xxx moves of the prosecution, the law confers the power in clear and certain
language. Thus, under section 9 of Rule 119, the prosecution in the
exercise of its discretion may tactically decide to discharge an accused to
The powers of the PCGG are not unlimited. Its jurisdiction
be a state witness but its decision is made subject to the approval of the
over cases involving ill-gotten wealth must be within the
court trying the case. It has to file a proper motion and the motion may be
parameters stated in Executive Order No. 14.
denied by the court if the prosecution fails to prove that it has satisfied the
Necessarily, the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which
requirements of the rule on discharge of a witness. The rule is crafted as
is tasked to handle the ill-gotten wealth cases must
to leave no iota of doubt on the power of the court to interfere with the
include the jurisdiction to determine whether or not the
discretion of the prosecution on the matter. In the case at bench, E.O. 14,
PCGG exceeded its power to grant immunity pursuant to
as amended, is eloquently silent with regard to the range and depth of the
the provisions of Executive Order No.14.
power of the respondent court to review the exercise of discretion by the
PCGG granting a section 5 immunity. This silence argues against the
It should also be noted that the respondent court has already acquired thesis that the respondent court has full and unlimited power to reverse
jurisdiction to try and decide Case No. 11960 where petitioners stand PCGG's exercise of discretion granting a section 5 immunity. Legitimate
accused of violating RA 3019. It has started receiving the evidence of the power can not arise from a vacuum.
prosecution against the petitioners. Petitioners, with the conformity of
PCGG, then claimed their immunity via a motion to dismiss addressed to
We observe that in contrast to our other laws on immunity, section 5 of
the respondent court. The motion to dismiss is thus a mere incident well
E.O. No. 14, as amended, confers on the PCGG the power to grant
within the jurisdiction of the respondent court to resolve.
immunity alone and on its own authority. The exercise of the power is not
shared with any other authority. Nor is its exercise subject to the approval
The next issue is a finer and more difficult one, i.e., gauging the range of or disapproval of another agency of government. The basic reason for
the power of the respondent court to review the exercise of discretion of vesting the power exclusively on the PCGG lies in the principles of
the PCGG granting immunity to petitioners pursuant to section 5 of E.O. separation of power. The decision to grant immunity from prosecution
No. 14, as amended. forms a constituent part of the prosecution process. It is essentially a
tactical decision to forego prosecution of a person for government to
achieve a higher objective. It is a deliberate renunciation of the right of
the State to prosecute all who appear to be guilty of having committed a conducted by PCGG lawyers Kendall and Severina Rivera and US
crime. Its justification lies in the particular need of the State to obtain the prosecutor Charles
conviction of the more guilty criminals who, otherwise, will probably elude La Bella. They collaborated with the prosecution.
the long arm of the law. Whether or not the delicate power should be
exercised, who should be extended the privilege, the timing of its grant, Sec. 5 requires that the information should relate to "any case" which
are questions addressed solely to the sound judgment of the prosecution. PCGG can prosecute as mandated by the Constitution and E.O. Nos. 1,
The power to prosecute includes the right to determine who shall be 2, 14 and 14-A. It does not limit said information to be given only in a
prosecuted and the corollary right to decide whom not to prosecute. In case where the informant is himself an accused or a respondent. Such a
reviewing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in these areas, the reading adopted by the respondent court is unduly restrictive of the
jurisdiction of the respondent court is limited. For the business of a court intendment of section 5 of E.O.
of justice is to be an impartial tribunal, and not to get involved with the No. 14, as amended, even as it is clearly in contravention of its plain
success or failure of the prosecution to prosecute. Every now and then, language.
