Criminal Law Doctrines

CRIMINAL LAW
TITLE DOCTRINE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDDIE There is conspiracy when two or more
OLAZO, MIGUEL CORDIS, CHARITO persons come to an agreement
concerning the
FERNANDEZ AND ROGELIO LASCONIA commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. In proving conspiracy, direct
evidence is not
indispensable as its existence may be
inferred from the conduct of the
accused before, during,
and after the commission of the crime.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AAA's deportment after the rape does
DANDITO LASTROLLO y DOE not impair her credibility nor does it
negate the
occurrence of the crime. There is no
established singular reaction to rape by
all victims of this
crime. It has likewise been judicially
settled that delay in reporting an
incident of rape is not an
indication of fabrication and does not
necessarily cast doubt on the
credibility of the
complainant. This is because the victim
may choose to keep quiet rather than
expose her
defilement to the harsh glare of public
scrutiny. Only when the delay is
unreasonable or
unexplained may it work to discredit
the complainant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. As ruled by the Court in the case of
ANTONIO DACANAY Y TUMALABCAB People v. Andan, confession made
before news
reporters, absent any showing of
undue influence from the police
authorities, is sufficient to
sustain a conviction for the crime
confessed to by the accused. “Verbal
confessions to the
newsmen are not covered by Section
12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the
Constitution. The Bill of
Rights does not concern itself with the
relation between a private individual
and another
individual. It governs the relationship
between the individual and the State.”
ZENAIDA P. MAAMO AND JULIET O. To be found guilty of Malversation, the
SILOR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Prosecution has the burden to prove
the
following essential elements:
a. The offender is a public officer;
b. The offender has custody or control
of funds or property by reason of the
duties of his
office;
c. The funds or property involved are
public funds or property for which the
offender is
accountable; and
d. The offender has appropriated,
taken or misappropriated, or has
consented to, or
through abandonment or negligence,
permitted the taking by another
person of, such funds or
property.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROQUE Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
DAYADAY y DAGOOC Code (RPC), murder is committed
when: (1) a
person was killed; (2) the accused
killed him; (3) the killing was with the
attendance of any of
the qualifying circumstances
enumerated in Article 248; and (4) the
killing neither constitutes
parricide nor infanticide.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. A plea of self-defense admits the
LORENZO RAYTOS Y ESPINO commission of the act charged as a
crime; accordingly,
the onus probandi falls on the accused
to prove that such killing was justified -
failure to
discharge which renders the act
punishable.
Thus, to exonerate himself, the
accused must establish: (i) that there
was unlawful
aggression by the victim; (ii) that the
means employed to prevent or repel
such aggression were
reasonable; and (iii) that there was lack
of sufficient provocation on his part. Of
the three,
unlawful aggression is the foremost
requirement; absent such element,
self-defense, whether
complete or incomplete, cannot be
appreciated.
CORAZON M. LACAP v. In an application for a mayor's permit
SANDIGANBAYAN [Fourth Division] and or license to do business in a
THE PEOPLE OF THE municipality or city,
the procedure is fairly standard and
PHILIPPINES uncomplicated. It requires the
submission of the required
documents and the payment of the
assessed business taxes and fees. In
case of failure to comply
with the requirements, the application
deserves to be disapproved. If the
application is
compliant, then approval is the action
to be taken. An inaction or refusal to
act is a course of
action anathema to public service with
utmost responsibility and efficiency. If
the deliberate
refusal to act or intentional inaction on
an application for mayor's permit is
motivated by
personal conflicts and political
considerations, it thus becomes
discriminatory, and constitutes
a violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. The Court has already held that the
FEDERICO GEROLA y AMAR alias date or time of the commission of rape
"FIDEL" is not a
material ingredient of the crime and
need not be stated with absolute
accuracy; where the time
of commission is not an essential
element of the crime charged,
conviction may be had on proof
of the commission of the crime, even if
it appears that the crime was not
committed at the
precise time alleged.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN At the outset, it should be emphasized
"ROBIN" BONGBONGA Y NALOS that the Court has consistently
disfavored the
"sweetheart theory" defense for being
self-serving in nature. Being an
affirmative defense, the
allegation of a love affair must be
substantiated by the accused with
convincing proof.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Motive pertains to the reason which
LIBERATO PENTECOSTES y CRONICO prompts the accused to engage in a
particular
criminal activity. It is not an essential
element of a crime and need not be
proven by the State
in criminal prosecutions. Hence, proof
of motive alone will not establish guilt
in the same way
that the absence thereof cannot
establish innocence. In previous
occasions, the Court has held
that the question of motive only
becomes material when there is doubt
as to the identity of the
malefactor committing the offense
charged.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAUL Under Article 14, paragraph 16 of the
DURAN, JR. y MIRABUENO RPC, there is treachery when the
offender commits
any of the crimes against persons,
employing means and methods or
forms in the execution
thereof which tend to directly and
specially ensure its execution, without
risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended
party might make. To qualify an
offense, the following
conditions must exist: (1) the assailant
employed means, methods or forms in
the execution of
the criminal act which give the person
attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate;
and (2) said means, methods or forms
of execution were deliberately or
consciously adopted by
the assailant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OSCAR Conspiracy exists when two or more
GIMPAYA AND ROEL GIMPAYA persons come to an agreement
concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. The essence of conspiracy is
the unity of action
and purpose. Conspiracy requires the
same degree of proof required to
establish the crime —
proof beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AMADO The rules on venue of criminal actions
"JAKE" P. MACASAET. ENRIQUE P. for libel were also restated in Agbayani
v. Sayo:
ROMUALDEZ AND JOY P. DELOS REYES Whether the offended party is a public
official or a private person, the criminal
action
may be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province or city where
the libelous
article is printed and first published.
1. Whether the offended party is a
public official or a private person, the
criminal
action may be filed in the Court of First
the
libelous article is printed and first
published.
2. If the offended party is a private
individual, the criminal action may also
be filed
in the Court of First Instance of the
province where he actually resided at
the
time of the commission of the offense.
3. If the offended party is a public
officer whose office is in Manila at the
time of the
commission of the offense, the action
Instance
of Manila.
4. If the offended party is a public
officer holding office outside of
Manila, the action
he held
office at the time of the commission of
the offense.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HESSON The requisites of an impossible crime
CALLAO Y MARCELINO AND JUNELLO are: (1) that the act performed would
AMAD be an offense
against persons or property; (2) that
the act was done with evil intent; and
(3) that its
accomplishment was inherently
impossible, or the means employed
was either inadequate or
ineffectual.
The third element, inherent
impossibility of accomplishing the
crime, was explained
more clearly by the Court in the case of
Intod v. Court of Appeals: Legal
impossibility occurs
where the intended acts, even if
completed, would not amount to a
crime. The impossibility of
killing a person already dead falls in
this category.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOEL The Court has held that
DOMINGO "self-contradictions and
inconsistencies on a very material and
substantial matter seriously erodes the
credibility of a witness." As the Court
further held in
People v. Amon:
For evidence to be believed "must not
only proceed from the mouth of a
credible witness,
but must be credible in itself — such as
the common experience and
observation of
mankind can approve as probable
under the circumstances. There is no
test of the truth
of human testimony, except its
conformity to our knowledge,
observation and
experience. Whatever is repugnant to
these belongs to the miraculous and is
outside of
judicial cognizance.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICHAEL The law puts in place requirements of
LUNA Y TORSILINO time, witnesses and proof of inventory
with
respect to the custody of seized
dangerous drugs, to wit: (1) The initial
custody requirements
must be done immediately after
seizure or confiscation; (2) The physical
inventory and
photographing must be done in the
presence of the accused or his
representative or counsel and
the required witnesses:
• a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and
any elected
public official for offenses committed
during the effectivity of RA 9165 and
prior to its
amendment by RA 10640, as in this
case;
• an elected public official and a
representative of the National
Prosecution Service of the
DOJ or the media for offenses
committed during the effectivity of RA
10640.
As a rule, strict compliance with the
foregoing requirements is mandatory.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD The essential elements of violation of
GOVERNMENT v. OFFICE OF THE Section 3(e), RA 3019, as amended,
OMBUDSMAN, PLACIDO L. MAPA, JR., are: 1. The
RECIO M. GARCIA, LEON O. TY, JOSE R. accused is a public officer discharging
TENGCO, official, administrative or judicial
JR., ALEJANDRO MELCHOR, VICENTE functions or private
PATERNO, RUBEN ANCHETA, RAFAEL persons in conspiracy with them; 2.
SISON, The public officer committed the
HILARION M. HENARES, JR., prohibited act during the
CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA AND performance of his official duty or in
GENEROSO F. TENSECO relation to his public position; 3. The
public officer acted
with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence,
and 4. His action
caused injury to the Government or
any private party, or gave unwarranted
benefit, advantage
or preference.
On the other hand, to determine the
culpability of private respondents
under Section
3(g) of RA 3019, it must be established
that: (1) they are public officers; (2)
they entered into a
contract or transaction on behalf of the
government; and (3) such contract or
transaction is
grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BASHER For a successful prosecution for the
TOMAWIS Y ALI crime of illegal sale of drugs under
Section 5 of RA
9165, the following must be proven:
(a) the identities of the buyer, seller,
object, and
consideration; and (b) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment for it.
In cases involving
dangerous drugs, the drug itself
constitutes the corpus delicti of the
offense. Thus, it is of
paramount importance that the
prosecution prove that the identity and
integrity of the seized
drugs are preserved. Each link in the
chain of custody of the seized drugs
must be established.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. To sustain a conviction for illegal
NARCISO SUPAT Y RADOC ALIAS "ISOY" possession of dangerous drugs the
following elements
must be established: (a) the accused
was in possession of an item or object
identified as a
prohibited drug; (b) such possession
was not authorized by law; and (c) the
accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug.
On the other hand, for a successful
prosecution of the
offense of illegal sale of drugs, the
following elements must be proven: (1)
the transaction or
sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti
or the illicit drug was presented as
evidence; and (3) the
buyer and the seller were identified.
In both cases, the confiscated drug
constitutes the very corpus delicti of
the offense and
the fact of its existence is vital to
sustain a judgment of conviction. It is
essential, therefore, that
the identity and integrity of the seized
drugs be established with moral
certainty. The
prosecution must prove, beyond
reasonable doubt, that the substance
seized from the accused
is exactly the same substance offered
in court as proof of the crime.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Proof beyond reasonable doubt must
JENNIFER GA-A Y CORONADO, AQUILA be adduced in establishing the corpus
ADOBAR delicti - the
body of the crime whose core is the
confiscated illicit drug. It is important
that the State
establish with moral certainty the
integrity and identity of the illicit drugs
sold as the same as
those examined in the laboratory and
subsequently presented in court as
evidence. This
rigorous requirement, known under RA
9165 as the chain of custody, performs
the function of
ensuring that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence
are removed.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. The Court again takes this opportunity
NORJANA SOOD Y AMATONDIN to emphasize that the presence of the
three
witnesses required by Section 21 is
precisely to protect and guard against
the pernicious
practice of policemen in planting
evidence. Without the insulating
presence of the three
witnesses during the seizure and
marking of the drugs, the evils of
switching, "planting" or
contamination of the evidence that
had tainted the buy-busts conducted
under the regime of
RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972) again reared their ugly heads as
to negate the integrity
and credibility of the seizure and
confiscation of the seized drugs that
were evidence of the
corpus delicti, and thus adversely
affected the trustworthiness of the
incrimination of accused-
appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DELIA In cases involving dangerous drugs, the
CALLEJO Y TADEJA AND SILVERA drug itself constitutes the corpus
ANTOQUE Y delicti of the
offense. Thus, it is of paramount
MOYA@ "INDAY" importance that the prosecution prove
that the identity and
integrity of the seized drugs are
preserved. Each link in the chain of
custody of the seized drugs
must be established.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARVIN Basic is the rule that, for a conviction
MADRONA OTICO of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs to
stand, the prosecution should have
proven the following elements beyond
reasonable doubt: (1)
the identity of the buyer and seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the
thing sold and its payment. The
prosecution has the onus to prove
beyond reasonable doubt
that the transaction actually took
place, coupled with the presentation
before the court of the
prohibited or regulated drug or the
corpus delicti.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERRY There is treachery when the offender
AGRAMON commits any of the crimes against
persons,
employing means and methods or
forms in the execution thereof which
tend to directly and
specially ensure its execution, without
risk to himself arising from the defense
which the
offended party might make. To qualify
an offense, the following conditions
must exist: (1) the
assailant employed means, methods or
forms in the execution of the criminal
act which give the
person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or to retaliate; and (2)
said means, methods
or forms of execution were
deliberately or consciously adopted by
the assailant. On the other
