GR No 92020

People of the Philippines vs Eliseo Martinado, Hermogenes Martinado, John Doe, alias “Rolly”

GR No 92020         October 19, 1992

Facts:

          Eliseo and Hermogenes were accused of the crime of robbery with homicide and was found by the RTC to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. As there was no appreciable mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, both are sentenced to suffer imprisonment under the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hermogenes was credited in the service of his sentence with the full time that he has undergone one preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the RPC provided conditions prescribed thereon have been complied with.

The promulgation of this decision was made in the absence of Eliseo as he had earlier escaped after the defense has rested its case. He was later re-arrested only almost a year after he escaped and 2 months after the said promulgation. It was then that the counsel of record for Hemogenes and Eliseo filed a notice of appeal for both accused.

Issue:

          WON an escapee may avail of ISLAW

Held:

          No, an escapee may not avail of ISLAW.

      

      Under Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, if the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, the court shall further order the arrest of the accused, who may appeal within 15 days from notice of the decision to him or his counsel.

Also, according to a recent case, an accused who had escaped from confinement during the trial on the merits and who remains at large at the time of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction loses his right to appeal therefrom, unless he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court or is otherwise arrested within 15 days from notice of judgment. The reason therefor is that an accused who escapes from detention, humps bail or flees to a foreign country loses his standing in court, unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief therefrom. The same cannot be given a retroactive effect.

In this case, both Hemogenes and Eliseo were found guilty of homicide under Article 249 of the RPC. As there was an aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, and in the absence of mitigating circumstance to offset, and applying the provisions of ISLAW, Hemogenes’ sentence was modified to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor maximum as minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum. Eliseo, on the other hand, was not entitled to the benefits of ISLAW as he had escaped from confinement. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer penalty of imprisonment of 17 years 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal maximum.

GR No 182239

People of the Philippines vs Hermie Jacinto

GR No 182239        March 16, 2011

Facts:

Jacinto was charged of the crime of rape for having a carnal knowledge of AAA, who was five years old at the time, thus, with a qualifying/aggravating circumstance of minority. Jacinto entered a plea of not guilty by having defenses of denial and alibi. However, the RTC held Jacinto guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentences him to death. Thereafter, the trial was reopened as there was a newly-discovered evidence showing that Jacinto was only 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. RTC then amended the sentence to reclusion perpetual.

When appealed to CA, the RTC decision was affirmed but with modifications as to the sentence. Jacinto was adjudged to suffer the Indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum.

Issue:

          WON Jacinto may benefit from RA 9344 as he already exceeded the age of 21 upon conviction.

Held:

          The SC sustains the CA judgment of conviction. CA considered RA No 9344 despite the commission of the crime 3 years before the law was enacted on April 28, 2006. It is only right for the court to recognize its retroactive application.

          Section 6 of RA No 9344 exempts a child above 15 years but below 18 years of age from criminal liability, unless the child is found to have acted with discernment, in which case, “the appropriate proceedings” in accordance with the Act shall be observed. In the present case, indications that Jacinto acted with discernment are present. Nonetheless, the corresponding imposable penalty should be modified.

          The birth certificate of AAA showed her date of birth which makes her only 5 years old when Jacinto defiled her, and the law prescribing the death penalty when rape is committed against a child below 7 years old applies. Although, the following calls for the reduction of the penalty: 1) prohibition against death penalty under RA No 9344, and 2) the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority of Jacinto which has the effect of reducing the penalty one degree lower than that prescribed by law, pursuant to Art 68 of the RPC. It relied on a case wherein death was excluded from the graduation of penalties in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of minority.

         However, SC held that under Article 68 of RPC, when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. However, for purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty to be reckoned with. Thus, the proper imposable penalty for Jacinto is reclusion perpetua.

GR No 180380

Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali vs People of the Philippines

GR No 180380        August 4, 2009

Facts:

          Raymund and Rodel were accused of the crime of Murder after allegedly willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacking, assaulting, and striking AAA with a coconut frond and ‘llave inglesia’ and strangling with a dog chain, leading to an untimely death.

          Both plead not guilty by denial and alibi. The RTC, however, rendered a guilty verdict against them and convicted them only of homicide as there was a failure to prove the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. They were sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of 4 years, 2 months, and I day to six years of imprisonment. They elevated their conviction to the CA.