the prosecution may err in the selection of its strategies, but such errors
are not for neutral courts to rectify, any more than courts should correct It is also fairly established that the pieces of information given by the
the blunders of the defense. For fairness demands that courts keep the petitioners would in the judgment of the PCGG, establish the "unlawful
scales of justice at equipoise between and among all litigants. Due manner" with which the Marcoses acquired or accumulated their
process demands that courts should strive to maintain the legal playing properties and were "necessary" to prove their guilt. The totality of the
field perfectly even and perpetually level. circumstances of the case established this element. Thus, after their
interview, the PCGG was obviously convinced of the evidentiary value of
Prescinding from these baseline propositions, we hold that in reviewing the information given by the petitioners. It forthwith signed and sealed an
the grant of a section 5 immunity made by the PCGG to the petitioners, agreement with petitioners extending them immunity from prosecution. In
the power of the respondents court can go no further than to pass upon the case of petitioner Mapa, "the Republic shall cause the dismissal or
its procedural regularity. The respondent court should only ascertain: (a) exclusion of MAPA as party defendant or respondent in all PCGG
whether the person claiming immunity has provided information or initiated civil cases and criminal proceeding or investigation." In the case
testimony in any investigation conducted by the PCGG in the discharge of petitioner Vergara, "the Republic shall cause the dismissal of Vergara
of its functions; from Criminal Case No. 11960." This commitment was reiterated by
(b) whether in the bona fide judgment of the PCGG, the information or former Chairman Mateo Caparas of PCGG in his May 16, 1990 letters to
testimony given would establish the unlawful manner in which the the petitioners, as related above. The parties' agreements were then
respondent, defendant or accused has acquired or accumulated the implemented. Petitioners travelled to New York to testify in the RICO
property or properties in question; and (c) whether in the bona fide cases against the Marcoses. It was even the PCGG that shouldered their
judgment of the PCGG, such information or testimony is necessary to expenses. All these circumstances prove the judgment of the PCGG that
ascertain or prove the guilt or civil liability of the respondent, defendant or the pieces of information given by petitioners would establish the
accused. Respondent court cannot substitute its judgment to the "unlawful manner" with which the Marcoses acquired their wealth.
discretion of the PCGG without involving itself in prosecution and without
ceasing to be a court catering untilted justice. Contrary to the ruling of the respondent court, the failure of petitioners to
testify in the RICO cases against the Marcoses in New York can not
Applying this standard, we hold that the respondent court committed nullify their immunity. They have satisfied the requirements both of the
grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners' motion to dismiss law and the parties' implementing agreements. Under section 5 of E.O.
based on a claim of immunity granted by the PCGG under section 5 of No. 14, as amended, their duty was to give information to the
E.O. 14, as amended. prosecution, and they did. Under their Memorandum of Agreement, they
promised to make themselves available as witnesses in the said RICO
The records show that petitioners provided information to the PCGG cases, and they did. Petitioners were ready to testify but they were not
relating to the prosecution of the RICO cases against the Marcoses in called to testify by the US prosecutors of the RICO case. Their failure to
New York. They gave the information in the course of interviews testify was not of their own making. It was brought about by the decision
of the US prosecutors who may have thought that their evidence was and that the PCGG cannot prove its case against the petitioners in
enough to convict the Marcoses. Since petitioners' failure to testify was Criminal Case No. 11960.
not of their own choosing nor was it due to any fault of their own, justice
and equity forbid that they be penalized by the withdrawal of their Finally, we reject respondent court's ruling that the grant of section 5
immunity. Indeed, initially, the PCGG itself adopted the posture that the immunity must be strictly construed against the petitioners. It
immunity of petitioners stayed and should not be disturbed. It joined the simplistically characterized the grant as special privilege, as if it was
motion to dismiss filed by petitioners in the respondent court. When the gifted by the government, ex gratia. In taking this posture, it misread
respondent court denied the motion, PCGG stuck to its previous position the raison d'etre and the long pedigree of the right against self-
as it again joined the petitioners in their motion for reconsideration. It is incrimination vis-a-vis immunity statutes.