hand, for evident premeditation to be
appreciated, it is indispensable to
show concrete evidence
on how and when the plan to kill was
hatched or how much time had
elapsed before it was
carried out.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. An accused, who pleads self-defense,
LEONARDO B. SIEGA has the burden of proving, with clear
and
convincing evidence, that the killing
was attended by the following
circumstances: (1) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim;
(2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent
or repel such aggression; and (3) lack
of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person
resorting to self-defense. Of these
three, unlawful aggression is most
important and
indispensable. Unlawful aggression
refers to "an actual physical assault, or
at least a threat to
inflict real imminent injury, upon a
person." Without unlawful aggression,
the justifying
circumstance of self-defense has no leg
to stand on and cannot be appreciated.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. XXX It is a long-standing rule that in rape
cases, an accused may be convicted
based on the
victim's sole testimony, provided that it
is logical, credible, consistent, and
convincing. The rule
becomes more binding where - as in
the instant case - the victims are young
and immature, not
only because of their relative
vulnerability, but also because of the
shame and embarrassment
which they stand to suffer during trial,
if indeed the matters to be testified on
were untrue.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTO In rape cases, the accused may be
ANDES Y LORILLA convicted on the basis of the lone,
uncorroborated
testimony of the rape victim, provided
that her testimony is clear, convincing,
and otherwise
consistent with human nature. This is a
matter best assigned to the trial court
which had the
first-hand opportunity to hear the
testimonies of the witnesses and
observe their demeanor,
conduct, and attitude during
cross-examination. Such matters
cannot be gathered from a mere
reading of the transcripts of
stenographic notes. Hence, the trial
court's findings carry very
great weight and substance.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HENRY Strict compliance — not just
DE VERA Y MEDINA substantial compliance — is required
of the mandatory
provisions of Sec. 21. The Court cannot
absolve the failure of the buy-bust
team to comply fully
with Sec. 21 for its successful
observance of only some of the law's
provisions. Selective and
partial compliance is tantamount to
non-compliance which, as have been
repeatedly
emphasized, is fatal to establishing the
corpus delicti. Then, unless excused by
the saving clause,
the acquittal of the accused must
follow. The presumption of regularity
in the performance of
official duties cannot apply where
there is a clear violation of Sec. 21. In
such cases, the
innocence of the accused, as
presumed, must be upheld.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICKY It does not always follow that if the
GONZALES Y COS AND RENE GONZALES attack was sudden and unexpected, it
Y COS should
necessarily be deemed as an attack
attended with treachery. In fact, the
wounds of the victim
show that the attack was frontal, which
indicates that the deceased was not
totally without
opportunity to defend himself.
Moreover, the stabbing, based on the
evidence, appears to be the
result of a rash and impetuous impulse
of the moment arising from the
commotion between
Bobby and Rene which Ricky
witnessed, rather than from a
deliberated act of the will. As far as
the prosecution's evidence is
concerned, it was only able to establish
the following: (a) a
commotion was caused when Rene
and Bobby were taunting each other;
(b) Rene punched
Bobby and (c) Ricky went out of the
plaza and stabbed Bobby. Considering
the foregoing, it was
not proven that Ricky deliberately and
consciously employed means,
methods, or forms in the
execution of the criminal act to ensure
that Bobby could not defend himself.
Thus, it is not
possible to appreciate treachery
against Ricky.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AQUIL It was error for both the RTC and the
PILPA Y DIPAZ CA to conclude that the killing was
attended by
the qualifying circumstance of
treachery simply because the attack
was "sudden,"
"unexpected," and "without any
warning or provocation." It does not
always follow that
because the attack is sudden and
unexpected, it is tainted with
treachery.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Victims of a crime as heinous as rape,
WILLIAM VILLAROS Y CARANTO cannot be expected to act within
reason or in
accordance with society's
expectations. It is unreasonable to
demand a standard rational
reaction to an irrational experience,
especially from a young victim. One
cannot be expected to
act as usual in an unfamiliar situation
as it is impossible to predict the
workings of a human
mind placed under emotional stress.
Moreover, it is wrong to say that there
is a standard
reaction or behavior among victims of
the crime of rape since each of them
had to cope with
different circumstances.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WELITO While the Court emphasizes the
SERAD Y RAVILLES A.K.A. "WACKY" importance of strictly following the
procedure outlined
in Section 21, it likewise recognizes
that there may be instances where a
slight deviation from
the said procedure is justifiable and
subsequent earnest efforts were made
to comply with the
mandated procedure, much like in this
case where the officers showed that
they did their duties
bearing in mind the requirements of
the law. In short, it would be error for
the Court not to
reward such compliance.
ALBERTO GRANTON v. PEOPLE OF THE Settled is the rule that testimonies of
PHILIPPINES child-victims are given full weight and
credit, since
when a woman or a girl-child says that
she has been sexually violated, she
says in effect all that
is necessary to show that rape was
indeed committed. Furthermore, even
granting that
appellant was correct in saying that the
medical certificate did not establish his
guilt with
reasonable certainty, it is noteworthy
that expert testimony is merely
corroborative in
character and not essential to
conviction since an accused can still be
convicted of rape on the
basis of the sole testimony of the
private complainant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO For the defense of insanity to be
BACOLOT Y IDLISAN successfully invoked as a circumstance
to evade criminal
liability, it is necessary that insanity
must relate to the time immediately
preceding or
simultaneous with the commission of
the offense with which the accused is
charged. In short, in
order for the accused to be exempted
from criminal liability under a plea of
insanity, he must
successfully show that: (1) he was
completely deprived of intelligence;
and (2) such complete
deprivation of intelligence must be
manifest at the time or immediately
before the commission
of the offense. Having invoked the
defense of insanity, accused-appellant
is deemed to have
admitted the commission of the crime.
Accordingly, he has the onus to
establish with certainty
that he was completely deprived of
intelligence because of his mental
condition or illness.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALGLEN It is fundamental that every element of
REYES Y PAULINA which the offense is composed must
be alleged
in the Information. The test in
determining whether the information
validly charges an offense
is whether the material facts alleged in
the complaint or information will
establish the essential
elements of the offense charged as
defined in the law.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PATRICK Time and again, this Court has ruled
JOHN MERCADO Y ANTICLA that denial is the weakest of all
defenses. It easily
crumbles in the face of positive
identification of the accused as the
perpetrator of the crime. A
denial, like other defenses, remains
subject to the strength of the
prosecution evidence which is
independently assessed. When the
evidence for the prosecution
convincingly connects the crime
and the culprit, the probative value of
the denial is negligible.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. XXX For the guidance of public prosecutors
and the courts, the Court took the
opportunity to
prescribe the following guidelines in
designating or charging the proper
offense in case
lascivious conduct is committed under
Section S(b) of R.A. No. 7610, and in
determining the
imposable penalty: 1. The age of the
victim is taken into consideration in
designating or
charging the offense, and in
determining the imposable penalty. 2.
If the victim is under twelve
(12) years of age, the nomenclature of
the crime should be "Acts of
Lasciviousness under Article
336 of the Revised Penal Code in
relation to Section S(b) of R.A. No.
7610." Pursuant to the
second proviso in Section S(b) of R.A.
No. 7610, the imposable penalty is
reclusion temporal in
its medium period. 3. If the victim is
exactly twelve (12) years of age, or
more than twelve (12)
but below eighteen (18) years of age,
or is eighteen (18) years old or older
but is unable to fully
take care of herself/himself or protect
herself/himself from abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation
or discrimination because of a physical
or mental disability or condition, the
crime should be
designated as "Lascivious Conduct
under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610,"
and the imposable
penalty is reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Although the attack was sudden and
ARMANDO BAGABAY Y MACARAEG unexpected, the prosecution did not
prove that
Armando deliberately chose a
particular mode of attack that
purportedly ensured the execution
of the criminal purpose without any
risk to himself arising from the defense
that the victim
might offer. As testified to by the
witnesses, the incident happened in
broad daylight outside a
public place where there were plenty
of other people present who could
have offered their help.
When aid was easily available to the
victim, such as when the attendant
circumstances showed
that there were several eyewitnesses,
no treachery could be appreciated
because if the accused
indeed consciously adopted means to
insure the facilitation of the crime, he
could have chosen
another place or time
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. The defense of frame-up in drug cases
SEGUNDO BRICERO Y FERNANDEZ requires strong and convincing
evidence because
of the presumption that the law
enforcement agencies acted in the
regular performance of their
official duties. Nonetheless, such a
defense may be given credence when
there is sufficient
evidence or proof making it very
plausible or true
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN The practice of police operatives of not
FATALLO Y ALECARTE A.K.A. "ALVIN bringing to the intended place of arrest
PATALLO the three
witnesses, when they could easily do
Y ALECARTE" so — and "calling them in" to the place
of inventory to
witness the inventory and
photographing of the drugs only after
the buy-bust operation has
already been finished — does not
achieve the purpose of the law in
having these witnesses
prevent or insulate against the planting
of drugs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODEL It is settled that findings of fact of the
MAGBUHOS Y DIOLA ALIAS "BODIL" trial courts are generally accorded
great weight,
except when it appears on the record
that the trial court may have
overlooked,
misapprehended, or misapplied some
significant fact or circumstance which if
considered,
would have altered the result. This is
axiomatic in appeals in criminal cases
where the whole
case is thrown open for review on
issues of both fact and law, and the
court may even consider
issues which were not raised by the
parties as errors. The appeal confers
the appellate court
full jurisdiction over the case and
renders such court competent to
examine records, revise the
judgment appealed from, increase the
penalty, and cite the proper provision
of the penal law.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NADER In all drugs cases, compliance with the
MUSOR y ACMAD chain of custody rule is crucial in any
prosecution
that follows such operation. Chain of
custody means the duly recorded
authorized movements
and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals from the time of
seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court
for destruction. The
rule is imperative, as it is essential that
the prohibited drug confiscated or
recovered from the
suspect is the very same substance
offered in court as exhibit; and that the
identity of said drug
is established with the same
unwavering exactitude as that requisite
to make a finding of guilt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BOBBY It bears stressing that the prosecution
PACNISEN y BUMACAS has the burden of (1) proving their
compliance
with Section 21, RA 9165, and (2)
providing a sufficient explanation in
case of non-compliance.
In this case, the Court finds that the
prosecution was able to provide a
sufficient
explanation for its deviation from the
requirements of Section 21, RA 9165.
While the Court
emphasizes the importance of strictly
following the procedure outlined in
Section 21, it likewise
recognizes that there may be instances
where a slight deviation from the said
procedure is
justifiable, much like in this case where
the officers exerted earnest efforts to
comply with the
law.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JULIET In all drugs cases, compliance with the
RIVERA y OTOM and JAYSON LACDAN y chain of custody rule is crucial in any
prosecution
PARTO, JULIET RIVERA y OTOM that follows such operation. The rule is
imperative, as it is essential that the
prohibited drug
confiscated or recovered from the
suspect is the very same substance
offered in court as exhibit;
and that the identity of said drug is
established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that
requisite to make a finding of guilt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL It is true, as pointed out by both the
ANGELES y ARIMBUYUTAN RTC and the CA, that there are cases
where the Court
had ruled that the failure of the
apprehending team to strictly comply
with the procedure laid
out in Section 21 of RA 9165 does not
ipso facto render the seizure and
custody over the items
void and invalid. However, this is with
the caveat that the prosecution still
needs to
satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is
justifiable ground for non-compliance;
and (b) the
integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved.
The Court has
repeatedly emphasized that the
prosecution should explain the reasons
behind the procedural
lapses.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Case law states that the procedure
MARLON CASCO y VILLAMER enshrined in Section 21, Article II of RA
9165 is a
matter of substantive law, and cannot
be brushed aside as a simple
procedural technicality; or
worse, ignored as an impediment to
the conviction of illegal drug suspects.
For indeed, however
noble the purpose or necessary the
exigencies of the campaign against
illegal drugs may be, it
is still a governmental action that must
always be executed within the
boundaries of law.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NOVA Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the
DE LEON y WEVES applicable law at the time of the
commission of the
alleged crime, lays down the procedure
that police operatives must strictly
follow to preserve
the integrity of the confiscated drugs
and/or paraphernalia used as
evidence. The provision
requires that: (1) the seized items be
inventoried and photographed
immediately after seizure
or confiscation; (2) that the physical
inventory and photographing must be
done in the presence
of (a) the accused or his/her
representative or counsel, (b) an
elected public official, (c) a
representative from the media, and (d)
a representative from the Department
of Justice (DOJ),
all of whom shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof.
While it is true that there are cases
where the Court had ruled that the
failure of the
with the procedure laid out in Section
21 of RA 9165 does
not ipso facto render the seizure and
custody over the items void and
invalid; the law requires
the prosecution to still satisfactorily