          CA affirmed the findings of RTC that both of the accused killed AAA. However, pursuant to Section 64 of RA No 9344, Raymond’s case was dismissed as the law provides exemption from criminal liability a minor 15 years of below at the time of the commission of the crime. Rodel’s conviction was sustained with six months and one day6 months and 1 day of prision coreccional to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, but the imposition was suspended pursuant to RA No 9344. Both assailed the decision.

Issue:

          WON the accused may avail of the benefit provided by RA 9344.

Held:

          Yes, Raymond may avail of the benefit provided by RA 9344 while Rodel may not as he acted with discernment in the act of crime.

          As to Raymond’s criminal liability, he is exempt. He was only 14 years old at the time he committed the crime. He would be exempt from criminal liability and should be released to the custody of his parents or guardian. Under RA 9344, a child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability, but he will be subject to an intervention program.

          As to Rodel, it must be borne in mind that he was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. A determination of whether he acted with or without discernment is necessary pursuant to RA 9344. It provides that a child above 15 years of age but below 18 years of age shall be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. As the CA correctly opined, Rodel acted with discernment as was aware that killing AAA was a condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy.

          However, as he was only 16 years old, Article 68 of the RPC provided that the penalty imposed upon him should be the penalty next lower than that prescribed. Thus, 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor is in order.

GR No L-68589-90

Paulino Chang vs Intermediate Appellate Court

GR No L-68589-90  December 29, 1986

Facts:

            Chang was charged against violation of Bouncing Checks Law and for Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC. It was alleged that Chang, by means of false manifestation and fraudulent representations as a businessman specializing in the importation of machineries and farm implements assured Reaport of the investments should he so desire, succeeded in inducing Reaport to invest. Chang issued and delivered to Reaport BPI check with the assurance that the same was well-funded, knowing fully well that the same was not. The said check was dishonored when Reaport proceeded to encash the same.

            RTC found Chang guilty and the IAC affirmed the RTC decision.

Issue:

            WON Chang was guilty of violation against Bouncing Checks Law

Held:

            There is no question that the check issued by Chang bounced for insufficiency of funds, so that he should be guilty of violation of BP Blg 22. The drawee bank’s statement of accounts respecting that of appellant would indicate that the amount of the account issued with the check had insufficient balance to fund the same.

            The defense that the check was issued as a gambling check for money lost at gambling, hence, illegal and void from the very beginning lacks credence. Chang issues the check in payment of an obligation to return the money he got from Reaport, including profit. It was not by way of guaranteeing Reaport’s investment. It was the inducement that convinced Reaport of a sure return of his money plus the profit promised. The gambling debt theory is characterized with circumstances doubly hard to believe.

            Hence, Chang was found guilty of the violation against Bouncing Checks Law.

GR No 175750-51

Silverina Consigna vs People of the Philippines

GR No 175750-51    April 2, 2014

Facts:

            Consigna, then the Municipal Treasurer of General Luna, Surigao del Norte, obtained a loan from Moleta to pay for the salaries of the employees of the municipality and to construct the municipal gymnasium as the municipality’s IRA had not yet arrived. As payment, Consigna issued three Land Bank of the Philippines checks signed by Rusillon, then incumbent mayor of the same municipality. In several attempts and on different occasions, Moleta demanded payment from Consigna and Rusillon, but to no avail. When she deposited the same to the bank, the checks were returned for having no sufficient funds. Upon verification, LBP informed Moleta that said account indicated in the issued checks was already closed and transferred to DBP and Consigna had been relieved from her position.

            After trial, Sandiganbayan found Consigna guilty, but exonerated Rusillon for not having participated in the acts committed by Consigna. Hence, this petition with the SC.

Issue:

            WON Consigna be held guilty of estafa as penalized under Article 315 of RPC and that of Section 3 (e) of RA No 3019.

Held:

           The Petition must fail.

        SC ruled that it is entrenched in this jurisdiction is the dictum that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information which specifies the provision of law to have been violated which were mere conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information.

          In another matter, the law explicitly provides that in the prosecution for estafa under Article 315 of RPC, it is indispensable that the element of deceit, consisting of the false statement or fraudulent representation of the accused, be made prior to, or at least simultaneously with the commission of fraud, it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induced the offended party to part with his money.