only in this petition for review on certiorari that PCGG, after a change of
Chairman, flip-flopped in its position. The days of inquisitions brought about the most despicable abuses
against human rights. Not the least of these abuses is the expert use of
We also rule that there was nothing irregular when PCGG granted a coerced confessions to send to the guillotine even the guiltless. To guard
section 5 immunity to petitioners while they were already undergoing trial against the recurrence of this totalitarian method, the right against self-
in Criminal Case No. 11960. Section 5 of E.O. 14, as amended, does not incrimination was ensconced in the fundamental laws of all civilized
prohibit the PCGG from granting immunity to persons already charged in countries. Over the years, however, came the need to assist government
court and undergoing trial. As long as the privilege of immunity so given in its task of containing crime for peace and order is a necessary matrix
will in the judgment of the PCGG assist it in attaining its greater of public welfare. To accommodate
objectives, the PCGG is well within legal grounds to exercise this power the need, the right against self-incrimination was stripped of its
at any stage of the proceedings. This section 5 immunity frees and absoluteness. Immunity statutes in varying shapes were enacted which
releases one from liability, and as it inures to the benefit of an accused, it would allow government to compel a witness to testify despite his plea of
can be invoked at any time after its acquisition and before his final the right
conviction. Our regard for the rights of an accused dictates this result. against self-incrimination. To insulate these statutes from the virus of
Thus, we have consistently held that laws that decriminalize an act or a unconstitutionality, a witness is given what has come to be known as
grant of amnesty may be given retroactive effect. They constitute a bar transactional or a use-derivative-use immunity, as heretofore discussed.
against the further prosecution of their beneficiaries' regardless of the Quite clearly, these immunity statutes are not a bonanza from
appearance of their guilt. To be sure, the guilt of the petitioners in government. Those given the privilege of immunity paid a high price for it
Criminal Case No. 11960 has yet to be established beyond doubt. The — the surrender of their precious right to be silent. Our hierarchy of
PCGG itself does not appear certain and confident of the strength of its values demands that the right against self-incrimination and the right to
evidence against the petitioners in said criminal case. The records show be silent should be accorded greater respect and protection. Laws that
that petitioners Mapa was granted immunity not only because of the tend to erode the force of these preeminent rights must necessarily be
information he gave to the prosecution but also ". . . in light of given a liberal interpretation in favor of the individual. The government
Republic's review of the cases both civil and criminal which it has filed or has a right to solve crimes but it must do it, rightly.
intends to file against . . ." him. Similarly, petitioner Vergara was granted
immunity ". . . in light of Republic's reviewof Vergara's participation in IN VIEW WHEREOF, the resolutions of the respondent court dated
Criminal Case No. 11960 . . . ." After reviewing its evidence against the March 7, and June 3, 1991 are annulled and set aside and the
petitioners, PCGG appears to have sensed the sterility of its efforts of Amended Information against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 11960
continuing their prosecution. Its former chairman, M.A.T. Caparas, is ordered dismissed. No costs.
learned that petitioners would file a Motion to Dismiss Criminal Case No.
11960 after PCGG rest its evidence, "for failure of the prosecution to
SO ORDERED.
prove its case." In his May 16, 1990 letters to the petitioners, he assured
them that "we shall . . . offer no objection to its favorable consideration."
This is a patent admission that petitioners' Motion to Dismiss has merit
 Republic of the Philippines Maguindanao Province. Inquest proceedings were conducted against
SUPREME COURT petitioner on November 26, 2009 at the General Santos (Tambler) Airport
Baguio City Lounge, before he was flown to Manila and detained at the main office of
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The NBI and the Philippine
FIRST DIVISION National Police (PNP) charged other suspects, numbering more than a
hundred, for what became aptly known as the Maguindanao massacre.3
G.R. No. 197291               April 3, 2013
Through Department Order No. 948, then Secretary of Justice Agnes
DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN JR., Petitioner,  Devanadera constituted a Special Panel of Prosecutors to conduct the
vs. preliminary investigation.
SEC. LEILA DE LIMA, as Secretary of the Department of Justice,
CSP CLARO ARELLANO, as Chief State Prosecutor, National On November 27, 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) resolved to file
Prosecution Service, and PANEL OF PROSECUTORS OF THE the corresponding informations for murder against petitioner, and to issue
MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE, headed by RSP PETER subpoenae to several persons.4 On December 1, 2009, 25 informations
MEDALLE, Respondents. for murder were also filed against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court,
12th Judicial Region, in Cotabato City.5
DECISION
On December 3, 2009, Secretary of Justice Devanadera transmitted her
BERSAMIN, J.: letter to Chief Justice Puno requesting the transfer of the venue of the
trial of the Maguindanao massacre from Cotabato City to Metro Manila,
either in Quezon City or in Manila, to prevent a miscarriage of justice.6 On
In matters involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus
December 8, 2009, the Court granted the request for the transfer of
cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way the judgment
venue.7 However, on December 9, 2009, but prior to the transfer of the
and discretion are to be exercised. Consequently, the Secretary of
venue of the trial to Metro Manila, the Prosecution filed a manifestation
Justice may be compelled by writ of mandamus to act on a letter-request
regarding the filing of 15 additional informations for murder against
or a motion to include a person in the information, but may not be
petitioner in Branch 15 of the Cotabato City RTC.8 Later on, additional
compelled by writ of mandamus to act in a certain way, i.e., to grant or
informations for murder were filed against petitioner in the RTC in
deny such letter-request or motion.