prove that: (a) there is justifiable
ground for non-
compliance; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly
preserved.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDWIN Section 21, RA 9165, the applicable law
CABEZUDO y RIEZA at the time of the commission of the
alleged
crime, lays down the procedure that
police operatives must follow to
maintain the integrity of
the confiscated drugs used as
evidence. The provision requires: (1)
that the seized items be
immediately after seizure or
confiscation; (2) that the physical
done in the presence of (a) the
accused or his/her
representative from the media,
and (d) a representative from the
Department of Justice (DOJ), all of
whom shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof.
Concededly, Section 21 of the IRR of
RA 9165 provides that "non-
compliance with these
requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render void
and invalid such seizures and custody
over said items." For this provision to
be effective,
however, the prosecution must (1) first
recognize any lapse on the part of the
police officers
and (2) then be able to justify the
same.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO Mere suddenness of the attack is not
BULUTANO y ALVAREZ sufficient to hold that treachery is
present, where
the mode adopted by the appellants
does not positively tend to prove that
they thereby
knowingly intended to insure the
accomplishment of their criminal
purpose without any risk to
themselves arising from the defense
that the victim might offer. Specifically,
it must clearly
appear that the method of assault
adopted by the aggressor was
deliberately chosen with a
view to accomplishing the act without
risk to the aggressor.
In the same vein, jurisprudence
provides that there cannot be
treachery if the meeting
between the accused and the victim
was casual and the attack was
impulsively done.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the
CHRISTOPHER ILAGAN y BAÑA alias applicable law at the time of the
"WENG" commission of the
that police operatives must follow to
maintain the
integrity of the confiscated drugs used
as evidence. The provision requires
that: (1) the seized
items be inventoried and
photographed immediately after
seizure or confiscation; (2) that the
physical inventory and photographing
must be done in the presence of (a)
the accused or
his/her representative or counsel, (b)
an elected public official, (c) a
representative from the
media, and (d) a representative from
the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of
whom shall be
required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof.
It is true that there are cases where
the Court had ruled that the failure of
the
21 of RA 9165 does
invalid. However, this is
with the caveat that the prosecution
still needs to satisfactorily prove that:
(a) there is
and (b) the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized
items are properly preserved. The
Court has repeatedly emphasized that
the prosecution should
explain the reasons behind the
procedural lapses.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILA Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the
MALANA y SAMBOLLEDO applicable law at the time of the
commission of the
that police operatives must follow to
maintain the
seizure or confiscation; (2) that the
the accused or
an elected public official, (c) a
media, and (d) a representative from
whom shall be
inventory and be given a copy thereof.
It is true that there are cases where
the Court had ruled that the failure of
the
21 of RA 9165 does
invalid. However, this is
with the caveat that the prosecution
still needs to satisfactorily prove that:
(a) there is
value of the seized
items are properly preserved. The
Court has repeatedly emphasized that
the prosecution should
explain the reasons behind the
procedural lapses.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CESAR Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the
DELA CRUZ y LIBONAO ALIAS SESI of applicable law at the time of the
commission of the
ZONE 3, MACANAYA, APARRI, CAGAYAN alleged crime, outlines the procedure
which the police officers must strictly
follow to preserve
the integrity of the confiscated drugs
and/or paraphernalia used as
evidence. The provision
requires that: (1) the seized items be
immediately after seizure
or confiscation; (2) the physical
done in the presence of
(a) the accused or his/her
representative from the media, and (d)
a representative from the Department
of Justice (DOJ),
all of whom shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy of the same
and the seized drugs must be turned
over to a forensic laboratory within
twenty-four (24) hours
from confiscation for examination.
The Court, however, has clarified that
under varied field conditions, strict
compliance
with the requirements of Section 21 of
RA 9165 may not always be possible;
and, the failure of
the apprehending team to strictly
comply with the procedure laid out in
Section 21 of RA 9165
does not ipso facto render the seizure
and custody over the items void and
invalid. However,
this is with the caveat that the
prosecution still needs to satisfactorily
prove that: (a) there is
value of the seized
items are properly preserved.
REYNALDO ARBAS RECTO v. THE Jurisprudence provides that treachery
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES cannot be appreciated if the accused
did not
make any preparation to kill the
deceased in such manner as to insure
the commission of the
killing or to make it impossible or
difficult for the person attacked to
retaliate or defend himself.
Mere suddenness of the attack is not
sufficient to hold that treachery is
present, where the mode
adopted by the aggressor does not
positively tend to prove that they
thereby knowingly
intended to insure the accomplishment
of their criminal purpose without any
risk to themselves
arising from the defense that the
victim might offer. Specifically, it must
clearly appear that
the method of assault adopted by the
aggressor was deliberately chosen with
a view to
accomplishing the act without risk to
the aggressor.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BRYAN The Court, however, has clarified that
LABSAN y NALA and CLENIO DANTE y under varied field conditions, strict
compliance
PEREZ with the requirements of Section 21 of
and, the failure of
invalid. However,
prove that:(a) there is
justifiable ground for non- compliance;
value of the seized
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. While there are cases where the Court
DONDON GUERRERO y ELING had ruled that the failure of the
apprehending
team to strictly comply with the
procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA
9165 does not ipso facto
render the seizure and custody over
the items void and invalid, this is with
the caveat that the