            On the other hand, the following are the essential elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No 3019: a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and c) that his action caused any undue injury to any part, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.

           Apparently, under the Mejorada doctrine, Section 3 of RA No 3019 enumerates in eleven subsections the corrupt practices of any public officers declared unlawful. Its reference to any public officer is without distinction or qualification and it specifies the acts declared unlawful. The last sentence of Section 3 (e) is intended to make clear the inclusion of officers and employees of officers or government corporations which, under the ordinary concept of public officers may not come within the term. It is a strained construction of the provision to read it as applying exclusively to public officers charged with the duty of granting licenses or permits or other concessions.

GR No 221465

People of the Philippines vs Rodelio Lopez

GR No 221465         November 16, 2016

Facts:

            Lopez was charged to have committed crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. The police were able to track Lopez and his illegal activities via a tip from an informant which urged the buy-bust team to be established for the entrapment operations against Lopez. As the said entrapment ensued, Lopez was found to have sold one sachet of shabu and two other sachets in his possession. The said sachets were then ordered transmitted to PDEA through DDB for disposal as per RA 9165.

            The trial court held that the prosecution had established all the required elements for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs through a legitimate buy-bust operation. On appeal, CA affirmed RTC’s findings that all elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven by the prosecution. Defense of denial and alibi were considered weak and cannot prevail the positive declaration of the police.

            Lopez filed a Notice of Appeal.

Issue:

            WON Lopez be held guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

Held:

            The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of Lopez.

        Under Section 5, Article 2 of RA No 9165, the essential elements in the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs are: 1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Material in the successful the prosecution is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in the court of evidence of corpus delicti. In the instant case, Lopez was caught in flagrante delicto of selling shabu, a dangerous drug to the poseur-buyer, there having been a completed sale transaction of the same.

In the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drug, the prosecution must prove the following elements: 1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; 2) such possession is not authorized by law; and 3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The same was met in the entrapment operations that occurred.

In the prosecution of drug cases, it is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug as the corpus delicti of the crime be established beyond doubt. Hence, IRR of RA No 9165 offer some flexible proviso that non-compliance with the requirements set forth under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

Thus, although it was found out that the police did not comply with the required physical inventory, what is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items be preserved as they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

GR No 168852

Sharica Mari Go-Tan vs Spouses Perfecto Tan and Juanita Tan

GR No 168852         September 30, 2008

Facts:

            Sharica Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married with two children Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise. Barely six years into the marriage, Sharica filed a petition for the issuance of a TPO against Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto and Juanito Tan. The petition was based on the verbal, psychological and economic abuses of Steven and her parents-in-law against her in violation of RA No 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004.

            RTC granted the petition and issued an Order/Notice in effect of the same. However, Spouses Tan appealed contending that the said law does not apply include parents-in-law as the violator. RTC then issued a Resolution dismissing the case as against the Spouses as they were not covered by RA No 9262.

            A petition for review on certiorari was filed by Sharica with the Supreme Court for pure question of law.

Issue:

            WON Spouses Tan, as parents-in-law be subject to RA No 9262 as a violator.

Held:

            The Court rules in favor of the Sharica.

            Section 3 of RA No 9262 defines violence against women and their children as any act or series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife or against a woman with whom the person has had sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which may result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse.

            While the said provision provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under RPC.

In fact, Section 47 of the RA No 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC. Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as RA No 9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.

Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to RA No 9262. For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.

In addition, protection order that may be issued for the purpose of preventing further acts of violence against the women or her child may include individuals other than the offending husband.

GR No 227363

People of the Philippines vs Salvador Tulagan

GR No 227363         March 12, 2019

Facts:

            Tulagan was charged to have committed crimes of sexual assault and statutory rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraphs 2 and 1 (d) of RPC, respectively in relation to Article 266-B.

            In September 2011, AAA then 9 years of age, was peeling corn with her cousin when Tulagan approached her, spread her legs and inserted his finger into his private part. On October 8 of the same year, AAA was playing with her cousin in front of Tulagan’s house and he brought AAA to his home and did sexual intercourse. Tulagan denied the charges by an alibi, and claimed that his mother had a misunderstanding with AAA’s grandmother, who later on started spreading rumors that he raped her granddaughter.

