2015 de Castro-Criminal Law

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal
2015) Law
BOOK 1 (Articles 1-99, RPC)
FELONIES
(Stages of execution)
The Court cannot simply assume that there was attempted rape simply because accused
undressed himself and the offended party, plus the fact that accused did rape the latter on
three other occasions. Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the accused must have
commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the vagina of the victim but for some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the penetration, however
slight, is not completed. - People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Dominguez, Jr., alias
Sandy, G.R. No. 180914, November 24, 2010
The crime of robbery remained unconsummated because Elmer Lagdaan refused to give his
money to Joseph Barra and no personal property was shown to have been taken. It was for
this reason that Elmer Lagdaan was shot. Joseph Barra can only be found guilty of
attempted robbery with homicide. People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Barra, G.R. No.
198020, July 10, 2013
CONSPIRACY
Acts of conspiracy of each accused need not be directly proved as it can be inferred from
the acts of the accused prior to, during or subsequent to the incident. What is material is
that the actions of the accused pertain to a joint purpose, concert of action or community
of interest in conspiracy an act one is the act of all. - People of the Philippines vs.
Arnold Garchitorena y Camba A.K.A. Junior; Joey Pamplona A.K.A. Nato and
Jessie Garcia y Adorino, G. R. No. 175605, August 28, 2009
Conspiracy is always predominantly mental in composition because it consists primarily of a
meeting of minds and intent. It is present when the accused by their acts aimed at the same
object, one performing one part and another performing another so as to complete it with a
view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts though apparently independent
were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association,
concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. Clearly, it is attendant in circumstances
when there was concerted action between the accused-appellants before, during and after
the offense which ably demonstrated their unity of design and objective in successfully
committing the crime. - People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Serrano and Anthony
Serrano, G.R. No. 179038, May 6, 2010
Neither can the rapid turn of events be considered to negate a finding of conspiracy. Unlike
evident premeditation, there is no requirement for conspiracy to exist that there be a
sufficient period of time to elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection.
Instead, conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to
commit the subject felony. - People of the Philippines vs. Restituto Carandang,
Henry Milan and Jackman Chua, G.R. No. 175926, July 6, 2011
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. While it is mandatory to prove it by
competent evidence, direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy it may be deduced
from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from
the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interest. The mere circumstance that accused did not
personally perform all the acts necessary to consummate the crime is irrelevant when
conspiracy is proven, since in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. - People of the
Philippines vs. Allan Niegas y Fallore, G.R. No. 194582, November 27, 2013
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Page 1 of 25

2015) Law
It is well settled that unlawful aggression presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or
imminent dangernot merely threatening and intimidating action. Thus, unless the victim
has committed unlawful aggression against the other, there can be no selfdefense on the
part of the latter. - Severino David, Jr. y Echane and Timoteo Gianan vs. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 136037, August 13, 2008
When self-defense is invoked by an accused, the three (3) elements of self-defense, namely:
(a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
In conspiracy, it does not matter who inflicted the mortal wound, as the act of one is the act
of all, and each incurs the same criminal liability. - People of the Philippines vs. Ramon
Regalario, Marciano Regalario, Sotero Regalario, Bienvenido Regalario and Noel
Regalario, G.R. No. 174483, March 31, 2009
A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof. He must prove all the elements
of self-defense. However, the most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim.
Moreover, factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of the witnesses
credibility are entitled to great weight and respect particularly when the Court of Appeals
affirms the said findings, and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court
overlooked certain facts and circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome of
the case. It is the trial judge who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses demeanor
and deportment on the stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimonies. The
trial judge therefore is in a better position to determine the veracity of the witnesses
testimony. - People of the Philippines vs. Efren Laurio y Rosales, G.R No. 182523,
September 13, 2012
Self-defense, under Article 11, paragraph 1, and accident, under Article 12, paragraph 4 of
the Revised Penal Code, are affirmative defenses which the accused is burdened to prove,
with clear and convincing evidence. Such affirmative defenses involve questions of facts
adduced to the trial and appellate courts for resolution. By admitting killing the victim in
self-defense or by accident without fault or without intention of causing it, the burden is
shifted to the accused to prove such affirmative defenses. He should rely on the strength of
his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution. If the accused fails to
prove his affirmative defense, he can no longer be acquitted. - People of the Philippines
vs. Marcial Malicdem, G.R. No. 184601, November 12, 2012
Under paragraph 4, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, to successfully invoke avoidance
of greater evil as a justifying circumstance, the following requisites should be complied with:
(1) the evil sought to be avoided actually exists (2) the injury feared be greater than that
done to avoid it and (3) there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
Moreover, Punzalan failed to satisfy the third requisite that there be no other practical and
less harmful means of preventing it. Under paragraph 4, Article 11 of the Revised Penal
Code, infliction of damage or injury to another so that a greater evil or injury may not befall
ones self may be justified only if it is taken as a last resort and with the least possible
prejudice to another. If there is another way to avoid the injury without causing damage or
injury to another or, if there is no such other way but the damage to another may be
minimized while avoiding an evil or injury to ones self, then such course should be taken. People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Punzalan, Jr., G.R. No. 199892, December 10,
2012
A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof. He must prove all the elements
of self-defense. However, the most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression on
Page 2 of 25

2015) Law
the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to
be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. - People of the Philippines vs.
Gary Vergara y Oriel and Joseph Inocencio y Paulino, G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
To take advantage of superior strength is to use force out of proportion to the means
available to the person attacked to defend himself.
Tying the victim hog-style after rendering him immobilized constituted outraging or scoffing
at the corpse of the victim.
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, it must be spontaneous, in such a manner that it
shows the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either
because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and
expense of finding and capturing him. People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Regalario,
Marciano Regalario, Sotero Regalario, Bienvenido Regalario and Noel Regalario,
G.R. No. 174483, March 31, 2009
It is basic in our penal law that treachery is present when the offender employs means,
methods or forms which tend directly and especially to insure the execution of the crime,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Asilan y Tabornal, G.R. No. 188322, April 11,
2012
When the victim was stabbed by accused, the latter inside the trial, judicial notice can be
taken that when the tricycle driver is seated on the motorcycle, his head is usually higher or
at the level of the roof of the side car which leaves his torso exposed to the passengers who
are seated in the side car. Hence, there was no way for Jesus to even be forewarned of the
intended stabbing of his body both from the people seated in the side car and those seated
behind him. Thus, treachery is present. There is treachery when the means, methods, and
forms of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to
retaliate; and such means, methods, and forms of execution were deliberately and
consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person. What is decisive in an
appreciation of treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the
victim to defend himself.
Furthermore, in a case of special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must
be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original
criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. - People of the Philippines vs.
Joel Aquino y Cendana, G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014
The accused, charged for the felony of murder, questions the appreciation of the qualifying
circumstance of abuse of strength when the same was not in the Information. The Court
ruled that even if abuse of superior strength was properly alleged and proven in court, it
cannot serve to qualify or aggravate the felony at issue since it is jurisprudentially settled
that when the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the
former is absorbed in the latter. - People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Dadao,
Antonio Sulindao, Eddie Malogsi (deceased) and Alfemio Malogsi, G.R. No.
201860, January 22, 2014
TREACHERY
The essence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery is the suddenness, surprise and the
lack of expectation that the attack will take place, thus, depriving the victim of any real
opportunity for self-defense while ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the
Page 3 of 25