prove that: (a) there is justifiable
ground for non-
compliance; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly
preserved. The Court has repeatedly

emphasized that the prosecution
should explain the
reasons behind the procedural lapses.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENJIE The Court, however, has clarified that
CARANTO y AUSTRIA under varied field conditions, strict
compliance
with the requirements of Section 21 of
and, the failure of
invalid. However,
prove that: (a) there is
value of the seized
JESUS CONCEPCION y TABOR a.k.a. It does not go unnoticed that strict
"BAKLA/BONG" v. PEOPLE OF THE compliance with the mandatory
procedure under
PHILIPPINES, R.A. No. 9165 was achieved by the
apprehending officers; there was no
record of any deviation
from the requirements under the law.
Hence, absent contrary proof to the
facts established,
Concepcion's conviction must follow. In
criminal cases, "proof beyond
reasonable doubt" does
not entail absolute certainty of the fact
that the accused committed the crime,
and neither does
it exclude the possibility of error. What
is only required is that degree of proof
which, after a
scrutiny of the facts, produces in an
unprejudiced mind moral certainty of
the culpability of the
accused.
MARLON DOMINGUEZ Y ARGANA v. In People v. Racho, the Court ruled that
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES the determination of validity of the
warrantless
arrest would also determine the
validity of the warrantless search that
was incident to the
arrest. A determination of whether
there existed probable cause to effect
an arrest should
therefore be determined first.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Breaches of the procedure outlined in
REYNALD ESPEJO y RIZALDO Section 21 committed by the police
officers, left
unacknowledged and unexplained by
the State, militate against a finding of
guilt beyond
reasonable doubt against the accused
as the integrity and evidentiary value
of the corpus delicti
have consequently been compromised.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GARRY The Court has consistently held that
BRIONES y ESPINA the prosecution has the burden of (1)
proving their
compliance with Section 21, RA 9165,
and (2) providing a sufficient
explanation in case of non-
compliance.
ROLANDO P. DIZON v. PEOPLE OF THE While as a rule, strict compliance with
PHILIPPINES, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is
mandatory, a deviation may be allowed
only if the following requisites concur:
(1) the existence
of "justifiable grounds" allowing
departure from the rule on strict
compliance; and (2) the
integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly
preserved by the
apprehending team. Thus, when there
is a showing of lapses in procedure, the
prosecution must
recognize such and accordingly justify
the same in order to warrant the
application of the
saving mechanism.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DON “An accused who pleads self-defense
VEGA Y RAMIL admits to the commission of the crime
charged. He
has the burden to prove, by clear and
convincing evidence, that the killing
was attended by the
following circumstances: (1) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim;
(2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel such aggression; and
(3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person
resorting to self-defense.
It is established that the qualifying
circumstance of treachery must be
proven by clear
and convincing evidence. To qualify as
an offense, the following conditions
must exist: (1) the
assailant employed means, methods or
forms in the execution of the criminal
act which give the
person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or to retaliate; and (2)
said means, methods
or forms of execution were
deliberately or consciously adopted by
the assailant.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LARRY “Mere suddenness of the attack is not
LUMAHANG Y TALISAY sufficient to hold that treachery is
present, where
the mode adopted by the aggressor
he thereby knowingly
intended to insure the accomplishment
of his criminal purpose without any
risk to himself
arising from the defense that the
victim might offer. Specifically, it must
clearly appear that the
method of assault adopted by the
aggressor was deliberately chosen with
a view to
accomplishing the act without risk to
the aggressor.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DAVE “In cases involving dangerous drugs,
CLAUDEL y LUCAS the confiscated drug constitutes the
very corpus
delicti of the offense and the fact of its
existence is vital to sustain a judgment
of conviction. It
is essential, therefore, that the identity
and integrity of the seized drug be
established with
moral certainty. Thus, in order to
obviate any unnecessary doubt on its
identity, the prosecution
has to show an unbroken chain of
custody over the same and account for
each link in the chain
of custody from the moment the drug
is seized up to its presentation in court
as evidence of the
crime.”
MA. CARMEN ROSARIO ABILLA v. The confiscated drug constitutes the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES very corpus delicti of the offense and
the fact of its
of conviction. It is essential, therefore,
that the identity
and integrity of the seized drugs must
be established with moral certainty.
While the Court had ruled that the
failure of the apprehending team to
strictly comply
21 of RA 9165 does not ipso facto
render the seizure and
invalid, this is with the caveat that the
prosecution still needs
to satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is
and (b) the
seized items are properly preserved.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NOVO In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself
TANES Y BELMONTE is the very corpus delicti.
Consequently,
compliance with the rule on chain of
custody over the seized illegal drugs is
crucial in any
prosecution that follows a buy-bust
operation.
To maintain the integrity of the
confiscated drugs as evidence, Section
21, Article II of
R.A. 9165 requires: (1) the seized items
must be inventoried and photographed
immediately
after seizure or confiscation; (2) the
must be done in the
presence of (a) the accused or his/her
elected public official,
(c) a representative from media, and
(d) a representative from DOJ, all
required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO The essence of treachery is the sudden
ASENIERO and unexpected attack by an aggressor
on the
unsuspecting victim, depriving the
latter of any chance to defend himself
and thereby ensuring
its commission without risk to himself.
There is no treachery if the attack was
preceded by an
altercation between the accused and
the victim. Each of them is forewarned
of an impending
attack by either of them.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SUSAN Section 4 of RA 9208 refers to those

SAYO Y REYES AND ALFREDO ROXAS Y acts which directly involve trafficking in
SAGON persons,
such as recruitment, transport,
transfer, harboring, receiving, buying,
offering, selling, or
trading persons to engage in
prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude, or debt
bondage. Meanwhile, Section 5 refers
to those acts that
promote or facilitate any of the
aforementioned predicate acts of
Trafficking in Persons.
The offenses punished under Section 5
cannot be qualified by Section 6 as
what the latter
seeks to qualify is the act of trafficking
and not the promotion of trafficking.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDGAR Mere suddenness of the attack is not
GAYON Y FERRERAS sufficient to hold that treachery is
present. For
treachery to exist there must be a
showing that the means of execution
was deliberately or
consciously adopted by the accused
with a view of accomplishing the act
without risk to the
aggressor.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL Mere suddenness of the attack is not
GURO Y COMBO ALIAS "JASON," sufficient to hold that treachery is
present, where
the mode adopted by the appellants
they thereby
knowingly intended to insure the
accomplishment of their criminal
purpose without any risk to
themselves arising from the defense
that the victim might offer. Specifically,
it must clearly
appear that the method of assault
adopted by the aggressor was
deliberately chosen with a
view to accomplishing the act without
risk to the aggressor.
PERLY TUATES Y CHICO v. PEOPLE OF The presumption of regularity in the
THE PHILIPPINES performance of duty cannot overcome
the stronger
presumption of innocence in favor of
the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of
evidence will defeat
the constitutionally enshrined right to
be presumed innocent. In this case, the
presumption of
regularity cannot stand because of the
police officers' blatant disregard of the
established
procedures under BJMP-SOP 2010-05
and Section 21 of RA 9165 on the
conduct of inventory.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. In cases involving dangerous drugs, the
EVANGELINE GARCIA Y SUING State bears not only the burden of
proving these
elements, but also of proving the
corpus delicti or the body of the crime.
In drug cases, the
dangerous drug itself is the very corpus
delicti of the violation of the law.
Therefore, compliance
with the chain of custody rule is
crucial.
The presumption of regularity in the
performance of duty cannot overcome
the stronger
presumption of innocence in favor of
the accused. In this case, the
presumption of regularity
cannot stand because of the buy-bust
team's blatant disregard of the
established procedures
under Section 21 of RA 9165.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO In cases involving dangerous drugs, the
URBANO TUBERA State bears not only the burden of
proving these
elements, but also of proving the
corpus delicti or the body of the crime.
In drug cases, the
dangerous drug itself is the very corpus
delicti of the violation of the law.
Therefore, compliance
with the chain of custody rule is
crucial.
The prosecution bears the burden of
proving strict compliance with the
chain of custody
because the accused has the
constitutional right to be presumed
innocent until the contrary is
proved. The presumption of regularity
in the performance of duty cannot
overcome the
stronger presumption of innocence in
favor of the accused. Otherwise, a
mere rule of evidence
will defeat the constitutionally
enshrined right to be presumed
innocent.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON The Court has consistently held that
FLORES Y FONBUENA the prosecution has the burden of (1)
proving its
compliance with Section 21, RA 9165,

and (2) providing a sufficient
explanation in case of non-
compliance. Without any justifiable
explanation, which must be proven as
a fact, the evidence
of the corpus delicti is unreliable, and