Quezon City, Branch 211, the new venue of the trial pursuant to the
resolution of the Court.9
The Case
The records show that petitioner pleaded not guilty to each of the 41
This direct appeal by petition for review on certiorari has been taken from informations for murder when he was arraigned on January 5,
the final order issued on June 27, 2011 in Civil Case No. 10-1247771 by 2010,10 February 3, 2010,11 and July 28, 2010.12
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, in Manila, dismissing
petitioner’s petition for mandamus.2
In the joint resolution issued on February 5, 2010, the Panel of
Prosecutors charged 196 individuals with multiple murder in relation to
Antecedents the Maguindanao massacre.13 It appears that in issuing the joint
resolution of February 5, 2010 the Panel of Prosecutors partly relied on
History will never forget the atrocities perpetrated on November 23, 2009, the twin affidavits of one Kenny Dalandag, both dated December 7,
when 57 innocent civilians were massacred in Sitio Masalay, Municipality 2009.14
of Ampatuan, Maguindanao Province. Among the principal suspects was
petitioner, then the Mayor of the Municipality of Datu Unsay,
On August 13, 2010, Dalandag was admitted into the Witness Protection 26, 2011;30 petitioner an opposition on May 12, 2011;31 and respondents
Program of the DOJ.15 On September 7, 2010, the QC RTC issued its another reply dated May 20, 2011.32
amended pre-trial order,16 wherein Dalandag was listed as one of the
Prosecution witnesses.17 On June 27, 2011,33 the RTC of Manila issued the assailed order in Civil
Case No. 10-124777 dismissing the petition for mandamus.34
On October 14, 2010, petitioner, through counsel, wrote to respondent
Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima and Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari.
Richard Fadullon to request the inclusion of Dalandag in the informations
for murder considering that Dalandag had already confessed his Issues
participation in the massacre through his two sworn
declarations.18 Petitioner reiterated the request twice more on October 22,
Petitioner raises the following issues, to wit:
201019 and November 2, 2010.20
1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC RESPONDENTS MAY BE COMPELLED BY
By her letter dated November 2, 2010,21 however, Secretary De Lima
MANDAMUS TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE KENNY
denied petitioner’s request.
DALANDAG AS AN ACCUSED IN THE INFORMATIONS FOR
MULTIPLE MURDER IN THE MAGUINADANAO MASSACRE CASES IN
Accordingly, on December 7, 2010, petitioner brought a petition for LIGHT OF HIS ADMITTED PARTICIPATION THEREAT IN AFFIDAVITS
mandamus in the RTC in Manila (Civil Case No. 10-124777),22 seeking to AND OFFICIAL RECORDS FILED WITH THE PROSECUTOR AND THE
compel respondents to charge Dalandag as another accused in the QC RTC; and,
various murder cases undergoing trial in the QC RTC.
2. WHETHER THE SUBSEQUENT INCLUSION OF KENNY DALANDAG
On January 19, 2011,23 the RTC in Manila set a pre-trial conference on IN THE WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM JUSTIFIES EXCLUSION
January 24, 2011 in Civil Case No. 10-124777. At the close of the pre- AS AN ACCUSED AND HIS NON-INDICTMENT FOR HIS COMPLICITY
trial, the RTC in Manila issued a pre-trial order. IN THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE NOTWITHSTANDING
ADMISSIONS MADE THAT HE TOOK PART IN ITS PLANNING AND
In their manifestation and motion dated February 15, 201124 and February EXECUTION.35
18, 2011,25 respondents questioned the propriety of the conduct of a trial
in a proceeding for mandamus. Petitioner opposed. The crucial issue is whether respondents may be compelled by writ of
mandamus to charge Dalandag as an accused for multiple murder in
On February 15, 2011, petitioner filed a motion for the production of relation to the Maguindanao massacre despite his admission to the
documents,26 which the RTC in Manila granted on March 21, 2011 after Witness Protection Program of the DOJ.
respondents did not file either a comment or an opposition.