2015) Law
aggressor. - People of the Philippines vs. Dante Jadap, G.R. No. 177983, March 30,
2010
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party
might make. - People of the Philippines vs. Samson Escleto, G.R. No. 183706, April
25, 2012
Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. - People of the Philippines vs. Ramil Rarugal alias "Amay
Bisaya," G.R. No. 188603, January 16, 2013
The manner by which appellant deliberately rolled the grenade on the ground towards the
dance floor packed with the unsuspecting revelers, leaving one dead and scores wounded in
the aftermath of the sudden blast was accompanied with treachery. 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 especially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. People of the Philippines vs. Ramil Mores, G.R. No. 189846, June 26, 2013
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some
other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically
impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.
The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a
swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no
chance to resist or escape. - People of the Philippines vs. Lito Hatsero, G.R. No.
192179, July 3, 2013
Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack
by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend
themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the
slightest provocation on the part of the victims. - People of the Philippines vs. Gerry
Sabangan and Noli Bornasal, G.R. No. 191722, December 11, 2013
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability
because he does not act with freedom. An act done by me against my will is not my act. The
force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who
acts not only without will but against his will. A threat of future injury is not enough. People of the Philippines vs. Nelida Dequina y Dimapanan, Joselito Jundoc y
Japitana & Nora Jingabo y Cruz, G.R. No. 177570, January 19, 2011
For the defense of Bulagao that he was suffering from mental retardation be given credit,
There must be a showing from the findings of the psychologist that Bulagao had the same
mental or psychological condition at the time of the said incidents. The RTC noted that the
psychological examination of Bulagao was conducted more than a couple of years after the
dates of the complained of incidents. Even assuming that accused-appellant was of such
mental state at the time of the incidents, the psychologist testified that accused-appellant
Page 4 of 25

2015) Law
had the capacity to discern right from wrong. - People of the Philippines vs. Aniceto
Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, October 5, 2011
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
When the prosecution fails to prove the exact date of the commission of the offense and
there is a question whether the accused reached the age of majority at the time of the
commission, such question shall be resolved in favor of the accused and therefore shall
benefit from the mitigating circumstance of minority. People of the Philippines vs.
Richard O. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009
PAROLE
No jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all
defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove, and for which reason it is
generally rejected.
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 provides that persons convicted of offenses punished
with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, shall not
be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, as amended. - People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Candellada, G.R. No.
189293, July 10, 2013
BOOK II (Articles 114-365, RPC) and related Special Laws

FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR ECCLESIASTICAL
MINISTER
In the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officials or by private
persons, it is unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a
third person; the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the
destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. - Romeo D. Lonzanida vs.
People Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 160243-52, July 20, 2009
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
When all the elements of the crimes charged were present thereby establishing the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt of the accused, no error has been committed in the courts
decision of conviction. In fact, settled is the principle that findings of the trial courts which
are factual in nature are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of
facts; and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such
findings. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained
by the Court of Appeals. - People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Serrano and Anthony
Serrano, G.R. No. 179038, May 6, 2010
Tuan was charged with illegal possession of prohibited drugs and contended that he should
not be convicted to such crime due to discrepancies and testimony of the witnesses. The
court ruled that Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring
to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not
impair their credibility. Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on
important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence. - People of the
Philippines vs. Estela Tuan y Baludda, G.R. No. 176066 August 11, 2010
Page 5 of 25

2015) Law
The failure of the arresting police officers to comply with said DDB Regulation No. 3, Series
of 1979 is a matter strictly between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting officers
and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case for the reason that the
commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated
once the sale or transaction is established. - People of the Philippines vs. Chito Gratil y
Guelas, G.R. No. 182236, June 22, 2011
In the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to successfully prove
the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The
conspicuous variance in the testimonies for the prosecution casts serious doubt on the
arresting teams due care in the custody of the confiscated illegal drug. We declared that
the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a
sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu, and the irregularity which
characterized the handling of the evidence before it was finally offered in court, fatally
conflicts with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused. - People of the
Philippines vs. Edwin Ulat y Aguinaldo @ Pudong, G.R. No. 180504, October 5,
2011
In a buy-bust operation, the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers
conducting the operation are not only authorized, but duty-bound, to apprehend the violator
and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the
crime. - People of the Philippines vs. Gregg C. Buenaventura, G.R. No. 184807,
November 23, 2011
Legaspi claims that she was instigated into committing the crime as charged, as she was
the one approached by San Andres, who was then looking to buy shabu cannot stand. To
use instigation as a defense, the accused must prove with sufficient evidence that the
government induced him to commit the offense. Legaspi was never forced, coerced, or
induced to source the prohibited drug. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that
the members of the buy-bust operation team were inspired by improper motive or did not
properly perform their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.
- People of Philippines vs. Nenita Legaspi y Lucas, G.R. No. 173485, Nov 23, 2011
Prior surveillance is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, especially if the buy-bust
team is accompanied to the target area by their informant. Furthermore, the failure of the
police officers to use ultraviolet powder on the buy-bust money is not an indication that the
buy-bust operation was a sham. The use of initials to mark the money used in a buy-bust
operation has been accepted by the SC. - People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin
Amansec y Dona, G.R. No. 186131, December 14, 2011
Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were
inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their
testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit. Settled is the rule that in
cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution
witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of
the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties. - People of
the Philippines vs. Marcos Sabadlab y Narciso @ "Bong Pango G.R. No. 186392,
January 18, 2012
In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution
witnesses who are police officers on the ground that they are presumed to have performed
their duties in a regular manner. The exception is when there is evidence to the contrary
Page 6 of 25

2015) Law
suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular
performance of their duties. In the case at bar, accused-appellants only evidence of ill
motive on the part of the NBI operatives is his own testimony of frame-up and extortion, a
very common defense in dangerous drugs cases. We have held that such defense is viewed
with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted. To substantiate such a defense, therefore, the
evidence must be clear and convincing. - People of the Philippines vs. Arnel Clarite y
Salazar, G.R. No. 187157, February 15, 2012
The Court stresses that the objective test in buy-bust operations demands that the details
of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from
the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the
promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery
of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made,
whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the
buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the
police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding
citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. - People of the Philippines vs.
Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro alias "Rose," G.R. No. 188132, February 29,
2012
It is settled that Sec. 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations on account
of the law enforcers failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. - People of the
Philippines vs. Jesusa Figueroa y Coronado, G.R. No. 186141, April 11, 2012
Illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs is committed when the following
elements concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to
be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the said drug. - People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy
Biyala Velasquez, G.R. No. 177224, April 11, 2012
This Court has already ruled in several cases that the failure of the arresting officer to
comply strictly with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal. It will not render the
arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What
is of utmost important is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.
Also, in every prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of the
drug, i.e., the corpus delicti, as evidence in court is material. In fact, the existence of the
dangerous drug is crucial to a judgment of conviction. It is, therefore, indispensable that the
identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Even more than this, what
must also be established is the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust
operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning
the identity of the evidence are removed.
Finally, the Court acknowledged that a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. The Court stresses
that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items. - People of the Philippines vs. Maricar Brainer y
Mangulabnan, G.R. No. 188571, October 10, 2012
The elements that should be proven in both the sale and possession of dangerous drugs
intrinsically include the identification of what was seized by police officers to be the same
item examined and presented in court. This identification must be established with moral
certainty and is a function of the rule on the chain of custody. - People of the Philippines
vs. Meriam Guru y Kazan, G.R. No. 189808, October 24, 2012
Page 7 of 25