the acquittal of the accused should
follow on the ground
that his guilt has not been shown
beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OSCAR In cases involving dangerous drugs, the
PEDRACIO GABRIEL, JR. confiscated drug constitutes the very
corpus
of conviction. It
and integrity of the seized drugs be
established with
as evidence of the
crime.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. It must be emphasized that these "stop
MARLON CRISTOBAL Y AMBROSIO and frisk" searches are exceptions to
the general
rule that warrants are necessary for
the State to conduct a search and,
consequently, intrude
on a person's privacy. This doctrine of
"stop and frisk" "should be balanced
with the need to
protect the privacy of citizens in
accordance with Article III, Section 2 of
the Constitution."
"Stop and frisk" searches should thus
be allowed only in the limited
instances
contemplated in Terry v. Ohio: (1) it
should be allowed only on the basis of
the police officer's
reasonable suspicion, in light of his or
her experience, that criminal activity
may be afoot and
that the persons with whom he/she is
dealing may be armed and presently
dangerous; (2) the
search must only be a carefully limited
search of the outer clothing; and (3)
conducted for the
purpose of discovering weapons which
might be used to assault him/her or
other persons in the
area.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEX In cases involving dangerous drugs, the
ESCARAN Y TARIMAN confiscated drug constitutes the very
corpus
of conviction. It
and integrity of the seized drug be
established with
as evidence of the
crime.
ALFREDO PILI, JR. v. MARY ANN "In criminal cases, the People is the
RESURRECCION real party-in-interest and the private
offended party
is but a witness in the prosecution of
offenses, the interest of the private
offended party is
limited only to the aspect of civil
liability." While a judgment of acquittal
is immediately final
and executory, "either the offended
party or the accused may appeal
the civil aspect of the judgment