            The RTC found that the prosecution successfully discharged the burden of proof in two offenses of rape against Tulagan. It held that all elements of sexual assault and statutory rape were duly established.

            Upon appeal, CA affirmed RTC’s conviction of Tulagan. Hence, appeal to SC.

Issue:

            WON Tulagan may be held guilty of the crime charged.

Held:

           The petition has no merit. Factual findings of the trial court carry great weight and respect due to the unique opportunity afforded them to observe the witnesses when placed on the stand.

            As correctly held by the CA, the fact that some details testified to by AAA did not appear in her Sinumpaang Sanaysay does not mean that the sexual assault did not happen. AAA was still able to narrate all the details of the sexual assault she suffered in Tulagan’s hands. AAA’s account of her ordeal being straightforward and candid and corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician as well as her positive identification of Tulagan as the perpetrator of the crime is, thus, sufficient to support a conviction of rape.

           Defense of denial must also be rejected. Being a negative defense, defense of denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of the credible witnesses. Tulagan must have established the physical impossibility for him to be at the locus criminis when the rape incident took place.

         SC took this opportunity to reconcile provisions on under RPC on Acts of Lasciviousness, Rape and Sexual Assault as amended by RA No 8353 and the Sexual Intercourse and Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA No 7610.

            For an accused to be convicted of acts of lasciviousness, the confluence of the following essential elements must be proven: 1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; and 2) it is done under any of the following circumstances: a) by using force or intimidation; b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious, or c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age.

            If the acts constituting sexual assault are committed against a victim under 12 years of age or is demented, the nomenclature of the offense should be Sexual Assault RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) or RA No 7610.

            If the victim is 12 years old and under 18 years old, or 18 years old and above under special circumstances, the nomenclature of the crime should be Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA No 7610.

            Sexual intercourse with a victim who is under 12 years old or is demented is statutory rape.

Elements of rape under Article 266-A (1) under RPC:

1. offender is a man

2. carnal knowledge of a woman

3. through force, threat or intimidation, when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, and by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority

Elements of rape under Section 5 (1) of RA No 7610:

1. offender is a man

2. carnal knowledge of woman

3. coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group is employed against the child to become a prostitute

GR No 219889

People of the Philippines vs Edwin Dagasa

GR No 219889         January 29, 2018

Facts:

            Dagasa was accused to have committed the crime of rape as defined under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) and penalized under Article 266-B, paragraph 6 (5) both of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to RA No 7610.

            On October 2004, while AAA was walking home with two of her classmates after having been dismissed from class, Dagasa blocked their path and told the classmates to go ahead as he would be giving AAA a candy. As Dagasa was a cousin of AAA’s father, AAA stopped walking and the others went ahead. However, after walking a little farther, the classmates looked back and saw Dagasa remove AAA’s panty and fondle her vagina. When BBB, the mother of AAA, knew of what happened based on what AAA and the classmates told, proceeded to the police station to report the incident. A criminal complaint was then filed.

            The trial court rendered judgment finding Dagasa guilty as charged. RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of the witnesses finding them to be straightforward, categorical, convincing and bearing the hallmark of truth.

            Dagasa appealed with CA contending that the testimonies of BBB were only hearsay evidence as those were only the things AAA and classmates told her. CA held a judgment against accused of the crime of acts of lasciviousness as it is included in the crime of rape and elements for the same have been sufficiently established during the trial. Dagasa appealed.

Issue:

            WON Dagasa was guilty of the crime charged against him.

Held:

            The appeal lacks merit.CA did not commit an error in finding the accused not liable for rape. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish that Dagasa had carnal knowledge of AAA.

            Under the variance doctrine, even though the crime charged against the accused was for rape through carnal knowledge, he can be convicted of the crime of acts of lasciviousness without violating any of his constitutional rights because said crime is included in the crime of rape.

            According to Article 336 of RPC in relation to Sec 5(b), Article 3 of RA 7610, the child prostitution and other sexual abuse are the following: 1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; 2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and 3) the child, whether male or female is below 18 years of age.

            To apply, it has been defined that lascivious conduct be committed through intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing of the genitalia with intent to gratify the sexual desire of any person, among others. AAA was only 4 years old at the time that the offense was committed against her.

            As the elements of the offense charged have been present in this case, the SC upheld the ruling in CA. Dagasa was guilty of committing acts of lasciviousness.