2015) Law
This Court has reviewed and scrutinized in detail the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and found glaring inconsistencies that relate to the identity of the prohibited drug
allegedly confiscated from Del Rosario. The patent inconsistency between the testimonies of
PO2 Mendoza and PO3 Besmonte necessarily leads us to doubt that the plastic sachet of
shabu identified in court is the same one allegedly seized from Del Rosario. In light of the
foregoing, we find merit in Del Rosarios claim that the prosecution failed to discharge its
burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The dangerous drug itself, the shabu
in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction
under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely
be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal
drugs unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily
open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to
remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence
must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually
recovered from the accused-appellant otherwise, the prosecution for possession under
Republic Act No. 9165 fail. - People of the Philippines vs. Ronald Del Rosario, G.R.
No. 188107, December 5, 2012
It may be gleaned that to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation is as
follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court. We agree with the finding of the Court of Appeals. A perusal of the records of the case
revealed that after the dangerous drugs were seized from Lapasaran, the same were
marked RML and RML1 by the buy-bust team. PO1 Saez and PO2 Maglana then turned
over RML and RML1 to investigating officer P/SInsp. Obong, who in turn, delivered the
same to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Based on the Physical Science Report
timed, dated and signed by Forensic Chemist Bonifacio, RML and RML1 tested positive
for the presence of shabu. Lastly, both sachets were then presented and turned over by
P/SInsp. Bonifacio to the court. The Certificate of Inventory,
request for laboratory
examination and the consequent testimonies in Court leaves no doubt in the Courts mind
that the chain of custody rule was duly followed. - People of the Philippines vs. Renato
Lapasaran, G.R. No. 198820, December 10, 2012
When prosecuting an illegal possession of dangerous drugs case, the following elements
must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is
identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the drug; With regards to Chain of Custody,
unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered
or meddled with, the presumptions that the integrity of such evidence had been preserved
and that the police officers who handled the seized drugs had discharged their duties
properly and with regularity remain. - People of the Philippines, vs. Malik Manalao y
Alauya, G.R. No. 187496, February 06, 2013
The elements that must be established for the successful prosecution of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, viz: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the same. What is
material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the contraband to the poseurbuyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between
the entrapping officers and the accused. The chain of custody of the seized drugs in a buybust operation had been sufficiently established when there was proof of the following: first,
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by
the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
Page 8 of 25

2015) Law
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court. - People of the Philippines vs. Linda Alviz y Yatco and Elizabeth De La Vega y
Bautista, G.R. No. 177158, February 06, 2013
A testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain." The arresting officers failure to conduct a physical
inventory and to photograph the items seized from De Jesus will not render his arrest illegal
or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as they were able to
nonetheless preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the said items. This is what
is of utmost importance as the seized items are what would be used in the determination of
De Jesus guilt or innocence.
What is significant is that the links in the chain of custody were all accounted for by the
prosecution, from the time the items were confiscated from De Jesus, up to the time they
were presented in court during trial as proof of the corpus delicti. In any case, unless De
Jesus can show that there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering with the evidence, the
presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been preserved, and that the police
officers discharged their duties properly and with regularity, will remain. - People of the
Philippines vs. Victor De Jesus y Garcia, G.R. No. 198794, February 06, 2013
Noncompliance with Section 21(1), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 regarding chain of
custody, does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible
because what is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
preserved which would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. - People of the Philippines vs. Lolita Quesido y Badarang, G.R. No.
189351, April 10, 2013
Denial or frameup is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Law. As such, it has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just
as easily be concocted.
When the accused is charged with the sale of illicit drugs, the following defenses cannot be
set up: (1) that facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his
way or (2) that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseurbuyer
seeking to expose his criminal act or (3) that police authorities feigning complicity in the
act were present and apparently assisted in its commission. - People of Philippines vs.
Marilyn Aguilar y Manzanillo, G.R. No. 191396, April 17, 2013
Marking of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation may be
undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in
the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. - People of Philippines vs. Dante L.
Dumalag, G.R. No. 180514, April 17, 2013
When, of all the individuals who came into direct contact with or had physical possession of
the shabu allegedly seized from the accused, only the arresting officer testified for the
specific purpose of identifying the evidence, and his testimony miserably failed to
demonstrate an unbroken chain as it ended with his identification of the money and seized
items he marked and documents he signed, then the requirement of chain of custody is
broken. In effect, the custodial link ended with the arresting officer when he testified that
he brought the seized items, together with the accused, to the police station. Such a break
in the chain of custody is fatal to the prosecutions case, and the accused must be
acquitted. - People of the Philippines vs. Arturo Enriquez y Delos Reyes, G.R. No.
197550, 25 September 2013
Page 9 of 25

2015) Law
The failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of R.A. 9165 does not necessarily render
an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is
of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Consistency with the chain of custody rule requires that
the marking of the seized items to truly ensure that they are the same items
that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence should be
done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon
confiscation. Thus, even if the police officers failed to immediately make an inventory and
marking of the seized sachet of shabu at the place where the accused was apprehended
does not destroy the integrity and evidentiary value of said sachet of shabu, if the chain of
custody could be continuously traced from its receipt by the arresting officer, the transfer to
the police laboratory for examination, it being kept in police custody awaiting trial, and its
presentation as evidence before the RTC. - People of the Philippines vs. Giovanni
Ocfemia y Chavez, G.R. No. 185383, September 25, 2013
While the accused may not be convicted of illegal sale of shabu due to the absence of all
the elements of the crime, they may still be convicted for illegal delivery of shabu if all its
elements are present and proven by the prosecution. The accused may also be convicted
for illegal possession of dangerous drugs as the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
necessarily includes the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. - People of the
Philippines vs. Michael Maongco y Yumonda and Phans Bandali y Simpal, G.R. No.
196966, October 23, 2013
The testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operations are credible
when they are consistent in establishing the elements of illegal sale of shabu, despite their
consistencies on peripheral matters. In addition, objections to the alleged violation to the
chain of custody rule must be made during trial and not first time on appeal, otherwise the
objection must be denied. - People of the Philippines vs. Marilyn Santos and Arlene
Valera, G.R. No. 193190, November 13, 2013
Non-compliance with Section 21 does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items
seized inadmissible because what is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are preserved which would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused. The failure to take photographs and to make an inventory of the
seized evidence, and the lack of participation of the representatives from the media, the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official in the operation will not render
the evidence seized as inadmissible. - People of the Philippines vs. Marissa Castillo,
G.R. No. 190180, November 27, 2013
In dangerous drugs cases, the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory and
to photograph the sachets of shabu, as well as to mark the sachets at the place of arrest, do
not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence or automatically impair the integrity of
the chain of custody of the said drugs. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. - People of the Philippines vs.
Asir Gani and Normina Gani, G.R. No. 198318, November 27, 2013
What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation is
proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to wit: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor, which the prosecution has satisfactorily established. - People of
the Philippines vs. Roselito Taculod y Elle, G.R. No. 198108, December 11, 2013
When the prosecution was able to establish the elements for conviction for the crime of
illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, illegal possession of regulated and prohibited
Page 10 of 25