Ruling
Respondents then sought the reconsideration of the order of March 21,
2011. The appeal lacks merit.

On March 21, 2011,27 the RTC in Manila issued a subpoena to Dalandag, The prosecution of crimes pertains to the Executive Department of the
care of the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ, requiring him to Government whose principal power and responsibility are to see to it that
appear and testify on April 4, 2011 in Civil Case No. 10-124777. our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component of the power to
execute our laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The right to
On April 4, 2011, respondents moved to quash the subpoena.28 Petitioner prosecute vests the public prosecutors with a wide range of discretion –
opposed the motion to quash the subpoena on April 15, 2011.29 The the discretion of what and whom to charge, the exercise of which
parties filed other papers, specifically, respondents their reply dated April
depends on a smorgasbord of factors that are best appreciated by the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act).39 These modes are
public prosecutors.36 intended to encourage a person who has witnessed a crime or who has
knowledge of its commission to come forward and testify in court or
The public prosecutors are solely responsible for the determination of the quasi-judicial body, or before an investigating authority, by protecting him
amount of evidence sufficient to establish probable cause to justify the from reprisals, and shielding him from economic dislocation.
filing of appropriate criminal charges against a respondent. Theirs is also
the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not criminal cases These modes, while seemingly alike, are distinct and separate from each
should be filed in court.37 other.

Consistent with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, the discharge by the
Constitution, the Court deems it a sound judicial policy not to interfere in trial court of one or more of several accused with their consent so that
the conduct of preliminary investigations, and to allow the Executive they can be witnesses for the State is made upon motion by the
Department, through the Department of Justice, exclusively to determine Prosecution before resting its case. The trial court shall require the
what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the Prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statements of the
prosecution of supposed offenders. By way of exception, however, proposed witnesses at a hearing in support of the discharge. The trial
judicial review may be allowed where it is clearly established that the court must ascertain if the following conditions fixed by Section 17 of Rule
public prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion, that is, when he 119 are complied with, namely: (a) there is absolute necessity for the
has exercised his discretion "in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested; (b) there is no
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, patent and other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual committed, except the testimony of said accused; (c) the testimony of
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law."38 said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points; (d)
said accused does not appear to be most guilty; and (e) said accused
The records herein are bereft of any showing that the Panel of has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral
Prosecutors committed grave abuse of discretion in identifying the 196 turpitude.
individuals to be indicted for the Maguindanao massacre. It is notable in
this regard that petitioner does not assail the joint resolution On the other hand, Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6981 provides:
recommending such number of individuals to be charged with multiple
murder, but only seeks to have Dalandag be also investigated and Section 10. State Witness. — Any person who has participated in the
charged as one of the accused based because of his own admissions in commission of a crime and desires to be a witness for the State, can
his sworn declarations. However, his exclusion as an accused from the apply and, if qualified as determined in this Act and by the Department,
informations did not at all amount to grave abuse of discretion on the part shall be admitted into the Program whenever the following circumstances
of the Panel of Prosecutors whose procedure in excluding Dalandag as are present:
an accused was far from arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic.
Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which requires that "the a. the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as
complaint or information shall be xxx against all persons who appear to defined under the Revised Penal Code or its equivalent under special
be responsible for the offense involved," albeit a mandatory provision, laws;
may be subject of some exceptions, one of which is when a participant in
the commission of a crime becomes a state witness.
b. there is absolute necessity for his testimony;
The two modes by which a participant in the commission of a crime may
c. there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of
become a state witness are, namely: (a) by discharge from the criminal
the offense committed;
case pursuant to Section 17 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court; and (b) by
the approval of his application for admission into the Witness Protection
Program of the DOJ in accordance with Republic Act No. 6981 (The d. his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points;
e. he does not appear to be most guilty; and case,44 as well as the availability or non-availability of other direct or
corroborative evidence, which of the accused is the ‘most guilty’ one, and
f. he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving moral the like.45
turpitude.