despite the acquittal of the accused.
The real parties-in-
interest in the civil aspect of a decision
are the offended party and the
accused."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CESAR In order to appreciate treachery, both
VILLAMOR CORPIN @ "BAY" elements must be present. It is not
enough that
the attack was "sudden",
"unexpected," and "without any
warning or provocation." There must
also be a showing that the offender
consciously and deliberately adopted
the particular means,
methods and forms in the execution of
the crime which tended directly to
insure such execution,
without risk to himself.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GARRY The Court, in Cartuano and as
PADILLA Y BASE AND FRANCISCO subsequently clarified in People v.
BERMAS Y Dalandas, does not
require a comprehensive medical
ASIS examination in each and every case
where mental
retardation needed to be proved.
However, it is well to emphasize that
the conviction of an
accused of rape based on the mental
retardation of the private complainant
must be anchored
on proof beyond reasonable doubt of
her mental retardation.
RAMON PICARDAL Y BALUYOT v. In Sindac v. People: Section 2, Article III
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES of the 1987 Constitution mandates
that a search
and seizure must be carried out
through a judicial warrant predicated
upon the existence of
probable cause, absent which, such
search and seizure becomes
"unreasonable." To protect the
people from unreasonable searches
and seizures, Section 3 (2), Article III of
the 1987
Constitution provides that evidence
obtained from unreasonable searches
and seizures shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose in any proceeding.
One of the recognized exceptions to
the need for a warrant before a search
may be
affected is a search incidental to a
lawful arrest. In this instance, the law
requires that there
first be a lawful arrest before a search
can be made — the process cannot be
reversed.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JIMMY The presence of the three insulating
FULINARA witnesses at the time of seizure and
confiscation of
the drugs must be secured and
complied with at the time of the
warrantless arrest and
inventory; such that they are required
to be at or near the intended place of
the arrest so that
they can be ready to witness the
inventory and photographing of the
seized and confiscated
drugs immediately after seizure and
confiscation. Compliance with Sec 21,
Art II of RA 9165 is
integral to every conviction. Without
any justifiable explanation, which must
be proven as a
fact, the evidence of the corpus delicti
is unreliable, and the acquittal of the
accused should
follow on the ground that his guilt has
not been shown beyond reasonable
doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. In treachery, there must be clear and
ARNALDO ENRIQUEZ, JR. convincing evidence on how the
aggression was
made, how it began, and how it
developed. Where no particulars are
known as to the manner
in which the aggression was made or
how the act which resulted in the
death of the victim
began and developed, it cannot be
established from suppositions drawn
only from
circumstances prior to the very
moment of the aggression, that an
accused perpetrated the
killing with treachery.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDWIN The presence of the three insulating
NIEVES Y ACUAVERA A.K.A. "ADING" witnesses at the time of seizure and
confiscation of
the arrest so that
be proven as a
accused should
doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. The presence of the three insulating
FERDINAND BUNIAG witnesses at the time of seizure and
confiscation of
the arrest so that
be proven as a
accused should
doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JERRY The presence of the three insulating
DAGDAG A.K.A. "TISOY" witnesses at the time of seizure and
confiscation of
the arrest so that
be proven as a
accused should
doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Chance encounters, impulse killing or
EDGARDO MENIL crimes committed at the spur of the
moment or
that were preceded by heated
altercations are generally not attended
by treachery for lack of
opportunity of the accused to
deliberately employ a treacherous
mode of attack. For treachery
to be appreciated, both elements must
be present. It is not enough that the
attack was sudden,
unexpected, and without any warning
or provocation. There must also be a
showing that the
offender consciously and deliberately
adopted the particular means,
methods and forms in the
execution of the crime which tended
directly to insure such execution,
without risk to himself.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DAN The apprehending team should
DUMANJUG conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items and the
photographing of the same
immediately after seizure and
confiscation. The said inventory must
be done in the presence of the
required witnesses, all of whom shall
be required to sign the
copy thereof. The phrase "immediately
after seizure and
confiscation" means that the physical
drugs were intended
by the law to be made immediately
after, or at the place of apprehension.
It is only when the
same is not practicable that the
Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of RA 9165 allows
the inventory and photographing to be
done as soon as the buy-bust team
reaches the nearest
police station or the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CAROL The presence of the three insulating
ALCANTARA witnesses at the time of seizure and
confiscation of
the arrest so that
be proven as a
accused should
doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LYNDON The apprehending team should
CAÑETE conduct a physical inventory of the
aforementioned required witness, all
of whom shall be required
to sign the copies of the inventory and
be given a copy thereof. The phrase
"immediately after
seizure and confiscation" means that
the physical inventory and
photographing of the drugs
were intended by the law to be made
immediately after, or at the place of
apprehension. It is
only when the same is not practicable
that the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of RA
9165 allows the inventory and
photographing to be done as soon as
the buy-bust team reaches
the nearest police station or the
nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARMIE The apprehending team should
NARVAS conduct a physical inventory of the
aforementioned required witness, all
"immediately after
apprehension. It is
officer/team.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDSON The apprehending team should
BARBAC RETADA conduct a physical inventory of the
required witnesses, all of whom shall
be required to sign the
copy thereof. The phrase "immediately
after seizure and
confiscation" means that the physical
drugs were intended
by the law to be made immediately
after, or at the place of apprehension.
It is only when the
same is not practicable that the
Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of RA 9165 allows
the inventory and photographing to be
done as soon as the buy-bust team
reaches the nearest
police station or the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HAVIB The apprehending team should
GALUKEN conduct a physical inventory of the
aforementioned required witnesses, all
"immediately after
apprehension. It is
officer/team.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO The apprehending team should
MANABAT conduct a physical inventory of the
"immediately after
apprehension. It is
officer/team.
EDWIN DEL ROSARIO v. PEOPLE OF THE The distinguishing element between
PHILIPPINES the crimes of robbery and theft is the
use of violence
or intimidation as a means of taking
the property belonging to another; the
element is present
in the crime of robbery and absent in
the crime of theft.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALLAN Direct evidence is not indispensable for
CANATOY conviction in criminal cases and that
circumstantial evidence may be
enough to support a court's decision of
guilt.
The essence of treachery is a swift and
sudden attack on an unarmed victim
without the
slightest provocation on the part of the
victim. There is treachery when the
offender commits
any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in
the execution
thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended
party might make. For this
circumstance to be appreciated,
two elements must be alleged and
proved, namely: (1) that the means of
execution employed
gave the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or
herself, or retaliate; and (2) that
the means of execution were
deliberately or consciously adopted.
The mode of attack must also
be consciously adopted.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LOREN The presence of the three insulating
DY witnesses at the time of seizure and
confiscation of
the arrest so that
be proven as a
accused should
doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. An information alleging that treachery
ROLANDO SOLAR exists, to be sufficient, must therefore
have
factual averments on how the person
charged had deliberately employed
means, methods or
forms in the execution of the act that
tended directly and specially to insure
its execution
without risk to the accused arising
from the defense that the victim might
make.
An information which lacks certain
essential allegations may still sustain a
conviction
when the accused fails to object to its
sufficiency during the trial, and the
deficiency was cured
by competent evidence presented
therein.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Possession, under the law, includes not
EUTIQUIO BAER only actual possession, but also
constructive
possession. Actual possession exists
when the drug is in the immediate
physical possession or
control of the accused. On the other
hand, constructive possession exists
when the drug is under
the dominion and control of the
accused or when he has the right to
exercise dominion and
control over the place where it is
found.
The apprehending team should
conduct a physical inventory of the
"immediately after
apprehension. It is
officer/team.
CICL XXX v. PEOPLE OF THE When a minor above fifteen (15) but
PHILIPPINES below eighteen (18) years old is
charged with a
crime, it cannot be presumed that he
or she acted with discernment. The
prosecution must
specifically prove as a separate
circumstance that minor committed
the alleged crime with
discernment by evidence of physical
appearance, attitude or deportment
not only before and
during the commission of the act, but
also after and during the trial.
Intent and discernment are two
different concepts. Intent is a
determination to do a
certain thing which comprises the third
element of dolo as a means of
committing a felony,
freedom and intelligence being the
other two. On the other hand, 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.
ROWENA SANTOS y COMPRADO AND “The concept of possession of illegal
RYAN SANTOS y COMPRADO drugs is mala prohibita, and, as such,
criminal intent
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES is not an essential element. However,
the prosecution must prove that the
accused had the
intent to possess (animus posidendi)
the drugs. Possession, under the law,
includes not only
actual possession, but also
constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the drug is in
the immediate physical possession or
control of the accused. On the other
hand, constructive
possession exists when the drug is
under the dominion and control of the
accused or when he
has the right to exercise dominion and
control over the place where it is
found. Exclusive
possession or control is not necessary.
The accused cannot avoid conviction if
his right to
exercise control and dominion over the
place where the contraband is located,
is shared with
another.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODEL “The chain of custody rule requires
VELASCO y LUZON that the admission of an exhibit be
preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding
that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims
it to be. This would include testimony
about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item
was picked up to the time it was
offered in evidence, in such a way that
every person who
touched the exhibit would describe
how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness'
possession, the condition in which it
was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to
the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to
ensure that there had been no change
in the condition of the
item and no opportunity for someone
not in the chain to have possession of
the same.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALLAN “The failure of the victim to shout for
NIEVERA help or resist the sexual advances of
the rapist is
not tantamount to consent. Physical
resistance need not be established in
rape when threats
and intimidation are employed and the
victim submits herself to her attackers
of because of
fear. physical resistance is not the sole
test to determine whether a woman
voluntarily
succumbed to the lust of an accused.
Rape victims show no uniform
reaction. Some may offer
strong resistance while others may be
too intimidated to offer any resistance
at all.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS With transmittal of the subject
SARABIA y REYES specimens from the latter to the
evidence custodian
relying mainly on inadmissible
evidence, the prosecution's version of
events as to the
transmittal and examination of the
drug specimens has no leg to stand on.
With the transmittal
and examination of the subject
specimens having no solid evidentiary
basis, indubitably, there
is serious doubt cast, to say the least,
on to the identity, integrity, and