2015) Law
drugs and the guilt of the accused, the Court must affirm the decision of trial court and the
CA.
As to imposition of penalties in illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, illegal
possession of regulated and prohibited drugs, as provided by law, it shall depend on the
amount sold and possessed by the accused. - People of the Philippines vs. Donald
Vasquez y Sandigan, G.R. No. 200304, January 15, 2014
For there to be illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be present: (1)
the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration of the sale; and (2)
the delivery to the buyer of the thing sold and receipt by the seller of the payment therefor.
Thus, upon delivery of the illicit drug to the buyer and the receipt of the payment by the
seller, illegal sale of dangerous drugs is committed. - People of the Philippines
vs. Joselito Morate y Tarnate, G.R. No. 201156, January 29, 2014
In cases of illegal sale of regulated and prohibited drugs, it is necessary that the identity
and integrity of the seized drugs and other related articles have been preserved from the
time they were confiscated from the accused until their presentation as evidence in court.
The following links must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first,
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by
the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turn over by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turn over and submission of the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the
court. When the seizing officer (the poseur-buyer) failed to mark the seized illegal drugs and
it was only when the drugs were turned over to the investigating officer that they were
marked, there is already failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the evidences
chain of custody and the Court can no longer consider or even safely assume that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated dangerous drug were properly preserved. People of the Philippines vs. Hermanos Constantino, Jr. y Binayug, a.k.a.
"Jojit,"G.R. No. 199689, March 12, 2014
MURDER
The Court held that while there were indeed discrepancies in the testimony of the
prosecution witnessed, they are not sufficient to negate the guilt of accused. As long as the
testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing statements neither dilute the
credibility nor the veracity of their testimony. - People of the Philippines vs. Darwin
Bernabe Garcia, G.R. No. 185726, October 16, 2009
Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non, without which there can be no self-defense,
whether complete or incomplete. - People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Tabarnero
and Gary Tabarnero, G.R. No. 168169, February 24, 2010
Donald Pais was killed by the accused appellants however, the latter denied such
allegations. The court ruled that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove
not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but
also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its
immediate vicinity. - People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Asis and Julius Pearanda,
G.R. No. 177573, July 7, 2010
Basic is the rule that in order to affirm the conviction of an accused person, the prosecution
must establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A finding of guilt must rest on the
strength of the prosecutions own evidence, not on the weakness or even absence of
evidence for the defense. People of the Philippines vs. Rosendo Rebucan y Lamsin,
G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011
Page 11 of 25

2015) Law
The Court agrees with Cleofe and Leonardo that alibi is indeed a good defense and could
certainly exculpate a person accused of a crime. However, this is true only if the accuseds
alibi strictly meets the following requisites: 1. His presence at another place at the time of
the commission of the crime; and 2. The physical impossibility of his presence at the scene
of the crime. - People of the Philippines vs. Cleofe Baroquillo y Villanueva and
Leonardo Mahilum y Caete, G.R. No. 184960, August 24, 2011
In a number of cases, surveyed in People v. Rivera, we ruled that treachery cannot be
appreciated simply because the attack was sudden and unexpected. We can not presume
that treachery was present merely from the fact that the attack was sudden. The
suddenness of an attack, does not of itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even if
the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was made all of a sudden and the victim's
helpless position was accidental. . . . While it appears that the attack upon the victim was
sudden, the surrounding circumstances attending the stabbing incident, that is, the open
area, the presence of the victims families and the attending eyewitnesses, works against
treachery. If accused-appellant wanted to make certain that no risk would come to him, he
could have chosen another time and place to stab the victim. - People of Philippines vs.
Vicente Vilbar, G.R. No. 186541, Feb 1, 2012
There is treachery or alevosia 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 any defense which
the offended party might make. The testimonial evidence gathered in this case clearly
indicates that the victims who were simply engaged in conversation in a private residence
were caught entirely by surprise with the assailants swift, deliberate and unexpected attack
using multiple firearms thereby negating the possibility for the victims to escape or defend
themselves. - People of the Philippines vs. Diosdado Camat and Mamerto Dulay,
G.R. No. 188612, July 30, 2012
To hold the accused liable for murder, the prosecution must prove that: (1) a person was
killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing is
neither parricide nor infanticide. - People of the Philippines vs. Mark Joseph Zapuiz y
Ramos "Jaymart," G.R. No. 199713, February 20, 2013
Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive upon
the Supreme Court when supported by evidence on record. Thus, when the trial court gave
credence to the testimony of the witnesses who saw that the accused and his son set fire on
the victims house and later shoot the victim and the CA affirmed the trial courts findings,
the SC will affirm the conviction of the accused for murder.
The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent
during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. When the time it took the
accused and his son to device their plan, plot where the gasoline should be poured, and
procure the gasoline and the firearms, as well as the time it took to go to Antonio Ardets
house, and even the time when they waited for Antonio Ardet to come out of the house, all
afforded the accused sufficient opportunity to reflect upon the consequences of his act to
kill his brother-in-law and his determination to commit the cold-blooded deed from the time
of its conception until it was carried out, it clearly shows that the accused and his son had a
previously and carefully crafted plan to kill the victim. - People of the Philippines vs.
Gary Alinao, G.R. No. 191256, September 18, 2013
To successfully prosecute the crime of murder, the following elements must be established:
(1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248of the Revised
Penal Code; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. The essence of treachery is
that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way,
Page 12 of 25

2015) Law
affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. In
order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the
time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack
employed by him. These elements are extant in the facts of this case and as testified to by
Roger above-quoted.
In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. It does not need to be proven by direct
evidence and may be inferred from the conduct before, during, and after the commission
of the crime indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments
as in conspiracy.
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove the following: (i) that he was
present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime; and (ii) that it was
physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. Physical
impossibility involves the distance and the facility of access between the crime scene and
the location of the accused when the crime was committed. The accused must demonstrate
that he was so far away and could not have been physically present at the crime scene and
its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed. - People of Philippines, vs.
Rolando Las Pias, Jimmy Delizo and Merwin Las Pias, G.R. No. 191723, July 23,
2014
HOMICIDE
It is axiomatic that a person who invokes accident must prove that he acted with due care.
This was belied by the conduct of the Lanuza when he allegedly received the shotgun from
the private complainant. As he himself admitted, he received the shotgun by placing his
pointer finger, also known as the trigger finger because it is used to squeeze the trigger,
inside the trigger guard and over the trigger itself. Worse, he did so while the barrel of the
gun was pointed at the private complainant. - People of the Philippines vs. Rodel
Lanuza y Bagaoisan, G.R. No. 188562, August 17, 2011
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
Villacorta is not totally without criminal liability. He is guilty of slight physical injuries under
Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code for the stab wound he inflicted upon Cruz. Although
the charge in the instant case is for murder, a finding of guilt for the lesser offense of slight
physical injuries may be made considering that the latter offense is necessarily included in
the former since the essential ingredients of slight physical injuries constitute and form part
of those constituting the offense of murder. - People of the Philippines vs. Orlito
Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011
RAPE
Courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual
assault, especially a minor, as in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a
public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own
degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and have the offender apprehended and
punished.
It is enough that there is the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex
organ. The mere touching by the male organ of the labia of the pudendum of the womans
private part is sufficient to consummate rape. It was therefore consummated rape which
accused-appellant committed. - People of the Philippines vs. Mario Castro, G.R. No.
172874, December 17, 2008
In the prosecution of criminal cases, especially those involving the extreme penalty of
death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the
Page 13 of 25