On the other hand, there is no requirement under Republic Act No. 6981
An accused discharged from an information or criminal complaint by the for the Prosecution to first charge a person in court as one of the accused
court in order that he may be a State Witness pursuant to Section 9 and in order for him to qualify for admission into the Witness Protection
10 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court may upon his petition be Program. The admission as a state witness under Republic Act No. 6981
admitted to the Program if he complies with the other requirements of this also operates as an acquittal, and said witness cannot subsequently be
Act. Nothing in this Act shall prevent the discharge of an accused, so that included in the criminal information except when he fails or refuses to
he can be used as a State Witness under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules testify. The immunity for the state witness is granted by the DOJ, not by
of Court. the trial court. Should such witness be meanwhile charged in court as an
accused, the public prosecutor, upon presentation to him of the
Save for the circumstance covered by paragraph (a) of Section 10, supra, certification of admission into the Witness Protection Program, shall
the requisites under both rules are essentially the same. Also worth petition the trial court for the discharge of the witness.46 The Court shall
noting is that an accused discharged from an information by the trial court then order the discharge and exclusion of said accused from the
pursuant to Section 17 of Rule 119 may also be admitted to the Witness information.47
Protection Program of the DOJ provided he complies with the
requirements of Republic Act No. 6981. The admission of Dalandag into the Witness Protection Program of the
Government as a state witness since August 13, 2010 was warranted by
A participant in the commission of the crime, to be discharged to become the absolute necessity of his testimony to the successful prosecution of
a state witness pursuant to Rule 119, must be one charged as an the criminal charges. Apparently, all the conditions prescribed by
accused in the criminal case. The discharge operates as an acquittal of Republic Act No. 6981 were met in his case. That he admitted his
the discharged accused and shall be a bar to his future prosecution for participation in the commission of the Maguindanao massacre was no
the same offense, unless he fails or refuses to testify against his co- hindrance to his admission into the Witness Protection Program as a
accused in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis for state witness, for all that was necessary was for him to appear not the
his discharge.40 The discharge is expressly left to the sound discretion of most guilty. Accordingly, he could not anymore be charged for his
the trial court, which has the exclusive responsibility to see to it that the participation in the Maguindanao massacre, as to which his admission
conditions prescribed by the rules for that purpose exist.41 operated as an acquittal, unless he later on refuses or fails to testify in
accordance with the sworn statement that became the basis for his
discharge against those now charged for the crimes.
While it is true that, as a general rule, the discharge or exclusion of a co-
accused from the information in order that he may be utilized as a
Prosecution witness rests upon the sound discretion of the trial Mandamus shall issue when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
court,42 such discretion is not absolute and may not be exercised person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act that the law
arbitrarily, but with due regard to the proper administration of specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. It is
justice.43 Anent the requisite that there must be an absolute necessity for proper when the act against which it is directed is one addressed to the
the testimony of the accused whose discharge is sought, the trial court discretion of the tribunal or officer. In matters involving the exercise of
has to rely on the suggestions of and the information provided by the judgment and discretion, mandamus may only be resorted to in order to
public prosecutor. The reason is obvious – the public prosecutor should compel respondent tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person to take
know better than the trial court, and the Defense for that matter, which of action, but it cannot be used to direct the manner or the particular way
the several accused would best qualify to be discharged in order to discretion is to be exercised,48or to compel the retraction or reversal of an
become a state witness. The public prosecutor is also supposed to know action already taken in the exercise of judgment or discretion.49
the evidence in his possession and whomever he needs to establish his
As such, respondent Secretary of Justice may be compelled to act on the
letter-request of petitioner, but may not be compelled to act in a certain
way, i.e., to grant or deny such letter-request. Considering that
respondent Secretary of Justice already denied the letter-request,
mandamus was no longer available as petitioner's recourse.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari;

AFFIRMS the final order issued on June 27, 2011 in Civil Case No. 10-
124777 by the Regional Trial Court in Manila; and ORDERS petitioner to
pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.