evidentiary value of the
corpus delicti.
Section 21 of RA 9165 provides that in
the conduct of buy-bust operations: (1)
the seized
seizure or confiscation; and (2) the
physical inventory, which includes the
marking of the evidence, and
photographing must be
done in the presence of (a) the
accused or his/her representative or
counsel, (b)an elected
public official, (c)a representative from
the media, and (d)a representative
from the
Department of Justice (DOJ), all of
whom shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof. This
procedure is mandatory in nature.”
XXX v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES In order to remove any confusion that
may be engendered by the foregoing
cases, we
hereby set the following guidelines in
appreciating age, either as an element
of the crime or as
a qualifying circumstance.
1. The best evidence to prove the age
of the offended party is an original or
certified true
copy of the certificate of live birth of
such party.
2. In the absence of a certificate of live
birth, similar authentic documents
such as
baptismal certificate and school
records which show the date of birth
of the victim would suffice
to prove age.
3. If the certificate of live birth or
authentic document is shown to have
been lost or
destroyed or otherwise unavailable,
the testimony, if clear and credible, of
the victim's mother
or a member of the family either by
affinity or consanguinity who is
qualified to testify on
matters respecting pedigree such as
the exact age or date of birth of the
offended party
pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the
Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient
under the following
circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3
years of age and what is sought to be
proved is
that she is less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7
years of age and what is sought to be
proved is
that she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below
12 years of age and what is sought to
be proved is
that she is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live
birth, authentic document, or the
testimony of
the victim's mother or relatives
concerning the victim's age, the
complainant's testimony will
suffice provided that it is expressly and
clearly admitted by the accused.
5. It is the prosecution that has the
burden of proving the age of the
offended party. The
failure of the accused to object to the
testimonial evidence regarding age
shall not be taken
against him.
6. The trial court should always make a
categorical finding as to the age of the
victim.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HILARIO “While the Court has clarified that
DE CASTRO y SANTOS alias "DACOY" under varied field conditions, strict
compliance with
the requirements of Section 21 of RA
9165 may not always be possible; and
the failure of the
21 of RA 9165 does
custody over the items void, this has
always been with the
caveat that the prosecution still needs
to satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is
justifiable ground
for non-compliance; and (b) the
seized items are properly
preserved.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE “The requirements outlined in Section
JAMILLO QUILATAN y DELA CRUZ 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR are not mere
suggestions or recommendations.
Undoubtedly, the buy-bust team is not
at a liberty to select
only parts it wants to comply with and
conveniently ignore the rest of the
requirements.
Unjustified deviations from the
prescribed procedure will result to the
creation of reasonable
doubt as to the identity and integrity
of the illegal drugs and, consequently,
reasonable doubt
as to the guilt of the accused.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. “The prosecution's case hinged mostly
ORLANDO RAMOS ORDIZ on the uncorroborated testimony of
the supposed
poseur-buyer, whose testimony on
direct examination was found by the
RTC to be unclear and
lacking in details. To reiterate, sheer
reliance on the sole testimony of an
alleged poseur-buyer
fails to satisfy the quantum of evidence
of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
DANILO DE VILLA y GUINTO v. PEOPLE “In this case, all the elements of the
OF THE PHILIPPINES plain view doctrine were established.
First, the police
officers were conducting a routine
checkpoint when they flagged down
the accused on board
his motorcycle. The police officers
noticed that the accused, as
abovementioned, was
committing several traffic infractions,
thus the police officers had a prior
justification for their
act of flagging down the accused and
their subsequent intrusion. Second,
upon asking the
accused for his registration papers, the
accused opened his utility box, and the
two (2) sachets
of shabu were plainly visible to the
police officers. The discovery of the
sachets was inadvertent
and the illicit items were immediately
apparent. Lastly, PO2 Hamilton
Salanguit (PO2
Salanguit) confiscated the sachets
containing white crystalline substance
since it appeared that
the same could be evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise subject to
seizure.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NOEL “If the arresting officers were unable to
CARDENAS y HALILI comply with the requirements under
Section 21
of Republic Act No. (RA) 9156, they
were under obligation to explain why
the procedure was
not followed and prove that the reason
provided a justifiable round.
Otherwise, the requisites
under the law would merely be fancy
ornaments that may or may not be
disregarded by the
arresting officers at their own
convenience.”
XXX v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES “Verily, no matter what she did
subsequent to the events narrated
above is immaterial
to the fact that the crime was already
committed. In addition, it is worth
emphasizing that
sexual abuse is a painful experience
which is oftentimes not remembered
in detail. Such an
offense is not analogous to a person's
achievement or accomplishment as to
be worth recalling
or reliving. Rather, it is something
which causes deep psychological
wounds and casts a stigma
upon the victim, scarring her psyche
for life and which her conscious and
subconscious mind
would opt to forget. Thus, a victim
cannot be expected to mechanically
keep and then give an
accurate account of the traumatic and
horrifying experience she had
undergone.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMALYN “In cases involving dangerous drugs,
N. MORENO the State bears not only the burden of
proving the
elements of the crime charged, but
also of proving the corpus delicti or the
body of the crime.
In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself
is the very corpus delicti of the
violation of the law.
While it is true that a buy-bust
operation is a legally effective and
proven procedure, sanctioned
by law, for apprehending drug peddlers
and distributors, the law nevertheless
also requires
strict compliance with procedures laid
down by it to ensure that rights are
safeguarded.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE “Given the very nature of the
RASOS, JR. y PADOLLO @ "JOSE" anti-illegal drugs campaign, the nature
of entrapment and
buy-bust operations, the usual practice
of utilizing unreliable characters as
informants, and the
great ease by which drug specimen can
be planted in the pockets or hands of
unsuspecting
persons, most of whom come from the
marginalized sectors of society, the
propensity for police
abuse is great. This is precisely why the
innocent is provided refuge under the
protective mantle
of the law — through the mandatory
requirements laid down in Republic Act
No. 9165, as
amended. The instant case is yet
another example of how the lowly,
through the majesty of the
law, triumphs over the daunting and
all-powerful prosecutorial power of the
State.”
CARLOS A. CATUBAO v. “The crime of direct bribery as defined
SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF in Article 210 of the Revised Penal
THE PHILIPPINES Code consists
of the following elements: (1) that the
accused is a public officer; (2) that he
received directly
or through another some gift or
present, offer or promise; (3) that such
gift, present or promise
has been given in consideration of his
commission of some crime, or any act
not constituting a
crime, or to refrain from doing
something which is his official duty to
do; and (4) that the crime
or act relates to the exercise of his
functions as a public officer.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JEFFREY “Section 21, Article II of RA 9165,
FAYO y RUBIO A.K.A. "JEFF" which was amended by RA 10640 in
2014, lays down
the procedure that police operatives
must follow to maintain the integrity of
the confiscated
drugs used as evidence.
GIL "BOYING" R. CRUZ v. PEOPLE OF “It has been consistently ruled that
THE PHILIPPINES conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to
an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. To be held guilty
as a co-conspirator, the prosecution
must be able to show, at the very least,
with the same
degree of proof required to establish
the crime — proof beyond reasonable
doubt, that all
participants performed specific acts
with such closeness and coordination
as to indicate a
common purpose or design to commit
the felony. The participation in the
transaction must be
intentional. Otherwise, none of them
will be liable as a co-conspirator, and
each may only be
held responsible for the results of his
own action.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. “Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the
ROMELO DORIA y PEREZ applicable law at the time of the
commission of the
alleged crimes, lays down the
procedure that police operatives must
follow to maintain the
seizure or confiscation ; and (2) the
the accused or
an elected public official , (c) a
media, and (d)a representative from
whom shall be
inventory and be given a copy thereof.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CESARIA “It is thus obvious that the police failed
BASIO VERTUDES to comply with the three- witnesses
requirement
and HENRY BASIO VERTUDES under Section 21. Although there were
two Barangay Tanods that were
present at the
Barangay Hall for the inventory and
photography of the seized items, they
are not the required
witnesses contemplated by the law. It
should be emphasized that the law
requires the presence
of an elected public official. A Barangay
Tanod is not an elected official; they
are merely
appointed by the Sangguniang
Barangay.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NOEL “While seemingly immaterial, the
DOLANDOLAN contradictory statements that: (1)
accused-appellant
and AAA took a tricycle to the scene of
the crime; (2) accused-appellant and
AAA walked for
about an hour while talking; and, (3)
accused-appellant and AAA walked for
a period of time
that AAA could no longer recall, all the
while under threat of violence — taken
with all other
evident discrepancies undoubtedly
calls AAA's credibility into question.”
ROLANDO GEMENEZ Y PARAME v. For alibi to prosper, the accused must
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES satisfactorily prove that he was
somewhere else
when the crime was committed and
that he was so far away that he could
not have been
physically present at the place of the
crime or its immediate vicinity at the
time of its
commission.
MICHAEL TAÑAMOR Y ACIBO, v. An unbroken chain of custody is
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES necessary in order to establish before
the court that
the prohibited drug confiscated or
recovered from the suspect is the very
same substance
offered in court as exhibit; and that the
identity of said drug is established with
the same
unwavering exactitude as that required
to make a finding of guilt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JERRY By constitutional design, the accused is
SAPLA Y GUERRERO afforded the presumption of innocence
- it is for
the State to prove the guilt of the
accused. Without the State discharging
this burden, the Court
is given no alternative but to acquit the
accused. Moreover, if the process of
gathering evidence
against the accused is tainted by a
violation of the accused's right against
unreasonable
searches and seizures, which is a most
cherished and protected right under
the Bill of Rights,
the evidence procured must be
excluded, inevitably leading to the
accused's acquittal.
MARIA AURORA G. MATHAY, ISMAEL G. The prejudicial question must be
MATHAY III, MARIA SONYA M. determinative of the case before the
RODRIGUEZ, court, but the
AND RAMON G. MATHA V. PEOPLE OF jurisdiction to try and resolve the
THE PHILIPPINES AND ANDREA L. question must be lodged in another
GANDIONCO, court or tribunal. It is a
question based on a fact distinct and
separate from the crime, but so
intimately connected with
it that its ascertainment determines
the guilt or innocence of the accused.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JERRY By constitutional design, the accused is
SAPLA Y GUERRERO afforded the presumption of innocence
- it is for
the State to prove the guilt of the
accused. Without the State discharging
this burden, the Court
is given no alternative but to acquit the
accused. Moreover, if the process of
gathering evidence
against the accused is tainted by a
violation of the accused's right against
unreasonable
searches and seizures, which is a most
cherished and protected right under
the Bill of Rights,
the evidence procured must be
excluded, inevitably leading to the
accused's acquittal.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. PETER The absence of a prior surveillance or
LOPEZ Y CANLAS test buy does not affect the legality of
the buy-
bust operation. There is no textbook
method of conducting buy-bust
operations. The Court has
left to the discretion of police