2015) Law
crime with which an accused is charged must be established. Qualifying circumstances or
special qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the
crime itself; otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form. As a
qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape, the concurrence of the victims minority and
her relationship to the accused-appellant must be both alleged and proven beyond
reasonable doubt. - People of Philippines vs. Joselito A. Lopit, G.R. No. 177742,
December 17, 2008
The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or
intimidation against her will or without her consent; the exact time of its commission is not
an essential element to the crime. - People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Cadag
Jimenez, G.R. No. 170235, April 24, 2009
The mere touching by the male organ of the labia of the pudendum of the womans private
part is sufficient to consummate rape. - People of Philippines vs. Jessie Mariano, G.R.
No. 168693, July 19, 2009
In cases of rape, the force and intimidation is viewed from the perspective of the victim.
There need not be physical force provided that the victim succumbed to the act out of fear.
Furthermore, the sweetheart theory as a defense does not carry any weight when it is not
accompanied by independent proof. - People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Buban,
G.R. No. 172710, October 30, 2009
The sweetheart defense, being an affirmative defense, must be established with convincing
evidenceby some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes,
pictures and the like. In this case, there was no evidence offered to prove that what
transpired between accused and victim was consensual. - People of the Philippines vs.
Ricardo Grande, G.R. No. 170476, December 23, 2009
It has consistently been held that no family member would expose a fellow family member
to the ignominy of a rape trial or to the shame and scandal of having to undergo such an
ordeal merely to satisfy their alleged motive if the charge is not true. - People of the
Philippines vs. Herminigildo Salle Sobusa, G.R. No. 181083, January 21, 2010
It is doctrinally settled that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility
of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal. - People of the Philippines vs. Marlon Barsaga Abella, G.R. No. 177295,
January 6, 2010
No parent would expose his or her own daughter to the shame and scandal of having
undergone such debasing defilement of her chastity if the charges were not true. - People
of the Philippines vs. Manuel Bagos, G.R. No. 177152, January 6, 2010
AAA was raped by Romeo but the latter denied such accusation. The court ruled that In
order that the defense of alibi may prosper, the appellant must prove both the presence of
the appellant in another place at the time of the commission of the offense and the physical
impossibility of him being at the scene of the crime. People of the Philippines vs.
Romeo Republo, G.R. No. 172962 July 8, 2010
AAA a ten year old girl was raped by Nelson Balunsat who is her first cousin. Nelson denied
allegation. It is settled that when the victims testimony is corroborated by the physicians
finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the
essential requisite of carnal knowledge. Laceration, whether healed or fresh, is the best
physical evidence of forcible defloration. - People of the Philippines vs. Nelson
Balunsat y Balunsat, G.R. No. 176743, July 28, 2010
Page 14 of 25

2015) Law
AAA was raped by Magayon but the latter denied such allegation. The court ruled that a
rape victim, who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner,
and remains consistent, is a credible witness. Moreover, when the offended parties are
young and immature girls, as in this case, where the victim was only nine years old at the
time the rape was committed, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what
transpired, not only because of their relative vulnerability, but also because of the shame
and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial, if the matter about
which they testified were not true. - People of the Philippines vs. Teddy Magayon,
G.R . N o. 1 75 59 5 July 28, 2010
A certification from the Local Civil Registrar as to the date of birth of a victim of rape is
sufficient evidence to prove minority of a victim. - People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo
Ogarte, G.R. No. 182690, May 30, 2011
Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under the instances provided
for in the law. With the intrinsic nature of the said crime, only two parties, namely the victim
and the accused, are usually involved. As such, accuseds defense of denial will not stand as
against the victims positive identification and credible testimony. This is especially so when
it is qualified by minority and relationship and the victim has no improper motive in
purporting the accused as the perpetrator. Moreover, in rape committed by a father or a
person recognized by the victim as her father, the prosecution need not prove the elements
of force and intimidation as the same was substituted by the formers moral ascendancy
and influence over the latter. - People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Miranda y
Michael, G.R. No. 176634, April 5, 2010
The spontaneity with which the victim has detailed the incidents of rape, the tears she has
shed at the stand while recounting her experience, and her consistency almost throughout
her account dispel any insinuation of a rehearsed testimony. The eloquent testimony of the
victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her non-virgin state, should be enough
to confirm the truth of her charges. - People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Padilla y
Untalan, G.R. No. 182917, June 8, 2011
The Court has repeatedly held that the date of the commission of rape is not an essential
element of the crime. It is not necessary to state the precise time when the offense was
committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense. In statutory rape, time
is not an essential element. What is important is that the information alleges that the victim
was a minor under twelve years of age and that the accused had carnal knowledge of her,
even if the accused did not use force or intimidation on her or deprived her of reason. People of the Philippines vs. Noel Dion, G.R. No. 181035, July 4, 2011
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some
impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. - People of the
Philippines vs. Arnel Manjares, G.R. No. 185844, November 23, 2011
The date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for
the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. Inconsistencies and
discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds
for acquittal. - People of the Philippines vs. Henry Arpon y Juntilla, G.R. No. 183563,
December 14, 2011
It has long been established that the testimony of a rape victim, especially a child of tender
years, is given full weight and credit. A rape victim who testifies in a categorical,
straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible
witness. Furthermore, this Court has repeatedly ruled that matters affecting credibility are
best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe that elusive and
Page 15 of 25

2015) Law
incommunicable evidence of the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying, an
opportunity denied the appellate courts which usually rely only on the cold pages of the
mute records of the case. In incestuous rape of a minor, it is not necessary that actual force
and intimidation be employed. The moral ascendancy of appellant over the victim, his
daughter, renders it unnecessary to show physical force and intimidation. - People of the
Philippines vs. Daniel Ortega, G.R. No. 186235, January 25, 2012
Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence
which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a
credible witness. Between the positive assertions of the [victim] and the negative
averments of the [appellant], the former indisputably deserve more credence and are
entitled to greater evidentiary weight. - People of the Philippines vs. Paterno
Sarmiento Samandre, G.R. No. 181497, February 22, 2012
Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive
declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the crimes
attributed to him. - People of the Philippines vs. Melecio De Los Santos, Jr., G.R. No.
186499, March 21, 2012
Although the rape of a person under 18 years of age by the common-law spouse of the
victim's mother is punishable by death, this penalty cannot be imposed on the offender
because his relationship was not what was alleged in the Informations. Thus, the offender is
guilty only of three counts of simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua for each count. People of the Philippines vs. Roger Tejero, G.R. No. 187744, June 20, 2012
Even if the alleged romantic relationship were true, this fact does not necessarily negate
rape for a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiance and worse, employ
violence upon her on the pretext of love because love is not a license for lust. - People of
the Philippines vs. Marcial Bayrante y Boaquina, G.R. No. 188978, June 13, 2012
The Court held that actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of
a minor because the moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the
victim into submission to his beastly desires. The absence of violence or offer of resistance
would not affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and overbearing moral
influence of the father over his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance
required in rape cases committed by an accused who did not have blood relationship with
the victim. - People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Osma, Jr. y Agaton, G.R. No.
187734, August 29, 2012
Following a long line of jurisprudence, full penetration of the female genital organ is not
indispensable. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia
of the pudendum of the female organ. Any penetration of the female organ by the male
organ, however slight, is sufficient. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the
vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify conviction for
rape.
Furthermore, in establishing the age of the victim, bare testimony of the victims mother or
a member of the family would suffice only if the victim is alleged to be below seven years of
age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old.
Finally, the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some
impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. Physical
impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance between the place where the
accused was and the place where the crime was committed when the crime transpired, but
more importantly, the facility of access between the two places. - People of the
Philippines vs. Alejandro Viojela y Asartin, G.R. No. 177140, October 17, 2012
Page 16 of 25

2015) Law
After a careful review of the records of this case, we are persuaded that appellant is indeed
guilty of qualified rape. In People v. Pruna, 390 SCRA 577 (2002), we formulated a set of
guidelines that will serve as a jurisprudential benchmark in appreciating age either as an
element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance in order to address the seemingly
conflicting court decisions regarding the sufficiency of evidence of the victims age in rape
cases. The Pruna guidelines are as follows: 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
victims 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 victims mother or relatives concerning the
victims age, the complainants testimony 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 vs. Edgar
Padigos, G.R. No. 181202, December 5, 2012
To raise the crime of simple rape to qualified rape, the twin circumstances of minority of the
victim and her relationship to the offender must concur. When a father commits the odious
crime of rape against his own daughter, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter
substitutes for violence and intimidation. The absence of violence or offer of resistance
would not affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and overbearing moral
influence of the father over his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance
required in rape cases committed by an accused who did not have blood relationship with
the victim. - People of the Philippines vs. Anastacio Amistoso y Broca, G.R. No.
201447, January 9, 2013
Gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or
without her consent. We also previously declared that when a victim is threatened with
bodily injury as when the rapist is armed with a deadly weapon, such as a knife or bolo,
such constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring the victim to submission to the lustful
desires of the rapist. Thus, appellants succeeding in having non-consensual sexual
intercourse with ABC through intimidation using a knife plainly constitutes the crime of rape.
Delay in reporting an incident of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge and does
not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant Not all rape victims can be
expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. - People of the
Philippines vs. Antonio Basallo y Asprec, G.R. No. 182457, January 30, 2013
In dealing with cases for rape, this Court has often acknowledged that there is often a want
of witnesses. Due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft of witnesses, and,
more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself. Thus, in the resolution of rape
cases, the victims credibility becomes the primordial consideration. . Inconsistencies in the
victims testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to
trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape. The testimonies
of child-victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence. Reason and experience
dictate that a girl of tender years, who barely understands sex and sexuality, is unlikely to
Page 17 of 25

2015) Law
impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true. - People of
the Philippines vs. Jonathan "Uto" Veloso y Rama, G.R. No. 188849, February 13,
2013
When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim. The elements of the crime
charged against accused-appellant are: (a) the victim is a female over 12 years but under
18 years of age; (b) the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim; and (c) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim either through
force, threat, or intimidation. - People of Philippines vs. Edmundo Vitero, G.R. No.
175327, April 3, 2013
In rape committed by close kin, such as the victims father, stepfather, uncle, or the
commonlaw spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be
employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.
The sweetheart theory, as a defense, necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first element
of rape. - People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Deligero y Bacasmot, G.R. No.
189280,
April
17,
2013
Romeo Bustamante was accused of raping his minor daughter. There were no other
witnesses and the prosecution was not able to establish the element of force and
intimidation. In convicting the accused, the Supreme Court held that in a prosecution for
rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is
credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.
The Court also ruled that the moral ascendancy of an accused over the victim renders it
unnecessary to show physical force and intimidation since, in rape committed by a close
kin, such as the victims father, stepfather, uncle, or the commonlaw spouse of her mother,
moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. - People of the
Philippines vs. Romeo Bustamante y Aliganga, G.R. No. 189836, June 5, 2013
The Revised Penal Code, as amended, punishes the rape of a mentally disabled person
regardless of the perpetrators awareness of his victims mental condition. However, the
perpetrators knowledge of the victims mental disability, at the time he committed the
rape, qualifies the crime and makes it punishable by death under Article 266B, paragraph
10. - People of the Philippines vs. Moises Caoile, G.R. No. 203041, June 5, 2013
Article 266A(1)(d) provides the definition of the crime of statutory rape, the elements of
which are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman and (2) that such a
woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. As a special qualifying circumstance of
the crime of rape, the concurrence of the victims minority and her relationship to the
accused must be both alleged and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the
hymen necessary, to conclude that carnal knowledge took place the mere touching of the
external genitalia by a penis that is capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to
constitute carnal knowledge.
A mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the
positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the crimes
attributed to him. - People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Pamintuan y Sahagun, G.R.
No. 192239, June 5, 2013
Page 18 of 25

2015) Law
The only subject of inquiry on statutory rape is the age of the woman and whether carnal
knowledge took place. - People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Piosang, G.R. No.
200329, June 5, 2013
Accused-appellant Abel Diaz was convicted of the crime of rape. His appeal boils down to a
question of credibility of the prosecutions primary witness, the private complainant Mara.
He argues that the failure of Mara to make an outcry during the two hours he allegedly
stayed in her room makes her testimony not credible. In rejecting his contention the
Supreme Court ruled that the precise duration of the rape is not material to and does not
negate the commission of the felony. When one is being raped, forcibly held, weak and in
great pain, and in shock, she cannot be reasonably expected to keep a precise track of the
passage of time down to the last minute. - People of the Philippines vs. Abel Diaz, G.R.
No. 200882, June 13, 2013
What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the
substance seized as evidence. With respect to illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus
possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of
such possession. - People of the Philippines vs. Mercidita T. Resurreccion, G.R. No.
188310, June 13, 2013
Inconsistencies in a rape victims testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the
inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission
of rape.
It is not uncommon for a rape victim to initially conceal the assault against her person for
several reasons, including that of fear of threats posed by her assailant. A rape charge only
becomes doubtful when the victims inaction or delay in reporting the crime is unreasonable
or unexplained. - People of the Philippines vs. Roman Zafra y Serrano, G.R. No.
197363, June 26, 2013
If the testimony of the rape victim is clear, consistent and credible to establish the crime
beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction may be based on it, notwithstanding its subsequent
retraction. Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate her original
testimony. Thus, an affidavit of retraction of the father of the victim unsubstantiated by
clear and convincing evidence cannot prevail over the positive declaration made by the
victim herself. - People of the Philippines vs. Carlito Espenilla, G.R. No. 192253,
September 18, 2013
Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the rape victim, who was a minor, does not
warrant a finding of exculpating reasonable doubt when it fails to establish beyond doubt
the innocence of the appellant for the crime charged since the credibility of a rape victim is
not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony. - People of
the Philippines vs. Jade Cuaycong y Remonquillo, G.R. No. 196051, October 2,
2013
When the rape victims testimony which identified the accused as the rapist is clear,
categorical, consistent and credible, the defense of alibi will crumble and the accused shall
be held liable. Thus, if the victim was able to identify the accused in the police station as the
rapist and during trial, he will be convicted for rape even if the rapist covered his face with
his clothes and despite the incident taking place in the dark of night. - People of the
Philippines vs. Michael Espera y Cuyacot, G.R. No. 202868, October 2, 2013
It is jurisprudentially settled that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted
solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing and consistent
with human nature and the normal course of things. Furthermore, it is likewise settled that
the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
entitled to great weight and respect, if not conclusiveness, since the trial court was in the
Page 19 of 25