authorities the selection of effective
means to apprehend drug
dealers. A prior surveillance, much less
a lengthy one, is not necessary,
especially where the
police operatives are accompanied by
their informant during the entrapment.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. It should be stressed that compliance
ELIZABETH NYAMBURA RUNANA with the requirements of Section 21 is
crucial in
AND MA. GRACE LACSON Y NAVARRO the prosecution of drugs cases for if
substantial gaps in the chain of custody
of the seized
prohibited drugs are proven, this will
cast serious doubts on the authenticity
of the evidence
presented in court and entitle the
accused to an acquittal.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. Instigation is the means by which the
ESMERALDO "JAY" AMURAO Y TEJERO accused is lured into the commission
of the offense
charged in order to prosecute him. On
the other hand, entrapment is the
employment of such
ways and means for the purpose of
trapping or capturing a lawbreaker.
Thus, in instigation,
officers of the law or their agents
incite, induce, instigate or lure an
accused into committing
an offense which he or she would
otherwise not commit and has no
intention of committing.
But in entrapment, the criminal intent
or design to commit the offense
charged originates in
the mind of the accused, and law
enforcement officials merely facilitate
the apprehension of the
criminal by employing ruses and
schemes; thus, the accused cannot
justify his or her conduct.
In instigation, where law enforcers act
as co-principals, the accused will have
to be acquitted.
But entrapment cannot bar
prosecution and conviction. As has
been said, instigation is a "trap
for the unwary innocent" while
entrapment is a "trap for the unwary
criminal."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. An illegal recruiter may be held liable
SAGISAG ATLAS “PAUL” BAUTISTA, for the crimes of illegal recruitment
ARLETH committed in
BUENCONSEJO AND ROSAMEL CARA large scale and estafa without risk of
DE GUZMAN, SAGISAG ATLAS “PAUL” being put in double jeopardy, for as
BAUTISTA long as the accused
has been so charged under separate
Informations.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WODIE When the case pivots on the issue of
FRUELDA Y ANULAO the credibility of the victim, the
findings of the trial
court necessarily carry great weight
and respect. This is because the trial
court's determination
proceeds from its first-hand
opportunity to observe the demeanor
of the witnesses, their
conduct and attitude under grilling
examination, thereby placing the trial
court in the unique
position to assess the witnesses'
credibility and to appreciate their
truthfulness, honesty and
candor.
PO2 BERNARDINO CRUZ Y BASCO V. As we already held in People v. Herrera
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES citing People v. Hilario, "the fact that
accused
killed a person other than their
intended victim is of no moment."
Evidently, Adriano's original
intent was to kill Cabiedes. However,
during the commission of the crime of
murder, a stray
bullet hit and killed Bulanan. Adriano is
responsible for the consequences of
his act of shooting
Cabiedes. This is the import of Article 4
of the Revised Penal Code.
ALMA CAMORO PAHKIAT, MAHALITO The general rule is that the Court
BUNAYOG LAPINID AND FE MANAYAGA defers to the sound judgment of the
LOPEZ, Ombudsman. The
v. OFFICE OF THE Court's consistent policy has been to
OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO AND maintain noninterference in the
COMMISSION ON AUDIT - XII determination by the
Ombudsman of the existence of
probable cause.
The foregoing general rule, however, is
subject to an exception - where there
is an
allegation of grave abuse of discretion.
In such case, the Ombudsman's act
cannot escape
judicial scrutiny under the Court's own
constitutional power and duty to
determine whether or
not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government
CECILIA Q. REJAS v. OFFICE OF THE Misconduct has been defined as an
OMBUDSMAN, DEPARTMENT OF THE intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate
INTERIOR violation of
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND a rule of law or standard of behavior. It
DIOSDADO N. DITONA, REPRESENTED is considered grave where the
BY EDWIN N. elements of corruption
are present including a clear intent to
DITONA violate the law, or a flagrant disregard
of established
rules. To constitute misconduct,
however, it is likewise imperative that
the act or omission
complained of must have a direct
relation to the public officer's duties
and affect not only his
character as a private individual, but
also, and more importantly, the
performance of his official
duties as a public servant. The
misfeasance or malfeasance must
amount to either
maladministration or willful,
intentional neglect and failure to
discharge the duties of the
office.
CARLOS PEREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN The constitutional guarantee on due
AND THE OMBUDSMAN, process requires the State not only to
observe the
substantive requirements on
preliminary investigation, but to
conform with the prescribed
periods under the applicable rules.
The correlation of the due process
rights of the accused and the right to
speedy
disposition of cases was explained in
Tatad v. Sandiganbayan (Tatad) as
follows: "[s]ubstantial
adherence to the requirements of the
law governing the conduct of
preliminary investigation,
including substantial compliance with
the time limitation prescribed by the
law for the
resolution of the case by the
prosecutor, is part of the procedural
due process constitutionally
guaranteed by the fundamental law.
EDMUNDO JOSE T. BUENCAMINO v. In all criminal cases, the prosecution is
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND burdened with the duty of establishing
with proof
SANDIGANBAYAN beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
an accused. The determination of
whether the prosecution
has fulfilled such a heavy burden is left
to the trial court, which, in turn, must
be satisfied with
moral certainty that an accused has
indeed committed the crime on the
basis of facts and
circumstances to warrant a judgment
of conviction. Otherwise, where there
is reasonable
doubt, acquittal must then follow, for
all accused are presumed innocent
until the contrary is
proved
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. Sequestration is the means to place or
SANDIGANBAYAN cause to be placed under the PCGG's
possession
or control properties, building or
office, including business enterprises
and entities, for the
purpose of preventing the destruction,
concealment or dissipation of, and
otherwise conserving
and preserving the same until it can be
determined through appropriate
judicial proceedings,
whether the property was in fact
"ill-gotten."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. The Court has always been mindful
TEODORO ANSANO Y CALLEJA that "the greatest care should be taken
in
considering the identification of the
accused, especially when this
identification is made by a
sole witness and the judgment in the
case totally depends on the reliability
of the identification."
This stems from the recognition that
testimonial evidence, unlike other
forensic evidence such
as fingerprint and DNA testing which
are real or object evidence, are subject
to human errors
which may be intentional or
unintentional. In
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, The Court has held time and again that
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ALBERTO the testimony of a child-victim is
"BERT" MARTINEZ normally given
full weight and credit considering not
A.K.A. "ALBERTO BELINARIO", only her relative vulnerability but also
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. the shame to
which she would be exposed if the
matter to which she testified was not
true. Youth and
immaturity are generally badges of
truth and sincerity.
EVELYN ABADINES CUICO, PETITIONER, Article III, Section 14 (2) of the 1987
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Constitution provides that every
accused is
RESPONDENT. presumed innocent unless his guilt is
proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is
"a basic
constitutional principle, fleshed out by
procedural rules which place on the
prosecution the
burden of proving that an accused is
guilty of the offense charged by proof
beyond reasonable
doubt. Corollary thereto, conviction
must rest on the strength of the
prosecution's evidence and
not on the weakness of the defense."
RICHARD T. MARTEL, ALLAN C. It is evident that there were
PUTONG, ABEL A. GUIÑARES, VICTORIA irregularities in the procurement of the
G. MIER, and subject vehicles, in
violation of the applicable
EDGAR C. GAN v. PEOPLE OF THE procurement laws. However, it must be
PHILIPPINES noted that a violation of the
procurement laws does not ipso facto
lead to a violation of R.A. 3019.
The demand for accountability should
not be at the expense of well- meaning
public
officials who may have erred in the
performance of their duties but have
done so without a
criminal mind. While the Constitution
exacts a higher standard of
accountability with respect
to public officers, as indeed public
office is a public trust, the
constitutional right of presumption
of innocence in criminal prosecutions
is likewise enjoyed by public officers
who stand accused.
Therefore, in order to justify
conviction, their guilt must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt, as
with any other person who stands
accused.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. XXX A person’s capacity to decide whether
to give consent or to express resistance
to an adult
activity is determined not by his or her
chronological age but by his or her
mental age.
BENJAMIN M. OLIVEROS, JR., OLIVER It is well-settled that in order to convict
M. OLIVEROS and MAXIMO Z. SOTTO v. an accused for the crime of Frustrated
Murder
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES or Homicide, as the case may be, the
nature of the wounds sustained by the
victim should be
fatal. Otherwise, the accused can only
be convicted of Attempted Murder or
Homicide.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. In a prosecution for rape, credibility
REYNALDO DECHOSO y DIVINA becomes the single most important
issue. The
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape
where only two persons are normally
involved demands
that the testimony of the private
complainant must always be
scrutinized with great caution.
Conviction frequently rests on the
basis of the testimony of the victim
which must be credible,
natural, convincing, and consistent
with human nature and the normal
course of things.
MICHAEL CASILAG y ARCEO v. PEOPLE The presence of the required witnesses
OF THE PHILIPPINES at the time of the inventory is
mandatory, and
that the law imposes the said
requirement because their presence
serves an essential purpose,
i.e., to protect against the possibility of
planting, contamination, or loss of the
seized drug.
EUFROCINA N. MACAIRAN v. PEOPLE Conspiracy exists when two or more
OF THE PHILIPPINES; IMELDA Q. persons come to an agreement
AGUSTIN v. PEOPLE OF THE concerning the
PHILIPPINES; PHILIP F. DU v. PEOPLE OF commission of a felony and decide to
THE commit it. in a catena of cases decided
PHILIPPINES; ROSALINDA U. MAJARAIS, by the Court, it has
MD. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; been consistently ruled that a mere
HORACIO D. CABRERA and ENRIQUE L. signature or approval appearing on a
PEREZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; document does not
ANTHONY M. OCCAMPO and meet the required quantum of proof to
PRISCILLA G. CAMPOSANO v. PEOPLE establish the existence of conspiracy.
OF THE
PHILIPPINES
LYNNA G. CHUNG v. OFFICE OF THE While the Court has a policy of
OMBUDSMAN AND OFFICE OF THE non-interference in the Ombudsman's
exercise of its
OMBUDSMAN-FIELD INVESTIGATION constitutionally mandated powers, this
OFFICE should be weighed against the purpose
of a preliminary
investigation, which is securing the
innocent against hasty, malicious and
oppressive
prosecution, and protecting one from
an open and public accusation of crime
from the trouble,
expense and anxiety of a public trial.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GABRIEL In prosecuting for violation of Sections
CAMPUGAN CABRIOLE 5 and 11 of RA 9165, the prosecution
must prove
beyond reasonable doubt not only
every element of the crime or offense
charged but must also
establish the identity of the corpus
delicti, i.e., the seized drugs. It is,
therefore, the duty of the
prosecution to prove that the drugs
seized from accused-appellant were
the same items
presented in court. The chain of
custody requirement performs this
function by ensuring that
unnecessary doubts as to the identity
of the drugs seized are removed.
ZENAIDA LAYSON VDA. DE MANJARES The elements of estafa through
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES conversion or misappropriation,
punished under Article
315 (1) (b) of the RPC are: (1) that
personal property is received in trust,
on commission, for
administration or under any other
circumstance involving the duty to
make delivery of or to
return the same, even though the
obligation is guaranteed by a bond; (2)
that there is
conversion or diversion of such
property by the person who has so
received it or a denial on his
part that he received it; (3) that such
conversion, diversion or denial is to the
injury of another;
and (4) that there be demand for the
return of the property. On the first
element, the offender
acquires both material or physical
possession and juridical possession of
the thing received."
The Court finds that Zenaida only had
material possession, and not juridical
possession, of the
goods delivered to her for sale in
Alson's Polangui. Juridical possession
means a possession
which gives the transferee a right over
the thing which the transferee may set
up even against
the owner.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. The "finality-of-acquittal" rule, which,
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN AND as the name implies, makes a
BENJAMIN judgment of
acquittal unappealable and
ABALOS immediately executory upon its
promulgation. The State with all
its resources and power should not be
allowed to make repeated attempts to
convict an
individual for an alleged offense,
thereby subjecting him to
embarrassment, expense and ordeal
and compelling him to live in a
continuing state of anxiety and
insecurity, as well as
enhancing the possibility that even
though innocent, he may be found
guilty."
REX SORONGON v. PEOPLE OF THE The general rule is that criminal
PHILIPPINES liability for estafa is not affected by
payment,
indemnification, reimbursement of or
compromise as to the amounts
misappropriated, or by
the novation of the contract.
Nevertheless, in cases involving the
type of estafa under Article
315, paragraph 1 (b), where there is an
underlying contractual relationship or
bilateral
agreement between the parties which
they can modify or alter, novation may
serve to either
prevent the rise of criminal liability, or
to cast doubt on the true nature of the
original basic
transaction. The prevention of the rise
of criminal liability happens when
there is novation
before an Information is filed in court.
Here, Nelly and Sorongon entered into
an amicable
settlement before the former’s filing of
Information for estafa against the
latter. There, the
parties agreed that they would desist
from filing countercharges in the
future. Hence, Sorongon
should not be held liable for estafa.
ASELA BRINAS Y DEL FIERRO v. PEOPLE “Section 10(a) is clear in that it
OF THE PHILIPPINES punishes acts of child abuse which are
"not covered by
the Revised Penal Code." Hence, on
this point, Briñas is correct — she
cannot be convicted of
grave oral defamation under the RPC in
relation to Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610. “
“In Escolano v. People, which involved
facts similar to the instant case, the
Court held
that the mere shouting of invectives at
a child, when carelessly done out of
anger, frustration,
or annoyance, does not constitute
Child Abuse under Section 10 (a) of RA
7610 absent evidence
that the utterance of such words were
specifically intended to debase,
degrade, or demean the
victim's intrinsic worth and dignity.”
DENNIS OLIVER CASTRONUEVO LUNA “Concept of possession contemplated
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 goes
beyond
mere actual and physical possession of
the drug specimen. Otherwise, an
unsuspecting person
who is victimized by the planting of
evidence will be unjustly prosecuted
based on the sheer fact
that illegal drugs were found to be in
his possession. It must be proven that
the person in whose
possession the drug specimen was
found knew that he/she was
possessing illegal drugs.”
“Animus possidendi, as a state of mind,
may be determined on a case-to-case
basis by
taking into consideration the prior or
contemporaneous acts of the accused,
as well as the
surrounding circumstances.”
PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER ET AL. V. It is settled that "[i]n determining
JUAN PONCE ENRILE whether a statement is defamatory,
the words used
are to be construed in their entirety
and should be taken in their plain,
natural, and ordinary
meaning as they would naturally be
understood by persons reading them,
unless it appears that
they were used and understood in
another sense."
In jurisprudence, "malice" connotes ill
will or spite and speaks not in response
to duty
but merely to injure the reputation of
the person defamed, and implies an
intention to do
ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice
in law is a presumption of law: it
dispenses with the
proof of malice when words that raise
the presumption are shown to have
been uttered. It is
also known as constructive malice,
legal malice, or implied malice. On the
other hand, malice
in fact is a positive desire and intention
to annoy and injure. It may denote that
the defendant
was actuated by ill will or personal
spite. It is also called express malice,
actual malice, real
malice, true malice, or particular
malice.
Under the general rule stated in Article
354 of the Revised Penal Code, every
defamatory
imputation is presumed to be
malicious. This is malice in law. The
presumption of malice,
however, does not exist in the
following instances: 1. A private
communication made by any
person to another in the performance
of any legal, moral, or social duty; and
2. A fair and true
report, made in good faith, without
any comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative, or
other official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of any
statement, report, or
speech delivered in said proceedings,
or of any other act performed by
public officers in the
exercise of their functions.
The exceptions provided in Article 354
are also known as qualifiedly privileged
communications. The enumeration
under Art. 354, however, is not an
exclusive list of
qualifiedly privileged communications
since fair commentaries on matters of
public
interest are likewise privileged. Like
"fair commentaries on matters of
public interest," fair
reports on matters of public interest is
also included in the list of qualifiedly
privileged
communications, and are thus included
under the protective mantle of
privileged
communications. In order to
successfully claim that an utterance
covered under qualifiedly
privileged communications is libelous,
the plaintiff must prove the existence
of malice in fact.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. The proper mode of appeal from the
JUVENAL AZURIN Y BLANQUERA Sandiganbayan's judgment of
conviction in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction to
the Supreme Court is via a Notice of
Appeal pursuant to
the Sandiganbayan Rules.
The elements of the crime charged are
that (1) the offender threatened
another person
with the infliction upon his person of a
wrong; (2) such wrong amounted to a
crime; and (3)
the threat was not subject to a
condition. This felony is consummated
"x x x as soon as the
threats come to the knowledge of the
person threatened."

Criminal Law Doctrines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Doctrines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Doctrines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW

the prosecution to still satisfactorily

prosecution still needs to satisfactorily

preserved. The Court has repeatedly

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SUSAN Section 4 of RA 9208 refers to those

compliance with Section 21, RA 9165,

of the corpus delicti is unreliable, and

the civil aspect of the judgment

left to the discretion of police

You might also like