2015) Law
best position as the original trier of the facts in whose direct presence and under whose
keen observation the witnesses rendered their respective versions of the events that made
up the occurrences constituting the ingredients of the offense charged. Thus, the testimony
of a rape victim who is 15-year old girl which recounted the ordeal she experienced at the
hands of her own father, if delivered in a straightforward and convincing manner, is
sufficient to convict the accused. - People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo M. Vidaa,
G.R. No. 199210, October 23, 2013
When a rape victim is paralyzed with fear, she cannot be expected to think and act
coherently. Her failure to take advantage of an opportunity to escape does not automatically
vitiate the credibility of her account. Rape victims, especially child victims, should not be
expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation. The fact
that AAA was not able to escape when she had the opportunity to do so, her continued visit
to their home after the incident, and her delay in filing the complaint does not at all
contradict her credibility. - People of the Philippines vs. Daniel Alcober, G.R. No.
192941, November 13, 2013
In rape cases, the accused may be convicted based solely on the testimony of the victim,
provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things. Rape victims are not expected to make an errorless
recollection of the incident, so humiliating and painful that they might be trying to obliterate
it from their memory, thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily
impair the testimony of the offended party. - People of the Philippines vs. Welmo.
Linsie y Binevidez, G.R. No. 199494, November 27, 2013
In a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony
of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things. The very nature of the crime of rape, conviction or acquittal depends
almost entirely on the credibility of the complainants testimony because of the fact that,
usually, only the participants can directly testify as to its occurrence.
Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is brought to bear on the
victim and the latter submits out of fear the failure to shout or offer tenuous resistance
does not make voluntary the victims submission to the criminal acts of the accused.
A love affair does not justify rape for a man does not have the unbridled license to subject
his beloved to his carnal desires against her will. - People of the Philippines vs. Dalton
Laurian, Jr. y Pugsot, G.R. No. 199868, December 11, 2013
It is a well-established rule that testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims, are
given full weight and credit. When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been
raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. Youth and
immaturity are generally badges of truth. Courts usually give greater weight to the
testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, particularly in cases
of incestuous rape, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up
with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to
condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished. - People of the
Philippines vs. Lino Paldo, G.R. No. 200515, December 11, 2013
It is jurisprudentially settled that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect
all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if
it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused. Thus, in this
jurisdiction, the fate of the accused in a rape case, ultimately and oftentimes, hinges on the
credibility of the victims testimony. In this regard, the Court defers to the trial courts
assessment of the credibility of victims testimony, most especially, when it is affirmed by
the Court of Appeals.
Page 20 of 25

2015) Law
Furthermore, it is not absurd nor contrary to human experience that the victim gave birth
ten (10) months after the alleged sexual assault as there may be cases of long gestations. People of the Philippines vs. Mervin Gahi, G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014
When through evidence, the accused is guilty of rape through sexual assault but the
information charged against him is rape through carnal knowledge, the accused cannot be
found guilty of rape by sexual assault even though it was proven during trial. This is due to
the material differences and substantial distinctions between the two modes of rape; thus,
the first mode is not necessarily included in the second, and vice-versa. Consequently, to
convict the accused of rape by sexual assault when what he was charged with was rape
through carnal knowledge, would be to violate his constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him. However, the accused, on the said
information, may be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness. - People of the
Philippines vs. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz, G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014
When the accused asserts that the cover of darkness and lack of lighting inside the
"kamalig" where the crime took place, utterly diminished victims ability to identify him or
anyone for that matter, is downright erroneous. The victim never claimed to have seen her
attacker inside the "kamalig." What was testified was the fact that the victim saw appellant
Jastiva when he walked past her by the open door of the "kamalig" and his face was finally
illuminated by the moonlight. The Court have held that wicklamps, flashlight, even
moonlight and starlight may, in proper situations, be sufficient illumination, making the
attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on this ground unmeritorious. Furthermore, in
other cases the Court ruled, If identification of persons is possible even by the light of
stars, with more reason that one could identify persons by moonlight. - People of the
Philippines vs. Aurelio Jastiva, G.R. No. 199268, February 12, 2014
Under Section 3(b), Article I of Republic Act No. 7610, the term "child abuse" is defined as
the maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, which includes the physical abuse of a
child, among other acts. In this case, AAA positively identified the accused-appellant as the
person who kicked her in the buttocks, hit her head with a hammer, and smashed her head
on the wall on. Because of the said brutal and inhumane acts of the accused-appellant, AAA
suffered bruises and contusions in different parts of her body. Furthermore, the Court finds
no cogent reason to disbelieve AAAs testimony, which was corroborated by the medical
findings of Dr. Rivamonte and Dr. Arellano that the victims hymen had "complete healed
lacerations at 1, 3, 6, 9 oclock positions." Jurisprudence provides that the eloquent
testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her non-virgin state,
should be enough to confirm the truth of her charges of rape. - People of the Philippines
vs. Hermenigildo Delen y Esco Billa, G.R. No. 194446, April 21, 2014
Impregnation of a woman is not an element of rape. - People of the Philippines vs. Joel
Abat y Cometa, G.R. No. 202704, April 2, 2014
Jurisprudence instructs that when the credibility of a witness is of primordial consideration,
as in this case, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the
witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions
anchored on said findings are accorded respect if not conclusive effect. This is because the
trial court has had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness and was in
the best position to discern whether they were telling the truth. - People of the
Philippines vs. Renato Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 192820, June 4, 2014
Pregnancy is not an essential element of rape. Whether the child which the rape victim bore
was fathered by the accused, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is
important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the
latter's will or without her consent, and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful
manner. Thus, when the victim, a 17-year old girl who was the house helper of the sister of
the accused, categorically and consistently testified that the accused had carnal knowledge
Page 21 of 25

2015) Law
of her while pointing a gun in her mouth, the courts will give credence to her testimony and
convict the accused regardless of the pregnancy of the victim.
Inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the
crime are not grounds for acquittal. As long as the inaccuracies concern only minor matters,
the same do not affect the credibility of witnesses. Truth-telling witnesses are not always
expected to give error-free testimonies considering the lapse of time and treachery of
human memory. Inaccuracies may even suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and
have not been rehearsed.
Authorities in forensic medicine agree that the determination of the exact date of
fertilization is problematic. The exact date thereof is unknown; thus, the difficulty in
determining the actual normal duration of pregnancy. Pregnancy is not an essential element
of the crime of rape. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the
accused, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is important and decisive is
that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter's will or without her
consent, and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful manner. - People of the
Philippines vs. Democrito Paras, G.R. No. 192912, June 4, 2014
To convict an accused for statutory rape, two elements must be proven: 1.) the victim is a
female under 12 years of age or is demented; and the offender has carnal knowledge of the
victim. Thus, where the prosecution was able to present a 7-year old girls credible, positive
and categorical testimony relative to the circumstances surrounding her rape; and the
physical evidence consistent with victims assertion that she was raped, the accused must
be held guilty of statutory rape. - People of the Philippines vs. Renato Besmonte, G.R.
No. 196228, June 4, 2014
The Court differentiated the terms "deprived of reason" and "demented," as follows, the
term demented refers to a person who has dementia, which is a condition of deteriorated
mentality, characterized by marked decline from the individual's former intellectual level
and often by emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. On the other hand, the phrase
deprived of reason under paragraph 1 (b) has been interpreted to include those suffering
from mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation. Thus, AAA, who was clinically
diagnosed to be a mental retardate, can be properly classified as a person who is "deprived
of reason," and not one who is "demented." - People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo
Cataytay y Silvano, G.R. No. 196315, October 22, 2014
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006
In determining the age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability under R.A. 9344,
Section 6 thereof clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary of ones birth
date, and not the mental age of the accused. Thus, a person who is eighteen years old at
the time of the commission of the crime of rape is not exempt from criminal liability despite
having a mental age of nine years old. - People of the Philippines vs. Milan Roxas y
Aguiluz, G.R. No. 200793, June 4, 2014
KIDNAPPING
While one of the essential elements of this crime (Art 270 - Kidnapping and failure to return
a minor) is that the offender was entrusted with the custody of the minor, what is actually
being punished is not the kidnapping but the deliberate failure of that person to restore the
minor to his parents or guardians. - People of the Philippines vs. Aida Marquez, G.R.
No. 181440, April 13, 2011
ROBERRY
A truth-telling witness is not always expected to give an error-free testimony considering the
lapse of time and the treachery of human memory. What is primordial is that the mass of
Page 22 of 25

2015) Law
testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing of statements dilute neither the
witnesses credibility nor the veracity of his testimony. Variations on the testimony of
witnesses on the same side with respect to minor, collateral, or incidental matters do not
impair the weight of their united testimony to the prominent facts. Inconsistencies on minor
and trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses
for they erase the suspicion of rehearsed testimony.
The deprivation required by Article 267 means not only the imprisonment of a person, but
also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. It
involves a situation where the victim cannot go out of the place of confinement or detention
or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move. In other words, the essence of kidnapping
is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent
of the accused to effect such deprivation. - People of the Philippines vs. Alberto M.
Basao alias "Dodong," Jovel S. Apole, Melquiades L. Apole, Estrelita G. Apole,
Rolando A. Apole alias "Bebot," Vicente C. Salon, Jaime Tandan, Renato C. Apole
alias "Boboy," Rolando M. Ochivillo alias "Allan," Lorenzo L. Apole, John Doe, Peter
Doe and Mike Doe, Jovel S. Apole, Rolando A. Apole, and Renato C. Apole, G.R. No.
189820, October 10, 2012
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit
robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent
to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place
before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or
distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the
commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration. There is no such felony of
robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive
elements of the crime, namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated.
It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or that the victim of
homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed or that
aside from the homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is
committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. Likewise immaterial is the fact that
the victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the felony would still be robbery with homicide.
- People of the Philippines vs. Welvin Diu y Kotsesa, and Dennis Dayaon y Tupit,
G.R. No. 201449 , April 3, 2013
B.P. 22
The elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are: (1) making, drawing, and issuance of any check
to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the
time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the
check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. Liberata Ambito and Basilio Ambito vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
127327, February 13, 2009
ESTAFA
The receipt by the drawer of the notice of dishonor is not an element of the offense. The
presumption only dispenses with the presentation of evidence of deceit if such notification is
received and the drawer of the check failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover his
check within three (3) days from receipt of the notice of dishonor of the check.
The elements of Estafa by means of deceit, whether committed by false pretenses or
concealment, are the following (a) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means; (b) That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be
made or executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; (c) That the
Page 23 of 25

2015) Law
offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means,
that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (d) That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered
damage. - Jude Joby Lopez vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166810. June 26,
2008
It is elementary that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative
and self-serving evidence which has far less evidentiary value than the testimony of credible
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. - People of the Philippines vs. Virginia
Baby P. Montaner, G.R. No. 184053, August 31, 2011
It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment
and Estafa. Rodericks contention that he cannot be convicted of estafa because the
element of deceit is lacking is without merit, as private complainants were able to establish,
through their positive and credible testimonies, that appellant acted in conspiracy with his
co-accused to mislead private complainants into believing that appellant and his coaccused, for a fee, can deploy private complainants abroad for employment. - People of
the Philippines vs. Angelita I. Daud, Hanelita M. Gallemit and Roderick Gallemit y
Tolentino, G.R. No. 197539, June 2, 2014
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale three (3) elements must concur: (a) the
offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage
in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities
within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor
Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the same Code (now
Sec. 6, RA 8042); and, (c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more
persons, individually or as a group.
There are three ways of committing estafa under the above-quoted provision: (1) by using a
fictitious name; (2) by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; and (3) by means of other
similar deceits. Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable. - People
of the Philippines vs. Grace Calimon and Aida Comila, January 29, 2009, G.R. No.
175229
The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the
accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal
intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. - People of the Philippines vs. Dolores
Ocden, G.R. No. 173198, June 1, 2011
The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence
or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is
caused to the offended party or third person. Both elements are present, Ochoas deceit
was evident in her false representation to private complainants that she possessed the
capability to send said private complainants to Taiwan/Saudi Arabia for employment. Clearly
deceived by Ochoas words and actions, private complainants were persuaded to hand over
their money to Ochoa to pay for their placement and medical fees. Sadly, private
complainants were never able to leave for work abroad, nor recover their money. People of
the Philippines vs. Rosario "Rose" Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792, August 31, 2011
It was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that Roderick himself received the
placement fees from complainants and issued receipts for the same, given the finding of the
existence of conspiracy among Roderick and his co-accused Hanelita and Daud to convict
Roderick of Illegal recruitment in large scale. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit
Page 24 of 25

2015) Law
a crime is not necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused which point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. And Between the
categorical statements of the private complainants, on the one hand, and the bare denial of
appellant, on the other hand, the former must perforce prevail. - People of the
Philippines vs. Angelita I. Daud, Hanelita M. Gallemit and Roderick Gallemit y
Tolentino, G.R. No. 197539, June 2, 2014
LIBEL
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 is present when it is shown that the author of the libelous remarks made such
remarks with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity
thereof. - Isagani M. Yambot, Letty Jimenez-Magsanoc, Jose Ma. D. Nolasco,
Artemio T. Engracia, Jr. and Volt Contreras vs. Hon. Artemio Tuquero in his
capacity as Secretary of Justice, and Escolastico U. Cruz, Jr., G.R. No. 169895,
March 23, 2011
Page 25 of 25

2015 de Castro-Criminal Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

2015 de Castro-Criminal Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

BOOK II (Articles 114-365, RPC) and related Special Laws

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Criminal

You might also like